Clutch vs. choke - do these numbers mean anything?

[Bellhorn04]

How do you explain a player with good overall career clutch numbers (a supposedly clutch player) being below average in clutch in as many seasons as he was above average in clutch?

 

Baseball is a game that produces a lot of erratic variations. There are great players who had terrible seasons.

 

I'm not arguing that clutch or choke is something pure and undiluted by any means.

 

But maybe, just maybe Schilling and Ortiz had a little bit more of that quality of mental fortitude or whatever it is that made them very comfortable in big situations. Obviously that doesn't mean you're going to come through every time, because it's impossible.

[notin]

Baseball is a game that produces a lot of erratic variations. There are great players who had terrible seasons.

 

I'm not arguing that clutch or choke is something pure and undiluted by any means.

 

But maybe, just maybe Schilling and Ortiz had a little bit more of that quality of mental fortitude or whatever it is that made them very comfortable in big situations. Obviously that doesn't mean you're going to come through every time, because it's impossible.

 

And even then, how do we define “coming through”?

 

Dave Henderson got a ton a Clutch Credit for game for pulling the Sox season out of the fire in game 5 of the 1986 ALCS. Now the home run was as clutch as it gets. But his game winning RBI came on a sac fly. Clutch or not?

 

And Jimy Williams took a ton of flak for starting Pete Schourek in an elimination game in the 1998 ALCS. Schourek was masterful and left the game with a 1-0 lead that Tom Gordon lost. Was Schourek clutch or not?

[Bellhorn04]

And even then, how do we define “coming through”?

 

Dave Henderson got a ton a Clutch Credit for game for pulling the Sox season out of the fire in game 5 of the 1986 ALCS. Now the home run was as clutch as it gets. But his game winning RBI came on a sac fly. Clutch or not?

 

And Jimy Williams took a ton of flak for starting Pete Schourek in an elimination game in the 1998 ALCS. Schourek was masterful and left the game with a 1-0 lead that Tom Gordon lost. Was Schourek clutch or not?

 

Isolated examples.

 

I tried to present some objective large sample data in the opening post.

[notin]

Isolated examples.

 

I tried to present some objective large sample data in the opening post.

 

Legitimate questions to establish the definitions…

[Bellhorn04]

Legitimate questions to establish the definitions…

 

High and low leverage are defined, that's why I thought they might be useful.

[notin]

Isolated examples.

 

I tried to present some objective large sample data in the opening post.

 

For example, David Ortiz had twice as many sac flies in high leverage situations as he had in low leverage ones, despite having only half the PA.

 

Where do these show up in your data? And are sac flies “clutch”?

[notin]

High and low leverage are defined, that's why I thought they might be useful.

 

Yes they are. And I greatly prefer leverage situations over postseason numbers for a slew of reasons.

 

I brought up other simple questions..

[Bellhorn04]

Yes they are.

 

I brought up other simple questions..

 

OK. My answer would be that the sac fly was clutch and Schourek was clutch.

[notin]

OK. My answer would be that the sac fly was clutch and Schourek was clutch.

 

Ok. I can agree with that viewpoint…

[Kimmi]

Clutch is about how a fan feels as a player. Similar to how pitchers feel about throwing to certain catchers.

 

Fans can feel however they want about a player. There are certain players that I want to see at the plate in key moments and others that I don't want to see, both for our team and the opposing team. The bottom line, however, is that if you could choose who to put up to bat in a key moment, it should be your best overall hitter. Not the hitter who is supposedly clutch, nor the hitter who is on a hot streak.

[Kimmi]

Baseball is a game that produces a lot of erratic variations. There are great players who had terrible seasons.

 

I'm not arguing that clutch or choke is something pure and undiluted by any means.

 

But maybe, just maybe Schilling and Ortiz had a little bit more of that quality of mental fortitude or whatever it is that made them very comfortable in big situations. Obviously that doesn't mean you're going to come through every time, because it's impossible.

