Dream Lineup for the last 25 years!!

[Kimmi]

Did you ever play sports growing up?

 

Yes, I did. I have probably played as many sports (both individual and team) as most people on here, and at a pretty competitive level. No, I have never played baseball. But I have played softball, which would contain the same "human element" factors as baseball. Would anyone like to argue otherwise on that? I am sure that I have played as much Major League Baseball as anyone on here.

 

So, the argument that I should listen to those on here that have actually played the game doesn't wash with me.

[Kimmi]

When you're hitting, that's exactly what baseball is. 1 on 1 in front of a large drove of spectators. Unless you're on the Marlins. Then the last part does not apply...

 

LOL Or unless you're playing in 2020.

[Bellhorn04]

Clutch might very well exist in golf. I don't know. I don't follow that sport like I follow baseball. But, I would not be the least bit surprised if analytic studies showed that clutch does not actually exist in golf. Perhaps Tiger isn't really clutch. Perhaps he is just a great golfer.

 

OTOH, the fact that golf is an individual sport might make it more prone to having clutch players. I don't know.

 

I think it's all about control.

 

In golf, the ball just sits there waiting for you to hit it, so it's all on you.

 

In baseball, the hitter is opposed by the pitcher and the fielders.

[Thunder]

When you're hitting, that's exactly what baseball is. 1 on 1 in front of a large drove of spectators. Unless you're on the Marlins. Then the last part does not apply...

 

But when you don't produce in baseball, you can get helped out by a teammate. Tie game, 2nd and 3rd with 1 out. All you need is a ball in the air. You strike out, but the guy who hits after you singles to right.

[Thunder]

Yes, I did. I have probably played as many sports (both individual and team) as most people on here, and at a pretty competitive level. No, I have never played baseball. But I have played softball, which would contain the same "human element" factors as baseball. Would anyone like to argue otherwise on that? I am sure that I have played as much Major League Baseball as anyone on here.

 

So, the argument that I should listen to those on here that have actually played the game doesn't wash with me.

 

That's not the argument I was implying at all. I was asking you that because I was curious to see how you came to your opinions

[Kimmi]

Sorry, but I disagree with your opinion. All I can say is I agree if you watch the game and study the game, there are probably many ways to look at this supposedly mythical term that somehow became accepted jargon in all competitive sports at all levels for over a century. But if you play the game, you'd know there is not even a debate. You can still tell all the players they're wrong, and even show them data to prove they're wrong, but you'll never change their minds...

 

... or those of a large percentage of fans. Ask Red Sox fans how confident they were after Game One of the 2018 ALCS when Cora announced -- with the Sox down 0-1 -- that he'd be starting David Price, the highest paid pitcher in history, in Game Two. Price had just been crushed in the ALDS vs NY, and was still winless in career playoff starts (btw, he gave up 4 earned and didn't last 5 IP, but Boston prevailed). Then also ask fans how much more confidence they had in Eovaldi starting GM 3 in Houston; especially after he was lights out in Yankee Stadium the previous week.

 

To Price's credit, he then made adjustments and had the best 11 days of his Red Sox career. Many articles about Price used words and phrases like "relief" and "monkey off his back"... were all these professional writers and observers really talking about a monkey that doesn't exist?

 

I have been in your very shoes. I have experienced the same feelings that you experienced as an athlete. Now let me say that there are absolutely clutch moments. What doesn't exist are clutch players, players who can raise their game to an otherworldly level in a high pressure situation.

 

As far as fans preferring a certain player in a certain situation, that has nothing to do with whether clutch exists or not. Most fans are reacting off of pure emotion, not any rational thought. That is not meant to insult anybody, but just take a look at our game threads to see what I mean.

 

Price is a good example. Everyone swore up and down that he was a choker. But then suddenly, he wasn't.

[Kimmi]

I believe the Backfire Effect is mostly something that occurs in person-to-person debates/arguments/conflicts. It's hard to take the personal offense from a written text, and a book can be closed and put down. Not always true with a conflicting opinion or theory.

 

Probably, but there are people who take offense to written text.

[Thunder]

I have been in your very shoes. I have experienced the same feelings that you experienced as an athlete. Now let me say that there are absolutely clutch moments. What doesn't exist are clutch players, players who can raise their game to an otherworldly level in a high pressure situation.

 

As far as fans preferring a certain player in a certain situation, that has nothing to do with whether clutch exists or not. Most fans are reacting off of pure emotion, not any rational thought. That is not meant to insult anybody, but just take a look at our game threads to see what I mean.

 

Price is a good example. Everyone swore up and down that he was a choker. But then suddenly, he wasn't.

 

I agree with most of that, up until the part about clutch players. While nobody is inherently clutch, and nobody is able to produce 100% of the time, there are definitely moments that I've experienced where you can raise your game. I'm talking about those out of body experiences. I've hit a buzzer-beater in basketball. I've made a birdie putt on the 18th hole to shoot my best round ever and beat my uncle by 1 shot for the first time ever. I've had walk-off hits in baseball. It's at that time when all thought gets taken out of the equation, and it's all feel and instinct. You don't produce every single time in that situation, but your mind is on a different level for sure

[mvp 78]

I have been in your very shoes. I have experienced the same feelings that you experienced as an athlete. Now let me say that there are absolutely clutch moments. What doesn't exist are clutch players, players who can raise their game to an otherworldly level in a high pressure situation.

