Clutch vs. choke - do these numbers mean anything?

[moonslav59]

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.

 

Your whole argument is based on speculation on a scattered amount of stats that total 189 innings.

 

By the way, it’s not a debate if you never ever answer questions the other side asks.

[User Name]

Your whole argument is based on speculation on a scattered amount of stats that total 189 innings.

 

By the way, it’s not a debate if you never ever answer questions the other side asks.

 

Yeah, lots of strawmen there.

[notin]

Your whole argument is based on speculation on a scattered amount of stats that total 189 innings.

 

By the way, it’s not a debate if you never ever answer questions the other side asks.

 

The argument that pitchers choke based on postseason numbers is where the conjecture is.

 

Is it possible? Sure. Is it the only possible reason? Absolutely not.

 

When a pitcher has lots of postseason data, it has to be spread out over multiple seasons. In Kershaw’s case, it’s 13 years. Most pitchers just aren’t the same pitcher over that stretch. Really, rather than being one big sample that can be summed up solely with ERA, it’s a series of small samples being stuck together and called a big sample. I doubt 2008 Kershaw had all that much in common with 2020 Kershaw beyond the number on the uniform.

 

And pitchers are on average more affected by longer seasons than position players. And are susceptible to a wider variety of injuries. Was Kershaw healthy and pain free across 13 post seasons? Did his various workloads affect him differently each year?

 

Really does this example prove Kershaw simply couldn’t handle the pressure? Or that he didn’t handle physical pain as well as, say, Schilling did?

[moonslav59]

The argument that pitchers choke based on postseason numbers is where the conjecture is.

 

Is it possible? Sure. Is it the only possible reason? Absolutely not.

 

When a pitcher has lots of postseason data, it has to be spread out over multiple seasons. In Kershaw’s case, it’s 13 years. Most pitchers just aren’t the same pitcher over that stretch. Really, rather than being one big sample that can be summed up solely with ERA, it’s a series of small samples being stuck together and called a big sample. I doubt 2008 Kershaw had all that much in common with 2020 Kershaw beyond the number on the uniform.

 

And pitchers are on average more affected by longer seasons than position players. And are susceptible to a wider variety of injuries. Was Kershaw healthy and pain free across 13 post seasons? Did his various workloads affect him differently each year?

 

Really does this example prove Kershaw simply couldn’t handle the pressure? Or that he didn’t handle physical pain as well as, say, Schilling did?

 

Another thing is he was likely facing better hitting in the playoffs.

 

It's hard to imagine a pitcher of his skill, who rose to the occasion, under great pressure, to even make it to MLB. Then, his numbers show he does better with RISP and Late & Close during the season, so there's no indication he wilts under pressure, there.

 

Then, suddenly, just because it's the playoffs, and his scattered numbers fall way short of his norm, we are supposed to think it HAS TO BE because it's the playoffs.

 

Players slump and rise, all the time. Nobody knows why. If they did, they could probably make a ton of money.

 

Yet, when a player slumps or does great in the playoffs, we are magically able to know FOR SURE, why it happened.

 

I've never heard a logical response to this point.

 

It's impossible to know for sure, unless it's some kind of injury.

 

It's also impossible to prove it can't be a choke or clutch thing.

 

Is it possible a player might get enormous butterflies under the intense pressure of the playoffs and not be able to overcome it? Of course. I can't prove it doesn't happen.

[Bellhorn04]

Another thing is he was likely facing better hitting in the playoffs.

 

As was Schilling. Which would make his performance in the postseason even more impressive.

[Bellhorn04]

Is it possible a player might get enormous butterflies under the intense pressure of the playoffs and not be able to overcome it? Of course. I can't prove it doesn't happen.

 

I don't think it's necessarily as dramatic as enormous butterflies.

 

What do we hear when teams go into collective batting slumps?

 

"They're pressing. They're trying too hard." That type of thing. What it all comes down to is not being quite right in the head. Not having the same confidence and comfort level they have when things are going well.

