Clutch vs. choke - do these numbers mean anything?

[iortiz]

How do you prove it's thae "environment" that caused the difference?

 

Nobody knows why players slump and get hot during the season, but suddenly, when they do in the playoffs, we know for sure why.

 

That really makes sense to you?

In POs the environment/pressure is bigger. It’s common sense.

 

Pitching in the 9th inning you handle more pressure.

Pitching/hitting with bases loaded implies more pressure.

Hitting with RISP implies more pressure.

 

Etc.

 

If you can’t understand that, with all due respect, you don’t understand baseball.

[iortiz]

Obviously.

 

Because what you are saying doesn’t make sense with the topic.

[moonslav59]

In POs the environment/pressure is bigger. It’s common sense.

 

Pitching in the 9th inning you handle more pressure.

Pitching/hitting with bases loaded implies more pressure.

Hitting with RISP implies more pressure.

 

Etc.

 

If you can’t understand that, with all due respect, you don’t understand baseball.

 

Of course the pressure is higher, but why assume that is the only reason a player may do better or worse than their norm, when over every player's career, they often get hot and cold for seemingly no reason at all.

 

BTW, I've played baseball- a lot.

 

[iortiz]

Of course the pressure is higher, but why assume that is the only reason a player may do better or worse than their norm, when over every player's career, they often get hot and cold for seemingly no reason at all.

 

BTW, I've played baseball- a lot.

 

Because there’s no other reason to perform above/below their standards.

 

Sorry moon, you are trying to complicate things that simply aren’t.

 

If you played a lot baseball you wouldn’t send Kershaw over Schilling in a decisive game. Numbers are cold and solid. Kershaw is mediocre in POs.

[moonslav59]

Because what you are saying doesn’t make sense with the topic.

 

Do you understand what happens when a computer takes all the data of a player like Kershaw and then spits out 1,000 sample sizes of 189 IP by randomly accumulating the data?

 

Yes or no?

 

If you answer yes, then good. Maybe you do get at least that part of my point.

 

Now, next question: do you think the 1,000 sample sizes the computer spits out will all look identical to each other, or will some come out with an accumulated ERA of, let's say 4.19 or more and maybe some with maybe 1.19?

 

Yes or no?

 

If you answer no, you don't understand what random samples mean or how the populate a chart. Some will come out looking extreme, while most will look near his norm.

 

My point is, if random samples can and do produce a sample that looks just like Kershaw's actual sample, how can you prove it's not just a random occurrence?

 

You can't. Just like I can't prove the reason is the higher pressure.

 

It seems weird that Kershaw does better with RISP and clutch moments during the season, but then turns into a pumpkin under the "extra" pressure of the playoffs.

 

[User Name]

But what does it mean?

 

It means that, unlike throwing 95 MPH, you can't demonstrate that "clutch" is based on a player's physical skill or ability.

[iortiz]

Do you understand what happens when a computer takes all the data of a player like Kershaw and then spits out 1,000 sample sizes of 189 IP by randomly accumulating the data?

 

Yes or no?

 

If you answer yes, then good. Maybe you do get at least that part of my point.

 

Now, next question: do you think the 1,000 sample sizes the computer spits out will all look identical to each other, or will some come out with an accumulated ERA of, let's say 4.19 or more and maybe some with maybe 1.19?

 

Yes or no?

 

If you answer no, you don't understand what random samples mean or how the populate a chart. Some will come out looking extreme, while most will look near his norm.

 

My point is, if random samples can and do produce a sample that looks just like Kershaw's actual sample, how can you prove it's not just a random occurrence?

 

You can't. Just like I can't prove the reason is the higher pressure.

 

It seems weird that Kershaw does better with RISP and clutch moments during the season, but then turns into a pumpkin under the "extra" pressure of the playoffs.

 

 

Sorry moon the way you are trying to formulate your argument with the computer thing does not make sense at all with the topic.