 

As far as fans preferring a certain player in a certain situation, that has nothing to do with whether clutch exists or not. Most fans are reacting off of pure emotion, not any rational thought. That is not meant to insult anybody, but just take a look at our game threads to see what I mean.

 

Price is a good example. Everyone swore up and down that he was a choker. But then suddenly, he wasn't.

 

Who is saying "otherworldly?"

[Kimmi]

I think it's all about control.

 

In golf, the ball just sits there waiting for you to hit it, so it's all on you.

 

In baseball, the hitter is opposed by the pitcher and the fielders.

 

That very well could be true Bell.

 

This conversation led me to thinking about field goal kickers, and how the opposing team calls time out to try to ice the kicker. How often does that actually work? In my limited football viewing, I don't think it works at all. I wonder if there are stats on FG % when 'iced' versus FG % when not.

[Thunder]

That very well could be true Bell.

 

This conversation led me to thinking about field goal kickers, and how the opposing team calls time out to try to ice the kicker. How often does that actually work? In my limited football viewing, I don't think it works at all. I wonder if there are stats on FG % when 'iced' versus FG % when not.

 

It works a little more often than you think, and just enough to encourage coaches to keep doing it, but it is usually not a big factor

[Kimmi]

That's not the argument I was implying at all. I was asking you that because I was curious to see how you came to your opinions

 

As I stated in previous posts, I once believed in clutch, etc. It was analytics and statistical studies that changed my mind on those things.

[Thunder]

As I stated in previous posts, I once believed in clutch, etc. It was analytics and statistical studies that changed my mind on those things.

 

I'm sure you witnessed or partook in various "clutch moments" when you were playing sports. How exactly to the stats disprove that?

[Kimmi]

I agree with most of that, up until the part about clutch players. While nobody is inherently clutch, and nobody is able to produce 100% of the time, there are definitely moments that I've experienced where you can raise your game. I'm talking about those out of body experiences. I've hit a buzzer-beater in basketball. I've made a birdie putt on the 18th hole to shoot my best round ever and beat my uncle by 1 shot for the first time ever. I've had walk-off hits in baseball. It's at that time when all thought gets taken out of the equation, and it's all feel and instinct. You don't produce every single time in that situation, but your mind is on a different level for sure

 

It sounds more like you have had some clutch moments as opposed to being clutch player.

[Kimmi]

Who is saying "otherworldly?"

 

While not using that specific term, there are posters here who are implying the ability to raise one's game to another level.

 

I think you and I have agreed that if we are defining 'clutch' as the ability not to choke, then fine, we can say clutch exists. The point is that these so called clutch players aren't really clutch, they're just good. They are just doing what they always do.

[Thunder]

It sounds more like you have had some clutch moments as opposed to being clutch player.

 

I never said I was a clutch player. My success rate is way too low to be considered such. But people that are more reliable at delivering, I would consider clutch players. If you come through in the clutch more than 50% of the time (just an arbitrary number), you are more clutch than somebody that comes through 20% of the time, just like how a .500 hitter in baseball is a MUCH better hitter than a .200 hitter. It's all relative IMO

[Kimmi]

I'm sure you witnessed or partook in various "clutch moments" when you were playing sports. How exactly to the stats disprove that?

 

I have. The data shows that there is no consistency or no statistical correlation with clutch moments.

[mvp 78]

While not using that specific term, there are posters here who are implying the ability to raise one's game to another level.

 

I think you and I have agreed that if we are defining 'clutch' as the ability not to choke, then fine, we can say clutch exists. The point is that these so called clutch players aren't really clutch, they're just good. They are just doing what they always do.

 

To me, continuing to play at a high level against the best competition in the most stressful situations is clutch. I don't think there's "another level."

[Thunder]

I have. The data shows that there is no consistency or no statistical correlation with clutch moments.

 

So is every clutch moment an anomaly?

[Kimmi]

I never said I was a clutch player. My success rate is way too low to be considered such. But people that are more reliable at delivering, I would consider clutch players. If you come through in the clutch more than 50% of the time (just an arbitrary number), you are more clutch than somebody that comes through 20% of the time, just like how a .500 hitter in baseball is a MUCH better hitter than a .200 hitter. It's all relative IMO

 

The players who deliver more in clutch situations are typically the same players who deliver more often in regular situations.

[Kimmi]

To me, continuing to play at a high level against the best competition in the most stressful situations is clutch. I don't think there's "another level."

 

I could agree with that. I have stated before that if we are defining clutch as the ability not to choke, then all MLB players are clutch. Those that aren't either don't make it to that level or don't last very long if they do.

[Thunder]

The players who deliver more in clutch situations are typically the same players who deliver more often in regular situations.