[moonslav59]

As was Schilling. Which would make his performance in the postseason even more impressive.

 

His performance was amazingly impressive, and it was a step up from his regular season impressive numbers.

 

Was it a skill? Honestly, I don't know. It can't be proved- one way or the other, and the fact that his numbers exist, doesn't, by itself, prove clutch as a skill exists, no matter what iortiz thinks or says.

 

If you took Schillings regular season numbers and fed them into a computer program that randomly creates hundreds of 133 IP sample sizes, you'd find they all don't come out exactly like his regular season ERA. A few would look just like his actual playoff numbers, a few would look worse and most would be similar. It's hard to know, if this is just one of those sample sizes that came out nicely for him (and the Sox.) Certainly, nobody can prove it's not just a random occurrence.

[Bellhorn04]

Schilling turned out to be a nutjob off the field, but on the field he was a hellacious competitor. The bloody sock game seems to have become a joke, but in real time, it was pretty damn amazing. The surgery that was done on him, I'm not sure many other players would have even said yes to it.

 

And in the 2007 postseason he was obviously not 100% but still came through. Those were the last games he'd ever pitch.

[moonslav59]

Schilling turned out to be a nutjob off the field, but on the field he was a hellacious competitor. The bloody sock game seems to have become a joke, but in real time, it was pretty damn amazing. The surgery that was done on him, I'm not sure many other players would have even said yes to it.

 

And in the 2007 postseason he was obviously not 100% but still came through. Those were the last games he'd ever pitch.

 

If there is a skill for clutch, Schill had it.

 

Honestly, I find it hard to think his mental make-up had absolutely nothing to do with his results, and it certainly might have been a small part of it, but it just can never be proven, and could also be just pure random luck.

[iortiz]

Your whole argument is based on speculation on a scattered amount of stats that total 189 innings.

 

By the way, it’s not a debate if you never ever answer questions the other side asks.

 

It’s not speculation lol

 

Look at the numbers. Kershaw is mediocre in POs; a completely different pitcher compared with regular season.

 

Not rocket science.

[moonslav59]

It’s not speculation lol

 

Look at the numbers. Kershaw is mediocre in POs; a completely different pitcher compared with regular season.

 

Not rocket science.

 

It’s speculation as to why the numbers are worse not about them being worse. We all know they are worse, but you never address any points made.

 

To you the fact that he was worse prove the reason he was worse.

 

That’s not how logic works.

[iortiz]

As I said since day one. Some people handle the pressure better than others regardless the activity. Baseball is not the exception.

 

I think you are complicating this. It’s not complicated to me, but no problem.

 

If you think handling pressure is not a skill/ability/aptitude, oks. I won’t try to change your mind moon.

[moonslav59]

As I said since day one. Some people handle the pressure better than others regardless the activity. Baseball is not the exception.

 

I think you are complicating this. It’s not complicated to me, but no problem.

 

If you think handling pressure is not a skill/ability/aptitude, oks. I won’t try to change your mind moon.

 

Why avoid every question.

[iortiz]

 

Why avoid every question.

 

Lol what question? If I have an answer I will answer. I swear.

 

Just make it simple, please lol

[Kimmi]

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.

 

That's a matter of opinion. LOL

[Kimmi]

"Repeatable skill" is somewhat problematic terminology, IMO. What does it mean?

 

It means that hitting in the clutch is random.

 

It means that there is zero predictability in what a player will do in the clutch from season to season, or even week to week.

 

It's much like 'momentum'.

[Kimmi]

Yep, can't be proved, can't be disproved. I think we're in agreement on that.

 

But all the stuff about computer generated random samples just seems like gibberish.

 

But you make it sound like it's a 50-50 thing as far as being proved or disproved. That's not the case. The data overwhelmingly suggests that clutch and choke do not exist.

[Kimmi]

Yes, the term "repeatable skill" is totally made-up and arguably useless.

 

No, it's not.

 

If there is 0 correlation in something from year to year, then that something is not a repeatable skill.

