notin

So did anyone do any fantasy drafts or auctions before everything shut down?

If you like more proof about these biases being at play, you leap to Jeter as the prime example of post-season clutch heroics. His numbers are actually worse than Bernie Williams in the post-season. If the post-season is part of the definition of clutch, why not Bernie? The answer is simple. Memorable hits. Bernie did not homer into Jeffrey Maier's hands. Jeter did. Memorable play. Controversial play. Why isn't Williams' walk off home run in Game 1 of that series as memorable? Less clutch? Less important? Or just because it lacked the controversy?

The plate appearances really just reflect Jeter was on better teams. The reality is both were basically equal in the situations you posted. While Jeter is a "slight edge" in all categories, it's really a negligible one. His .009 advatange in OBP, for example, reflects a difference of 9 more times on base for 1,000 plate appearances. Jeter did have more nationally televised moments, and we all saw more of his successes. But the history indicates he was rally no better than A-Rod in these clutch situations...

And any other time. I just think of him as a great all around hitter no matter what...

A lot of that is the proportionality bias. In late and close situations, Jeter's career OPS is actually .776 and his OPS in High Leverage is .809. A-Rod's career OPS in late and close situations is .869 and his OPS in high leverage is .952. A-Rod was actually the more clutch hitter in these situations over his career. But Jeter played in a lot more World Series and had a lot more memorable moments, so he gets the reputation despite actually being a lesser performer...

I believe that was the entire point of the "no clutch players" argument. Is a player "clutch" if he performs the same in big spots as he does in non-big spots? Ortiz is always the prime example. He had a lot of clutch hits, but was that because he excelled in the clutch (a phrase I never made up) or because he was a flat out great hitter?

Like most things clutch, we tend to attach cogntive biases to our observations. We cannot help it. One of the biggest ones is the proportionality bias, where we attach greater significance to greater outcomes. For example, the Kennedy Assassination was such a big event, it became a frame of reference. Everyone knew exactly where they were when Kennedy was shot, or when they heard about it (assuming, unlike me, you were alive then). Try that with the Reagan assassination attempt. Who remembers the date (or even the year) or where Reagan was? Not nearly as many, and it was never the point of reference. Why the difference? Reagan lived. Not a significant of an evet, so therefore not as big a deal to us personally. Apply this to baseball. Dave Roberts' steal is a great example of proportionality bias. We have all attached massive significance to this, but very few remember Kevin Millar working the walk in the first place, and those who do certainly do not attach the same significance. Why? Probably because Millar was taken out of the game. Out of sight, out of mind. We remember Bill Mueller driving in Roberts. Big play. We remember Ortiz' walk off home run. Big, big, big play. But do you remember Ortiz popping out to 2b with the bases loaded and 2 out in the ninth inning of that same game? Why not? Wasn't that another "clutch" opportunity? With Barnes, we remember the blown saves. We remember the bad innings. But his numbers in the ninth inning are actually about the same as any other inning. In fact, his K/BB is actually greater in the ninth inning that any other over his career except the fourth inning, which he has only pitched 5 times...

There is a difference between a clutch player and a clutch moment. No one has ever denied clutch moments exist. But do clutch players exist? Players who excel beyond their normal abilities in clutch moments? That is the debate.

I don't think that is a fair statement. While some, many, and possibly even most do you cannot be sure about all of them. Don't forget, many of the people who write these articles everyone decries as being "not from players" are actually former players...

I believe the Backfire Effect is mostly something that occurs in person-to-person debates/arguments/conflicts. It's hard to take the personal offense from a written text, and a book can be closed and put down. Not always true with a conflicting opinion or theory.

When you're hitting, that's exactly what baseball is. 1 on 1 in front of a large drove of spectators. Unless you're on the Marlins. Then the last part does not apply...

If you went to Vegas in the early 2000's, you know who this guy is. https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.fcgi?id=gans--001dan Again, no idea he played minor league baseball...

The thing is, it is sooooooo difficult to convince anyone about anything that differs from their deeply-held beliefs. This is because of a cognitive bias known as the Backfire Effect (which I think I have discussed on another thread). Basically, most people view having their beliefs challenged as a personal attack (and yes, it actually stimulates the same parts of the brain as does a personal attack), and if you tell them or even PROVE them wrong, most people only dig into their beliefs even deeper and take personal offense. People cannot help this type of reaction. It's how our brains are wired. Doubt me? Read the corona virus thread...

For someone who gave up on this topic, you sure do chime in a lot

Was this message directed at me or Donald Trump?

Is there an emoji that just says “ooooookaaaaay” while slowly backing away?

Kaline would have beaten Yastrzemski to becoming the first American Leaguer with 3,000 hits and 400 home runs. But he just decided to retire with 399 dingers...

When I was a kid, maybe 7 or 8, I told my mom my batteries had a baseball player’s name. She thought I was referring to some “Ray O’Vac” guy before I pointed out the “Alkaline” label on them. (For those of you 40+ folks who remember Ray-O-Vac batteries.)

I think the biggest problem with the clutch/no clutch argument is both sides are answering different questions. That names like Frank Tobinson, Reggie Jackson, etc. even come into it is not what my understanding of it was at all. But the whole Potter Stewart counterargument was just a method of failing to define it in the first place...

He’s not. Also my wife didn’t recognize him from 350 feet away. You’re not the test here...

Well then even if we don’t bring back Mookie, we should send the Dodgers a Thank You note...

How are you defining clutch here? Reggie has an .885 OPS in 318 postseason plate appearances spending 16 seasons. ARod has an .822 OPS in 330 postseason plate appearances spanning 17 seasons. Not a big difference in that respect. And really, you’re picking Hall of Famers. The clutch hitter argument was that there were no players who “excelled in clutch situations” compared to their non-clutch plate appearances. A guy with a .900 OPS in clutch appearances and a .910 OPS in non-clutch ones does come through in the clutch, but he isn’t dispelling the myth. He’s just awesome. Find me the average hitter who comes through repeatedly in the clutch “above and beyond” his normal abilities. And it’s probably not a guy in the Hall of Fame. More like someone like Pat Tabler, who is the closest I have ever found to doing this..,

Me too. The main argument against him is his post-season track record. But it's 330 plate appearances spread out over 17 years. And he had some very good post-season series. Because, rankly, he was just flat out good...

I'm picking him first in my fantasy league...

I think most people knew about this guy https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.fcgi?id=russel001kur