 

*Typically*

 

Someone with as much of a statistical background as you should know never to generalize or extrapolate data

[notin]

So is every clutch moment an anomaly?

 

There is a difference between a clutch player and a clutch moment.

 

No one has ever denied clutch moments exist. But do clutch players exist? Players who excel beyond their normal abilities in clutch moments? That is the debate.

[Kimmi]

So is every clutch moment an anomaly?

 

It's no more an anomaly than any moment in any typical game.

 

The so called clutch moments just stand out so much stronger because they occur in huge situations.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

I don't think that is a fair statement. While some, many, and possibly even most do you cannot be sure about all of them. Don't forget, many of the people who write these articles everyone decries as being "not from players" are actually former players...

 

Fair point. I should've said most the players I know (literally half a century of teams, so far). And I can appreciate the stance that, for the most part, this discussion is really about good players or guys that are already considered among the best by their peers. The question exists: why do some good players perform better than others in certain situations? Matt Barnes throws 100 miles per hour, and has significant value as a proven MLB reliever. But why don't we trust him in the 9th inning?

 

As for analytics, I consider myself someone with experience both as a player and as a fan who analyzes stats. I don't consider myself great at either, however; I like WAR, especially when comparing players and teams from different seasons and eras. But I also don't swear by WAR; it is just one more tool to use, but has made fandom more interesting (even if I could never calculate it). I'm still old school enough to claim that pitching wins can still count as much as ERA, because I've listened to old-timers (my step-father was a pro catcher) and I've played behind aces who lay them in there with a big lead, and buckle down in a one-run game.

[Kimmi]

*Typically*

 

Someone with as much of a statistical background as you should know never to generalize or extrapolate data

 

There are always outliers or exceptions in data.

[mvp 78]

There is a difference between a clutch player and a clutch moment.

 

No one has ever denied clutch moments exist. But do clutch players exist? Players who excel beyond their normal abilities in clutch moments? That is the debate.

 

Who has defined clutch as that?

[mvp 78]

I could agree with that. I have stated before that if we are defining clutch as the ability not to choke, then all MLB players are clutch. Those that aren't either don't make it to that level or don't last very long if they do.

 

So there are non clutch MLB players then?

[notin]

Fair point. I should've said most the players I know (literally half a century of teams, so far). And I can appreciate the stance that, for the most part, this discussion is really about good players or guys that are already considered among the best by their peers. The question exists: why do some good players perform better than others in certain situations? Matt Barnes throws 100 miles per hour, and has significant value as a proven MLB reliever. But why don't we trust him in the 9th inning?

 

As for analytics, I consider myself someone with experience both as a player and as a fan who analyzes stats. I don't consider myself great at either, however; I like WAR, especially when comparing players and teams from different seasons and eras. But I also don't swear by WAR; it is just one more tool to use, but has made fandom more interesting (even if I could never calculate it). I'm still old school enough to claim that pitching wins can still count as much as ERA, because I've listened to old-timers (my step-father was a pro catcher) and I've played behind aces who lay them in there with a big lead, and buckle down in a one-run game.

 

 

 

Like most things clutch, we tend to attach cogntive biases to our observations. We cannot help it.

 

One of the biggest ones is the proportionality bias, where we attach greater significance to greater outcomes. For example, the Kennedy Assassination was such a big event, it became a frame of reference. Everyone knew exactly where they were when Kennedy was shot, or when they heard about it (assuming, unlike me, you were alive then). Try that with the Reagan assassination attempt. Who remembers the date (or even the year) or where Reagan was? Not nearly as many, and it was never the point of reference. Why the difference? Reagan lived. Not a significant of an evet, so therefore not as big a deal to us personally.

 

Apply this to baseball. Dave Roberts' steal is a great example of proportionality bias. We have all attached massive significance to this, but very few remember Kevin Millar working the walk in the first place, and those who do certainly do not attach the same significance. Why? Probably because Millar was taken out of the game. Out of sight, out of mind. We remember Bill Mueller driving in Roberts. Big play. We remember Ortiz' walk off home run. Big, big, big play. But do you remember Ortiz popping out to 2b with the bases loaded and 2 out in the ninth inning of that same game? Why not? Wasn't that another "clutch" opportunity?

 

With Barnes, we remember the blown saves. We remember the bad innings. But his numbers in the ninth inning are actually about the same as any other inning. In fact, his K/BB is actually greater in the ninth inning that any other over his career except the fourth inning, which he has only pitched 5 times...

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

So there are non clutch MLB players then?

 

I see where you're going... again, at least at the amateur sports level (and I would imagine the pros), I know there are guys who don't want the ball in certain moments; in baseball, they don't want to be on the mound, in the batter's box, or don't want the ball hit to them. Most would never admit it, but I've heard some say it (I may have once in awhile, too, only half-joking).

 

But back to the majors: if you asked a million Yankee fans if they'd take Jeter or ARod in a clutch moment, how many do you honestly think would pick Alex? I know a lot of Yankee fans, and for them, the answer would be not one.