Kimmi

I think you have the wrong impression of what stat geeks are trying to do. Baseball stat geeks do not go into anything with the intent of proving 'their side'. They do all of their research in an attempt to answer questions and to better understand the game, not to prove that traditional thinking is wrong. They would be just as satisfied proving that clutch does exist. People have talked about the notion of clutch for a long time and have accepted it as a phenomenon that exists. Stat geeks want to see whether such a phenomenon indeed does exist by seeing if it can be quantified with any statistical significance. They are simply looking for answers. To date, they have not found an evidence that clutch exists. At the same time, they have fully acknowledged that they have not proven that it doesn't exist. They are not going to accept that clutch exists simply because people say that it does. At the same time, they are not going to accept that it doesn't exist when they haven't proven that it doesn't. And so, they will keep trying to find the answer. If clutch exists, it will be measurable through the player's performance.

IMO, it's the stupidest idea ever. Baseball is a beautiful game as it is. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I don't know what they think of psycho cybernetics specifically, but from everything I've read, the stat geeks have a great deal of respect for the mental and emotional side of the game. They do not dismiss the human element, contrary to what many people believe. I will have to look into it a little more, but for now, it's bedtime.

I agree with that statement. One of the things that makes Papi so good is that he is a smart hitter. My contention is that those types of players are great and smart players all the time though, not just in clutch moments.

Well, that would be like half the league.

And to your grandchildren, who are experiencing the tooth fairy, the tooth fairy is very real. But alas, it's all a mirage.

You know I'm right. Hence, the resorting to name calling.

No it is not. I'm not even talking about an entire outing though. A specific moment, like rushing a throw, or getting overanxious in an at bat.

Umm yes. Many, many people have experienced the tooth fairy.

Against stats in general? No. Against what the stat geeks are doing in terms of research on topics like clutch and against some of the advanced stats? Absolutely. You know what I'm talking about. Don't play semantics with me just to argue. And my point still stands, here and elsewhere.

Once again, I don't disagree. I still don't consider that choking. And I do think that major leaguers can have their choking moments. They are not overall chokers though.

I think that if you looked at the college level or high school level, you would see strong cases of choke that would be statistically significant.

1. You do not speak for all of Talksox. 2. My point still stands whether there are any here or not.

I don't deny the impact of psychological factors on a player's performance, but do you consider Lester's yips about throwing to first base as choking? With his postseason performance, he is certainly not someone I'd consider a choker. Can you be a partial choker, partial clutch player at the same time?

I do not disagree with this. However, the players who make it to the major league and stick have to be able to handle pressure very well in order to make it that far. There might be some slight variations in how well different players handle pressure, but if someone is a successful major league player, I think he has learned how to cope with the pressure pretty well.

Of course there is.

On a minor league contract, he's absolutely worth a look. At least Dombrowski is trying to add some depth.

Swihart has not been given a fair chance to succeed yet. He has been put into situations before he was ready, because of the needs of the team. In both cases, he did an admirable job considering the circumstances. I wouldn't sell him short just yet.

There are definitely choking moments, just as there are clutch moments. There are people who will fold under pressure or choke, but those people have been weeded out by the major league level.

Personally, I think there is a smugness in the anti-stat crowd. Nowhere did anyone say that the mental aspect of the game does not impact performance.

Nowhere did I ever make an assumption about you that was insulting and flat out wrong.

Ortiz is more likely than most players to come through in a big moment because he's a great hitter. His postseason numbers being better than his overall numbers is randomness, just like a player having worse numbers than average is randomness.

It's not about individual moves. Despite who Theo traded away, and he did give up a lot or Chapman, the Cubs are set up for the foreseeable future. Their future has not been jeopardized by whatever moves Theo made. The Red Sox put what should have been contending teams every year during Theo's reign, and that carried into Ben's reign.

Players also believe that good teams know how to win the 1 run games. Ha!

Of course players think that they or others are clutch. As Sheehan pointed out, it makes for a much nicer story than thinking that a player just got lucky. But let me be clear. It's not all luck. There is skill involved, but not skill at a level above what the player has had all season long.