[User Name]

Sorry moon the way you are trying to formulate your argument with the computer thing does not make sense at all with the topic.

 

I actually see what you're saying. In layman's terms, he's trying to say it's random. At least that's what I can make out from it.

[iortiz]

I actually see what you're saying. In layman's terms, he's trying to say it's random. At least that's what I can make out from it.

 

When you see Schilling’s/Kershaw’s numbers in POs, do you think they are random?

[moonslav59]

Sorry moon the way you are trying to formulate your argument with the computer thing does not make sense at all with the topic.

Just because you can’t make sense of the concept of randomness does not mean it makes nosense or is not related to the issue being discussed.

 

It boggles my mind that you can’t even conceive the idea that the randomness could be all this is.

 

Why don’t players always have the exact numbers in any and every 189 inning sample size you pull?

 

Is it impossible to think Keyshawn just happened to have slumps at exactly the wrong times 5 times out of all his playoff series.

 

Can you please answer my questions like I answer yours?

[moonslav59]

When you see Schilling’s/Kershaw’s numbers in POs, do you think they are random?

 

They could be and likely are.

[moonslav59]

I actually see what you're saying. In layman's terms, he's trying to say it's random. At least that's what I can make out from it.

 

The data entered is not random.

 

If you entered the actual data of every PA in the playoffs or every final game line every player ever generated over MLB history and had a computer program randomly create the amount of sample sizes that actually occurred in real life, the results the computer would come up with would be almost identical to what actually happened. It just would not give names like Kershaw and Schilling to those sample sizes that were on the extreme ends of the total amount of samples.

 

Also, if you took every game line Kershaw has ever produced over his career and then randomly selected samples from here and there until you reached 189 innings (his actual playoff IP) you’d end up getting a wide variety of samples with the vast majority close to his norm, but surely you’d get some near 4.19- his actual p,ayoff ERA and some where he did much better than his career norm in the regular season.

 

If the playoffs were totally random, we’d expect some samples to look out of whack from those player’s norms. Most would be near the norm, but some not. I don’t get what’s so hard to understand about this point.

 

I’m fine if people don’t agree, but to even be able to see how the randomness point can relate to this debate is beyond me.

 

The fact that people have actually done what I’m saying and the randomly generated sample sizes created came out to mirror the actual outcomes in reality- same number of samples really better than the norm and worse than the norms and by the exact same margins has to at least hint at the idea that maybe it could just be all random within the parameters entered into the sample generator.

 

Of course, a guy like Papi’s numbers entered would create more great samples than Spike Owens. The data is not like flipping a coin on every player.

[Bellhorn04]

 

They could be and likely are.

 

Can't prove anything either way.

 

So can't say 'likely are'.

[Bellhorn04]

moon, this is actually a lot like the CERA issue. Those numbers could mean something, or they could be random. But you tend to think they mean something.

 

Kimmi thinks the lineup position comfort effect is real.

 

Maybe it's all personal biases.

[dgalehouse]

moon, this is actually a lot like the CERA issue. Those numbers could mean something, or they could be random. But you tend to think they mean something.

 

Kimmi thinks the lineup position comfort effect is real.

 

Maybe it's all personal biases.

 

It would join a very long list of things that are personal biases.

[moonslav59]

moon, this is actually a lot like the CERA issue. Those numbers could mean something, or they could be random. But you tend to think they mean something.

 

Kimmi thinks the lineup position comfort effect is real.

 

Maybe it's all personal biases.

 

Of course it could be.

 

I wouldn’t sat lineup slot comfort is not real. I just think it’s way overblown.

[moonslav59]

Can't prove anything either way.

 

So can't say 'likely are'.

 

I guess it’s just coincidence the random samples mirror reality almost exactly.

 

What I wanna know is what happens if a clutch hitter suddenly faces 25 clutch pitchers in a row and has crappy numbers.

 

Is he no longer clutch?

 

Talk among yourselves.

[Bellhorn04]

I guess it’s just coincidence the random samples mirror reality almost exactly.

