Isn't it just the opposite side of the same coin? So when a guy who constantly insists that "clutch" doesn't exist suddenly suggests a team is "choking" or "pressing" or whatever, it has to be a major WYC, doesn't it?

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

Wrong section.

The B&B Section is up a ways.

_________________

Not exactly, but its close.

The idea that clutch doesnt exist is the ridiculous and a good example of why numbers miss some things.

The idea that "clutch" doesn't exist is supported by the fact that there is little evidence of any players who perform significantly better in what we might call "high pressure" situations than they do overall. Of course, we need to define what a "high pressure" situation is. But that being the case, there couldn't possibly be any evidence to support the idea that players perform worse in those same situations. If it appears that way, it is the result of the observer using a sample much too small or- and most likely- simply being wrong.

Players are human beings. Naturally, some of them are going to respond to pressure better than others. But the results of their responses in a game like baseball where randomness and luck play such large parts may not really illustrate the superiority of said responses. I'm pretty sure if you give me a guy you believe is "clutch", it won't take me very long to make a good argument against your belief.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

Instead of saying "clutch doesnt exist"

Its more realisitc to say Advanced Stats don't tell us a lot about who is "clutch"

Maybe. But the advanced stats do show us the results in more different ways than we really need. (I don't find it a revelation that some guy decided to add SLG and OBP together. I didn't really need that to know how great Mickey Mantle was.) And if the results aren't clearly illustrating the guys who are "clutch" as opposed to the guys who aren't, upon what exactly are we basing our beliefs?

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

Some good stuff here.

Wouldn't some of this depend on the fact that "clutch" has to do with individual players, whereas "choking" has to do with the entire team?

_________________
"He is a loathsome, offensive brute
--yet I can't look away."

Numbers, eye test, and common sense.


The definition of "clutch" is the problem. Its not always 2 on, 2 out, down by 2 in the 9th.

I guess, but the idea that 25-40 guys would all play bad at once based on "pressure" seems even more ridiculous. No matter how many times Hawk repeats it, there is no such "syndrome."

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

Let me use an anecdotal example from this past weekend. In what was obviously a big situation in the game, Jake Peavy had two men on with two out and Mike Trout coming to bat. He decided he didn't want to face Trout and gave him a non-intentional intentional walk. The next batter was Torii Hunter. Peavy got him to hit the ball weakly on the ground. Unfortunately for the White Sox, he hit it right between the shortstop and the second baseman. So which guy was clutch- Peavy or Hunter?

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

Robert Horry

_________________
Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
To rock my soul

Trout

I don't think it's that they don't exist. To me, both exist, but most people base it less on reality and more on perception.

These are just vague examples, but in baseball, I can see exactly how batters perform with men in scoring position in the ninth inning of the game. In basketball, you can find shooting percentage in the last 3 minutes when the teams are within 5 points. Football you can find a QBs QBR in the last 5 minutes.


So you can find the stats, but it's what you deduce from the stats, I guess.


The real question is how you define clutch. Define it, and then we will see if there are stats to support it.

good points here. i think a lot is perception. but i think some stats would support that from the 7th inning on, or with runners in scoring position some guys are "clutch." they concentrate more and response at a higher level then their peers. everyone can name players of equal talent and you would choose one over the other. because you think one would response better. example. arod or albert?

It's narrative. Do yourself a favor and don't pay that much attention to it.

_________________
1926-1931-1934-1942-1944-1946-1964-1967-1982-2006-2011

Agree 100%.

Some of these derivative stats have dubious correlative value. That's not to say that an OPS of .900 isn't very good, but why should SLG and OBP be given equal weighting? (Other than making it easy to calculate.)

I think that's also why the QB passer ratings can be suspect. The rating is simply someone's opinion of how much credit/weighting should be given for TDs, picks, completion %, etc.

_________________