 

Yes, there is a lot of variation in baseball. The difference between most of those variations and clutch is that the others have at least some predictive value and some season to season correlation. The season to season correlation of clutch is nonexistent, pretty much 0. Even within a season, the correlation is 0. It's not just a matter of a player not being able to come through in the clutch every time, it's a matter of there being NO predictability to it, outside of what that player would do in regular situations.

 

People like Schilling and Ortiz probably do have a stronger quality of mental fortitude. That's what makes them great players all the time, not just in clutch situations.

[moonslav59]

Yes, there is a lot of variation in baseball. The difference between most of those variations and clutch is that the others have at least some predictive value and some season to season correlation. The season to season correlation of clutch is nonexistent, pretty much 0. Even within a season, the correlation is 0. It's not just a matter of a player not being able to come through in the clutch every time, it's a matter of there being NO predictability to it, outside of what that player would do in regular situations.

 

People like Schilling and Ortiz probably do have a stronger quality of mental fortitude. That's what makes them great players all the time, not just in clutch situations.

 

Well said.

[Bellhorn04]

Yes, there is a lot of variation in baseball. The difference between most of those variations and clutch is that the others have at least some predictive value and some season to season correlation. The season to season correlation of clutch is nonexistent, pretty much 0. Even within a season, the correlation is 0. It's not just a matter of a player not being able to come through in the clutch every time, it's a matter of there being NO predictability to it, outside of what that player would do in regular situations.

 

People like Schilling and Ortiz probably do have a stronger quality of mental fortitude. That's what makes them great players all the time, not just in clutch situations.

 

Kimmi, you totally buy into 'comfort level and confidence' being big factors when it comes to pitchers doing better with certain catchers. And yet it's a totally intangible, anecdotal, unprovable position.

 

Seems a little inconsistent to me.

[Kimmi]

Kimmi, you totally buy into 'comfort level and confidence' being big factors when it comes to pitchers doing better with certain catchers. And yet it's a totally intangible, anecdotal, unprovable position.

 

Seems a little inconsistent to me.

 

If someone can show me data that confidence and comfort level do not affect players at all, then I will change my opinion.

 

IMO, the players that succeed and excel in MLB are very confident and comfortable in what they are doing. That includes what they do in clutch situations. My point is that it is not any different in clutch situations than it is in lower leverage situations.

[Bellhorn04]

If someone can show me data that confidence and comfort level do not affect players at all, then I will change my opinion.

 

IMO, the players that succeed and excel in MLB are very confident and comfortable in what they are doing. That includes what they do in clutch situations. My point is that it is not any different in clutch situations than it is in lower leverage situations.

 

To me it's a perfect logical premise that confidence and comfort levels in clutch situations have *some* variance from one player to another.

 

I think you have admitted to the existence of other psychological factors:

 

1) The biggest job of the manager is off the field, keeping his players loose and ready to play. All psychological.

2) Some hitters tend to be more comfortable in certain spots in the batting order, and it's not a good idea to mess with their heads. All psychological.

3) Some pitchers are more comfortable working with some catchers than others. Some of which may relate to actual skill factors, but much of it is psychological.

 

And yet you totally reject the premise that some players handle pressure moments better than others.

 

What data supports the first two propositions above?

Edited August 14, 2021 by Bellhorn04

[Bellhorn04]

Well, I don't agree with that statement.

 

Why do you agree about player comfort in line-up slots when the only evidence is anecdotal?

 

This illustrates that you're picking and choosing which assertions can be accepted based on anecdotal evidence alone.

[mvp 78]

Why do you agree about player comfort in line-up slots when the only evidence is anecdotal?

 

This illustrates that you're picking and choosing which assertions can be accepted based on anecdotal evidence alone.

 

90% of the game is half mental.

[Bellhorn04]

90% of the game is half mental.

 

Prove it!

[Kimmi]

To me it's a perfect logical premise that confidence and comfort levels in clutch situations have *some* variance from one player to another.

 

I think you have admitted to the existence of other psychological factors:

 

1) The biggest job of the manager is off the field, keeping his players loose and ready to play. All psychological.

2) Some hitters tend to be more comfortable in certain spots in the batting order, and it's not a good idea to mess with their heads. All psychological.

3) Some pitchers are more comfortable working with some catchers than others. Some of which may relate to actual skill factors, but much of it is psychological.

