Clutch vs. choke - do these numbers mean anything?

[Bellhorn04]

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.

 

But so many baseball stats fluctuate tremendously, often to the point they look random. Like Bobby Dalbec's monthly OPS, for example.

[Kimmi]

But so many baseball stats fluctuate tremendously, often to the point they look random. Like Bobby Dalbec's monthly OPS, for example.

 

Sure they fluctuate. Baseball is a highly random sport. Nonetheless, there is some year to year correlation. The year to year correlation for OPS is roughly .6, a moderate positive correlation.

 

Here is a scatterplot of year to year batting clutch data, and Jeff Sullivan's interpretation of it. That picture pretty much says it all.

 

 

 

There’s next to nothing there. If there were absolutely no relationship, we’d expect an R2 of 0.00. Instead, we get 0.01, with a best-fit line that has a very, very slightly positive slope. If you wanted to be extremely generous, you could say that batting Clutch has a slight tendency to repeat. Truthfully, though, this is a scatter. There’s no meaningful signal to be observed.

 

 

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/the-most-important-thing-about-clutch/

[Bellhorn04]

"Batting clutch has a slight tendency to repeat."

 

Woo-hoo! I'll take it!

[User Name]

"Batting clutch has a slight tendency to repeat."

 

Woo-hoo! I'll take it!

 

So does batting and pitching choke, btw.

 

Also, throwing 95 is a repeatable skill. As is hitting homeruns.

[Bellhorn04]

So does batting and pitching choke, btw.

 

Also, throwing 95 is a repeatable skill. As is hitting homeruns.

 

With all due respect to you and to whoever made this stuff up, I can't for the life of me figure out the value of these definitions.

 

If throwing 95 is a 'repeatable skill', does that mean throwing 85 or throwing 75 are too?

 

What makes throwing 95 a skill, in itself? If you throw 95 but can't do it for strikes, it's not much of a skill. Ditto if you can throw 95 in the middle of the plate but can't hit corners.

 

What you're describing seems to be simply measurable physical events.

[User Name]

With all due respect to you and to whoever made this stuff up, I can't for the life of me figure out the value of these definitions.

 

Don't make me go over there.

If throwing 95 is a 'repeatable skill', does that mean throwing 85 or throwing 75 are too?

 

Yes

 

What makes throwing 95 a skill, in itself? If you throw 95 but can't do it for strikes, it's not much of a skill. Ditto if you can throw 95 in the middle of the plate but can't hit corners.

 

Can you throw 95?

 

What you're describing seems to be simply measurable physical events.

 

Which require specific athletic ability. If everyone could do it, it wouldn't be a skill, repeatable or otherwise.

 

See?

[moonslav59]

Looks like we all have come to an agreement!

 

(Lol)

[Bellhorn04]

See?

 

OK, I think I can frame this a little better.

 

The term repeatable skill implies that there are non-repeatable skills.

 

So what exactly is a non-repeatable skill? And you can't just say clutch. In order to explain exactly what we're talking about, there has to be a whole class of non-repeatable skills.

[User Name]

OK, I think I can frame this a little better.

 

The term repeatable skill implies that there are non-repeatable skills.

 

So what exactly is a non-repeatable skill? And you can't just say clutch. In order to explain exactly what we're talking about, there has to be a whole class of non-repeatable skills.

 

Non-repeatable skills are those that can't be executed with any kind of consistency:

 

In baseball, situational hitting and pitching are what we frame as non-repeatable. You can consistently throw hard, run fast, show range in the IF/OF, hit the ball hard, or throw strikes. You can't consistently hit above your skill level in pressure situations (but you can hit worse), throw harder in pressure situations, have more range in pressure situations or run harder in pressure situations.

[Bellhorn04]

Non-repeatable skills are those that can't be executed with any kind of consistency:

 

In baseball, situational hitting and pitching are what we frame as non-repeatable. You can consistently throw hard, run fast, show range in the IF/OF, hit the ball hard, or throw strikes. You can't consistently hit above your skill level in pressure situations (but you can hit worse), throw harder in pressure situations, have more range in pressure situations or run harder in pressure situations.

 

OK, that's fair.

 

My sense is that you and are actually somewhat on the same page about this. I don't believe anyone can consistently raise their performance level either, but as you say, performance level can be diminished. So what gets called clutch, if it exists, is actually an absence of choke.

[User Name]

OK, that's fair.

 

My sense is that you and are actually somewhat on the same page about this. I don't believe anyone can consistently raise their performance level either, but as you say, performance level can be diminished. So what gets called clutch, if it exists, is actually an absence of choke.

 

Dude, a700 and I came to this exact same conclusion on this exact same topic many moons ago, when I was known by another name, and I lived in another country.

[iortiz]

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.

Thing is some people can handle pressure in a regular basis better than others. If that is not repeatable I don’t know why it is.

[User Name]

Thing is some people can handle pressure in a regular basis better than others. If that is not repeatable I don’t know why it is.

 

What?

[iortiz]

What?

 

What, What?

[Kimmi]

"Batting clutch has a slight tendency to repeat."

 

Woo-hoo! I'll take it!

 

Ha, somehow I knew that you'd zero in on that line.

