Dream Lineup for the last 25 years!!

[notin]

Who has defined clutch as that?

 

I believe that was the entire point of the "no clutch players" argument.

 

Is a player "clutch" if he performs the same in big spots as he does in non-big spots?

 

Ortiz is always the prime example. He had a lot of clutch hits, but was that because he excelled in the clutch (a phrase I never made up) or because he was a flat out great hitter?

[notin]

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.

 

A lot of that is the proportionality bias.

 

In late and close situations, Jeter's career OPS is actually .776 and his OPS in High Leverage is .809. A-Rod's career OPS in late and close situations is .869 and his OPS in high leverage is .952. A-Rod was actually the more clutch hitter in these situations over his career.

 

But Jeter played in a lot more World Series and had a lot more memorable moments, so he gets the reputation despite actually being a lesser performer...

[mvp 78]

I believe that was the entire point of the "no clutch players" argument.

 

Is a player "clutch" if he performs the same in big spots as he does in non-big spots?

 

Ortiz is always the prime example. He had a lot of clutch hits, but was that because he excelled in the clutch (a phrase I never made up) or because he was a flat out great hitter?

 

Because he was a great hitter who could perform at the same level when the stakes were the highest.

[notin]

Because he was a great hitter who could perform at the same level when the stakes were the highest.

 

 

And any other time. I just think of him as a great all around hitter no matter what...

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

A lot of that is the proportionality bias.

 

In late and close situations, Jeter's career OPS is actually .776 and his OPS in High Leverage is .809. A-Rod's career OPS in late and close situations is .869 and his OPS in high leverage is .952. A-Rod was actually the more clutch hitter in these situations over his career.

 

But Jeter played in a lot more World Series and had a lot more memorable moments, so he gets the reputation despite actually being a lesser performer...

 

The thing is, not with the season on the line. I don't know if there are proportionate stats that reflect this, but in the postseason you're facing the very best competition in baseball in each year; and since most title teams are led by top pitching and defense, as a batter you're usually hitting against the toughest combination of arms, legs and hands in the league.

 

Postseason ARod: .259 .365/.457/.822. Postseason Jetes: .308 .374/.465/.838.

 

Pretty close, though #2 actually has a edge in all categories. But perhaps the most telling stat -- the one that speaks to your valid context as most fresh in our minds as fans -- are the plate appearances: ARod 330, Jeter 734. In over twice as many times up when it mattered most, Jeter was better.

[notin]

The thing is, not with the season on the line. I don't know if there are proportionate stats that reflect this, but in the postseason you're facing the very best competition in baseball in each year; and since most title teams are led by top pitching and defense, as a batter you're usually hitting against the toughest combination of arms, legs and hands in the league.

 

Postseason ARod: .259 .365/.457/.822. Postseason Jetes: .308 .374/.465/.838.

 

Pretty close, though #2 actually has a edge in all categories. But perhaps the most telling stat -- the one that speaks to your valid context as most fresh in our minds as fans -- are the plate appearances: ARod 330, Jeter 734. In over twice as many times up when it mattered most, Jeter was better.

 

The plate appearances really just reflect Jeter was on better teams.

 

The reality is both were basically equal in the situations you posted. While Jeter is a "slight edge" in all categories, it's really a negligible one. His .009 advatange in OBP, for example, reflects a difference of 9 more times on base for 1,000 plate appearances.

 

Jeter did have more nationally televised moments, and we all saw more of his successes. But the history indicates he was rally no better than A-Rod in these clutch situations...

[notin]

The thing is, not with the season on the line. I don't know if there are proportionate stats that reflect this, but in the postseason you're facing the very best competition in baseball in each year; and since most title teams are led by top pitching and defense, as a batter you're usually hitting against the toughest combination of arms, legs and hands in the league.

 

Postseason ARod: .259 .365/.457/.822. Postseason Jetes: .308 .374/.465/.838.

 

Pretty close, though #2 actually has a edge in all categories. But perhaps the most telling stat -- the one that speaks to your valid context as most fresh in our minds as fans -- are the plate appearances: ARod 330, Jeter 734. In over twice as many times up when it mattered most, Jeter was better.

 

If you like more proof about these biases being at play, you leap to Jeter as the prime example of post-season clutch heroics. His numbers are actually worse than Bernie Williams in the post-season. If the post-season is part of the definition of clutch, why not Bernie? The answer is simple. Memorable hits. Bernie did not homer into Jeffrey Maier's hands. Jeter did. Memorable play. Controversial play. Why isn't Williams' walk off home run in Game 1 of that series as memorable? Less clutch? Less important? Or just because it lacked the controversy?

[S5Dewey]

For someone who gave up on this topic, you sure do chime in a lot

 

Only to remind people how fruitless this discussion is. My best guess is that everyone is so firmly entrenched in their belief on this topic that no amount of evidence would make them even consider that they are (gasp!) wrong about clutch.

 

Again Copied and pasted from a previous post:

...do you have any idea how far away "never" is? Because that's how long it will be before you get the stat geeks here to agree with us. It's a battle you cannot win here although most people* who have played the game and been in pressure situations will agree that "clutch" exists.