 

What I wanna know is what happens if a clutch hitter suddenly faces 25 clutch pitchers in a row and has crappy numbers.

 

Is he no longer clutch?

 

Talk among yourselves.

 

See, that's unfair, because I've been attempting to seek out large samples.

 

The funny thing is that no one has said anything about the opening post numbers at all. But once you start talking about postseason numbers, the fur flies LOL

[User Name]

See, that's unfair, because I've been attempting to seek out large samples.

 

The funny thing is that no one has said anything about the opening post numbers at all. But once you start talking about postseason numbers, the fur flies LOL

 

Didn't I say that choke exists, but not clutch? And I think it's objectively demonstrable.

[moonslav59]

Didn't I say that choke exists, but not clutch? And I think it's objectively demonstrable.

 

Now that’s a tiny hill to be crucified on.

[User Name]

 

Now that’s a tiny hill to be crucified on.

 

Don't need to die on it. Because I'm not making thirty distinct arguments trying to prove it.

[moonslav59]

In all seriousness, now, what happens if Kershaw pitches 5 gems this October?

[iortiz]

In all seriousness, now, what happens if Kershaw pitches 5 gems this October?

 

As any career stat you have to add those 5 games in the mixer and see what you got in the BL, but 5 gems won’t change his PO career numbers that much I guess, and the BL certainly won’t be close to his whole career pedigree which is excellent and which is kind of the point.

[User Name]

As any career stat you have to add those 5 games in the mixer and see what you got in the BL, but 5 gems won’t change his PO career numbers that much I guess, and the BL certainly won’t be close to his whole career pedigree which is excellent and which is kind of the point.

 

Yes, 5 games of 7 IP with 0 or 1 earned runs would drastically change his career playoff numbers.

[iortiz]

Yes, 5 games of 7 IP with 0 or 1 earned runs would drastically change his career playoff numbers.

 

Close to his whole career numbers?

[iortiz]

Also, anything can happen in baseball but 5 gems for Kershaw in POs at this point of his career is very very unlikely.

[moonslav59]

Also, anything can happen in baseball but 5 gems for Kershaw in POs at this point of his career is very very unlikely.

 

Just 5 games of 7 innings of shutout ball and his 4.19 ERA goes to 3.54, and you’ll find some other guy to call a choke.

 

This is just one example that shows just how fickle even a 189 IP sample size is.

 

Now, he ain’t gonna do that, but the point still stands. 5 nice games more and nobody mentions Kershaw and choke ever again. 5 games is all.now, imagine 7 or 8...

[iortiz]

Just 5 games of 7 innings of shutout ball and his 4.19 ERA goes to 3.54, and you’ll find some other guy to call a choke.

 

This is just one example that shows just how fickle even a 189 IP sample size is.

 

Now, he ain’t gonna do that, but the point still stands. 5 nice games more and nobody mentions Kershaw and choke ever again. 5 games is all.now, imagine 7 or 8...

 

While 3.54 is a good number it is still way far from his career number —2.4 ERA

 

You are entering in the conjuncture and speculation field. The debate in that field is worthless.

 

The fact still stands until his career ends and says otherwise. Kershaw is mediocre in POs and far from what his career pedigree suggests.

[Bellhorn04]

It means that, unlike throwing 95 MPH, you can't demonstrate that "clutch" is based on a player's physical skill or ability.

 

But no one has ever argued that clutch is based on a player's physical skill or ability.

 

So if this is all 'clutch is not a repeatable skill' means, it's merely stating the obvious, and therefore tells us nothing.

 

I think we all would agree that being an MLB pitcher or hitter involves a whole package of skills, some of them physical and some of them mental.

 

The mental ones are obviously much more difficult to measure, but the fact they're difficult to measure obviously doesn't mean they don't exist.

[Bellhorn04]

Didn't I say that choke exists, but not clutch? And I think it's objectively demonstrable.

 

I'd like to hear more about this, of course.