 

What happens is due to luck or randomness, not skill.

[Kimmi]

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's not bias. It's based on the research that has been done.

 

Show me the evidence that comfort in the lineup has no effect on the number of runs scored and I will change my opinion.

[Kimmi]

This is interesting from Red Sox Stats. It seems both our pitchers and our hitters went from being clutch at points in the season to being chokers in August.

 

[Bellhorn04]

It's not bias. It's based on the research that has been done.

 

Show me the evidence that comfort in the lineup has no effect on the number of runs scored and I will change my opinion.

 

Let me see if I have this straight:

-With "clutch", you have to prove it exists.

-With lineup comfort, you have to prove it doesn't exist.

 

No, I don't think that's fair, somehow. But maybe you can explain how to go about proving a negative.

[moonslav59]

We can't prove anything, other than Marwin sucks.

[Kimmi]

Let me see if I have this straight:

-With "clutch", you have to prove it exists.

-With lineup comfort, you have to prove it doesn't exist.

 

No, I don't think that's fair, somehow. But maybe you can explain how to go about proving a negative.

 

As I've said before, it's not a matter of proving if something exists or doesn't exist. With clutch, there is overwhelming evidence that suggests that clutch doesn't exist. I have not seen any evidence that is statistically significant that suggests that clutch exists. Therefore, my opinion goes with the data. It is an opinion based on data, not on my bias. In fact, this particular opinion goes against what my biases would be.

 

With the idea of comfort in the line up, there is no statistically significant evidence either way, for or against it. Therefore, I choose to believe it exists. I could have just as easily chosen to believe that it doesn't exist and asked you to prove that it does. Is this opinion based on my bias? Okay, I'll give you that. But it's not a bias that goes against any evidence.

 

In short, there are numbers to support one opinion but there are no numbers to support the other. That's the difference in what you are viewing as inconsistencies or bias.

[Bellhorn04]

With the idea of comfort in the line up, there is no statistically significant evidence either way, for or against it. Therefore, I choose to believe it exists.

 

And why do you choose to believe that?

[moonslav59]

And why do you choose to believe that?

 

It doesn't seem like Kimmi. Has her account been hacked?

 

I do think several players talk about being comfortable in certain slots, but often the numbers betray their preferences.

 

I think there is some slight validity to the concept, but not nearly enough to change a line-up over, unless the choice was exactly 50-50 and one guy flourishes in that slot.

 

[Bellhorn04]

It means that hitting in the clutch is random.

 

It means that there is zero predictability in what a player will do in the clutch from season to season, or even week to week.

 

It's much like 'momentum'.

 

Kimmi, I asked for a definition of 'repeatable skill'. I don't see one in your reply.

[Kimmi]

And why do you choose to believe that?

 

Because based off of personal experience, I believe that comfort and confidence play a huge role in performance.

 

And I know what you're going to say. Wouldn't the same hold true for clutch hitters? One would think that would be the case, but the numbers just don't bear that out. Believe me, if there were no research on the topic, I would 100% agree that there are clutch players. I'm a numbers person though. I can't ignore what they are telling me.

[Bellhorn04]

Because based off of personal experience, I believe that comfort and confidence play a huge role in performance.

 

And I know what you're going to say. Wouldn't the same hold true for clutch hitters? One would think that would be the case, but the numbers just don't bear that out. Believe me, if there were no research on the topic, I would 100% agree that there are clutch players. I'm a numbers person though. I can't ignore what they are telling me.

 

Well, you're right, I am going to say it. It makes no sense to believe in one of those things and not the other.

[Kimmi]

Kimmi, I asked for a definition of 'repeatable skill'. I don't see one in your reply.

 

Repeatable skill means that there is some predictability or correlation of the skill from one season to the next, or from one month to the next.

 

When there is no correlation, then it's not a skill. It's random.

[Kimmi]

Well, you're right, I am going to say it. It makes no sense to believe in one of those things and not the other.

 

It makes perfect sense to me.