 

And yet you totally reject the premise that some players handle pressure moments better than others.

 

What data supports the first two propositions above?

 

First off, I do not reject the premise that some players handle pressure moments better than others. I completely agree that some people are chokers. I just don't think you find those at the Major League level. They are weeded out before they reach the Major League, or if they get there, they don't last very long. I think we long ago agreed in the idea of clutch as the ability not to choke. In that sense, my opinion is that all Major League players are clutch.

 

What I reject is the idea that clutch is a repeatable skill or that there is any predictability to it.

 

There is no data that supports those first two propositions. At the same time, there is no data that refutes them. With the idea of clutch, there is overwhelmingly strong evidence against it. If the stat people start conducting studies on the impact of managers to their teams psychologically and determine that it's a bunch of hogwash, I will change my opinion on the matter.

[Bellhorn04]

First off, I do not reject the premise that some players handle pressure moments better than others. I completely agree that some people are chokers. I just don't think you find those at the Major League level. They are weeded out before they reach the Major League, or if they get there, they don't last very long.

 

That's completely anecdotal too, Kimmi.

[Kimmi]

Why do you agree about player comfort in line-up slots when the only evidence is anecdotal?

 

This illustrates that you're picking and choosing which assertions can be accepted based on anecdotal evidence alone.

 

If there were no evidence suggesting that clutch doesn't exist, I would believe in it.

 

I have had to change my opinion on certain things when the data suggests to me that my opinion was wrong.

 

It's not that I'm picking and choosing which assertions can be accepted based on anecdotal evidence alone. It's that certain assertions have strong statistical evidence against them while others don't. Believe me, it has not been easy letting go of some of the ideas that I have believed in for as long as I can remember.

[Kimmi]

That's completely anecdotal too, Kimmi.

 

The data that suggests that there is no such thing as clutch works both ways. "Clutch" stats, both in the positive and negative direction are largely random.

[Bellhorn04]

There is no data that supports those first two propositions. At the same time, there is no data that refutes them.

 

What is the evidence that they're true, though?

[Kimmi]

What is the evidence that they're true, though?

 

There isn't any evidence that either is true. If there's no evidence that a proposition is true or false, then you base your opinion on anecdotal evidence, which is all there is. If there is statistical evidence, then IMO, you have to go with what the numbers say.

[Bellhorn04]

There isn't any evidence that either is true. If there's no evidence that a proposition is true or false, then you base your opinion on anecdotal evidence, which is all there is. If there is statistical evidence, then IMO, you have to go with what the numbers say.

 

Has any of the statmeisters actually stated as a straight-out fact that clutch and choke don't exist? Or have they said it can't be proved that they exist?

 

I can't accept the idea that they have proved it doesn't exist. Generally speaking you cannot prove a negative.

[Kimmi]

Has any of the statmeisters actually stated as a straight-out fact that clutch and choke don't exist? Or have they said it can't be proved that they exist?

 

I can't accept the idea that they have proved it doesn't exist. Generally speaking you cannot prove a negative.

 

They have not proved that it doesn't exist.

[moonslav59]

They have not proved that it doesn't exist.

 

Just as showing player X has great numbers in the clutch proves it's a sustainable skill.

 

Nobody can prove anything on this, and maybe that's why the argument will never be put to rest.

 

We can, however, show that randomly generated stat lines for sample sizes as large as playoff samples mirror almost exactly, the actual results in reality. Some skew high, some skew low, most skew near the player's regular season OPS when factoring in batting vs slightly better pitching.

 

[dgalehouse]

One thing for sure: It's more fun to believe in clutch than it is to read the Bill James baseball handbook. And baseball is supposed to be fun.

[moonslav59]

One thing for sure: It's more fun to believe in clutch than it is to read the Bill James baseball handbook. And baseball is supposed to be fun.

 

Clutch is real: it's just not a sustainable skill.

 

It's still exciting as all hell.

[notin]

Clutch is real: it's just not a sustainable skill.

 

It's still exciting as all hell.

 

No one ever denied clutch exists, just that “clutch players” exist…