[Kimmi]

OK, I think I can frame this a little better.

 

The term repeatable skill implies that there are non-repeatable skills.

 

So what exactly is a non-repeatable skill? And you can't just say clutch. In order to explain exactly what we're talking about, there has to be a whole class of non-repeatable skills.

 

Other non-repeatable skills:

 

Winning close games

BABIP for both pitchers and hitters

Timely hitting

Clustering hits together

[Kimmi]

Thing is some people can handle pressure in a regular basis better than others. If that is not repeatable I don’t know why it is.

 

I agree that some people can handle pressure better than others. I think that's what makes them better players all the time, not just clutch situations.

[Kimmi]

OK, that's fair.

 

My sense is that you and are actually somewhat on the same page about this. I don't believe anyone can consistently raise their performance level either, but as you say, performance level can be diminished. So what gets called clutch, if it exists, is actually an absence of choke.

 

I have always agree with this idea as well. Where I think I disagree is in the existence of many chokers at the major league level.

[Bellhorn04]

Other non-repeatable skills:

 

Winning close games

BABIP for both pitchers and hitters

Timely hitting

Clustering hits together

 

So non-repeatable skill is basically another way of saying good luck.

[moonslav59]

So non-repeatable skill is basically another way of saying good luck.

 

Repeating good luck is unsustainable.

[Bellhorn04]

Repeating good luck is unsustainable.

 

Now that is for sure. Unless you're Gladstone Gander.

[Kimmi]

So non-repeatable skill is basically another way of saying good luck.

 

Yes, more or less. Or bad luck. Randomness.

[iortiz]

I agree that some people can handle pressure better than others. I think that's what makes them better players all the time, not just clutch situations.

 

Sure, but I’m not disputing that.

 

Thing is that some good players for some reason do not perform well or as expected in high leverage situations like Kershaw in POs.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

I have always agree with this idea as well. Where I think I disagree is in the existence of many chokers at the major league level.

 

You may like this: after reading all these posts, I'm starting to change my mind; maybe players who perform below level in pressure situations are more apt to... exhibit somewhat of a pattern (neutral phrase?)... than the guys famous for exceeding the average (or their own average) level?

 

My rationale: fans and media, especially in the past 40 years of so of mass communication. What's more vivid and memorable from TV: some celebratory pile-up on the mound after the last out of the World Series (which we see every single year) or that one image of a poor skiier bouncing off a mountain slope in a broken heap as "THE AGONY OF DEFEAT"

 

Baseball is a game of failure, but when a player or team fails in an important game, and gets reminded of it over and over and over again, the pressures mount for them to fail again and again...

[moonslav59]

Sure, but I’m not disputing that.

 

Thing is that some good players for some reason do not perform well or as expected in high leverage situations like Kershaw in POs.

 

For some reason, players don't perform as expected for many time frames. They slump and they streak. We rarely know why.

 

We also don't know why some did or didn't in playoff situations. It could have just been a poorly placed slump or a lucky break streak. It could be choke or clutch, too. There is just no way to know for sure, and just because a few players have had numerous bad or good playoff stretches does not prove any reasons why they did.

[Kimmi]

Sure, but I’m not disputing that.

 

Thing is that some good players for some reason do not perform well or as expected in high leverage situations like Kershaw in POs.

 

I don't believe that Kershaw is a choker.

[Kimmi]

You may like this: after reading all these posts, I'm starting to change my mind; maybe players who perform below level in pressure situations are more apt to... exhibit somewhat of a pattern (neutral phrase?)... than the guys famous for exceeding the average (or their own average) level?

 

My rationale: fans and media, especially in the past 40 years of so of mass communication. What's more vivid and memorable from TV: some celebratory pile-up on the mound after the last out of the World Series (which we see every single year) or that one image of a poor skiier bouncing off a mountain slope in a broken heap as "THE AGONY OF DEFEAT"

 

Baseball is a game of failure, but when a player or team fails in an important game, and gets reminded of it over and over and over again, the pressures mount for them to fail again and again...

 

I'm not sure that I agree with this at the MLB level. I think that the players who have made it to the bigs have the mental toughness and composure to succeed at this level, including in high leverage situations. Yes, I have seen players have choking moments. All players do. I don't think there's enough consistency in any player's choke patterns to call him a choker.

[iortiz]

I don't believe that Kershaw is a choker.

 

I wouldn’t call him a chocker. I would call him mediocre.

 

Regarding POs, of course.

[moonslav59]

I wouldn’t call him a chocker. I would call him mediocre.

 

Regarding POs, of course.

 

But your whole point was that he was worse because it was the pressure of the playoffs and the impossibility it could be anything else, especially just random bad luck.

[notin]

I'm not sure that I agree with this at the MLB level. I think that the players who have made it to the bigs have the mental toughness and composure to succeed at this level, including in high leverage situations. Yes, I have seen players have choking moments. All players do. I don't think there's enough consistency in any player's choke patterns to call him a choker.

 

Agreed.

 

I would think the ability to handle higher pressure situations is one of the requirements for actually making MLB. There are plenty of players out there with sufficient baseball skills who, in the face of pressure, go to pieces faster than fine crystal in the hands of a UPS driver. And we have a name for these players - career minor leaguers…