 

So, good luck with this topic. I gave up on it a long time ago recognizing that people will believe whatever their biases lead them to believe.

 

:D

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

If you like more proof about these biases being at play, you leap to Jeter as the prime example of post-season clutch heroics. His numbers are actually worse than Bernie Williams in the post-season. If the post-season is part of the definition of clutch, why not Bernie? The answer is simple. Memorable hits. Bernie did not homer into Jeffrey Maier's hands. Jeter did. Memorable play. Controversial play. Why isn't Williams' walk off home run in Game 1 of that series as memorable? Less clutch? Less important? Or just because it lacked the controversy?

 

I didn't leap, I said way back in Post #21 I'd take Jeter over ARod. I can't stand either one; I'm a Red Sox fan. And the only thing clutch on that aggravating non-interference call on Jeter's fly ball vs. Baltimore was the ump blowing the play -- that was a clutch non-call for the Yankees.

 

Dewey warned me, but I didn't think anyone would argue that performances don't matter more in the postseason than the regular season. For some reason though, there are never polls where fans pick favorite lineups of players on teams eliminated from the playoffs to see who is best at padding their stats in garbage time. Do any college basketball fans think the NCAA tournament should stop being called March Madness and just be March Mundaneness?

[Kimmi]

So there are non clutch MLB players then?

 

Perhaps, but not long enough to count.

[Kimmi]

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.

 

I'm picking ARod without hesitation.

[Kimmi]

If you like more proof about these biases being at play, you leap to Jeter as the prime example of post-season clutch heroics. His numbers are actually worse than Bernie Williams in the post-season. If the post-season is part of the definition of clutch, why not Bernie? The answer is simple. Memorable hits. Bernie did not homer into Jeffrey Maier's hands. Jeter did. Memorable play. Controversial play. Why isn't Williams' walk off home run in Game 1 of that series as memorable? Less clutch? Less important? Or just because it lacked the controversy?

 

I fully endorse the Notin posts on this topic.

[Noles_1335]

I love the clutch debate, I think it's interesting and fun.

 

One thing I have mentioned a few times is that in another sport, professional golf, nobody argues whether clutch and choke exist or not. Everyone agrees that they do.

 

So it might be sort of interesting to examine the similarities and differences between the two games.

 

Unfortunately we don't have many golf fans here.

 

Huge golf fan... let the debate begin!

[Noles_1335]

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.

 

Clearly you've never played golf or understood the game and how clutch you truly have to be to be good at it. For instance.... the Ryder Cup, the Masters any major event. You're standing on the tee and your opponent has hit a great shot and you have to step up and follow it up with one of your own. The Ryder Cup may put the most focus on being clutch in the sport. You're wearing your countries colors and being expected to rise to the occasion.. lets say your opponent drains a 20' putt for birdie to possibly win the hole and close the match out if you don't drain your putt... you step up and knock the bottom out of it... that's the definition of clutch in golf. Anyone on this page that plays the game of golf will 100% agree with me.

[Bellhorn04]

Clearly you've never played golf or understood the game and how clutch you truly have to be to be good at it. For instance.... the Ryder Cup, the Masters any major event. You're standing on the tee and your opponent has hit a great shot and you have to step up and follow it up with one of your own. The Ryder Cup may put the most focus on being clutch in the sport. You're wearing your countries colors and being expected to rise to the occasion.. lets say your opponent drains a 20' putt for birdie to possibly win the hole and close the match out if you don't drain your putt... you step up and knock the bottom out of it... that's the definition of clutch in golf. Anyone on this page that plays the game of golf will 100% agree with me.

 

Many golfers who have played in the Ryder Cup say it's the most pressure they've ever felt and that it can affect you physically-difficulty breathing etc.

[Kimmi]

Clearly you've never played golf or understood the game and how clutch you truly have to be to be good at it. For instance.... the Ryder Cup, the Masters any major event. You're standing on the tee and your opponent has hit a great shot and you have to step up and follow it up with one of your own. The Ryder Cup may put the most focus on being clutch in the sport. You're wearing your countries colors and being expected to rise to the occasion.. lets say your opponent drains a 20' putt for birdie to possibly win the hole and close the match out if you don't drain your putt... you step up and knock the bottom out of it... that's the definition of clutch in golf. Anyone on this page that plays the game of golf will 100% agree with me.

 

Admittedly, I have never played golf. I am not saying that clutch doesn't exist in golf, just that what you guys are posting about it is anecdotal evidence. Your anecdotes do not mean that clutch does exist.

 

Are clutch golfers raising their game to a higher level than their usual performance in big pressure situations, or are they just always that good? Is it being clutch or is it being one of the best in the game?

 

As I posted about baseball, if you want to define clutch as the ability not to choke, then I can agree with that. If you want to define clutch as becoming a whole other player at a higher lever, than I'm not convinced.

[Kimmi]

Many golfers who have played in the Ryder Cup say it's the most pressure they've ever felt and that it can affect you physically-difficulty breathing etc.

 

I do not doubt the point regarding pressure at all. Is the ability to handle pressure, which would be the ability not to choke, your definition of clutch?