Turn Off Ads?
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 38

Thread: Art of clutch hitting: Or wait, I think that dead horse just moved

  1. #16
    Passion for the game Team Clark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Posts
    8,104

    Re: Art of clutch hitting: Or wait, I think that dead horse just moved

    Quote Originally Posted by RANDY IN CHAR NC View Post
    A lot of people live there.
    I would venture the numbers are in the eeeooonnnss!
    It's absolutely pathetic that people can't have an opinion from actually watching games and supplementing that with stats. If you voice an opinion that doesn't fit into a black/white box you will get completely misrepresented and basically called a tobacco chewing traditionalist...
    Cedric 3/24/08

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #17
    Vavasor TRF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Amarillo, TX
    Posts
    13,773

    Re: Art of clutch hitting: Or wait, I think that dead horse just moved

    Quote Originally Posted by westofyou View Post
    Baseball is hard, myths live on about just about everything in the game

    Like Tony Perez, Clutch hitter

    .279 .341 .463 - Career
    .284 .364 .469 - Career RISP
    .273 .280 .318 - Playoffs RISP
    .179 .226 .393 - World Series RISP
    People point to career numbers and say a guy isn't a clutch hitter. I'm not defending Perez here, just saying that perhaps before decrying the existance of a clutch hitter, can someone prove to me clutch PITCHING does not exist?
    Suck it up cupcake.

  4. #18
    Member GullyFoyle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    492

    Re: Art of clutch hitting: Or wait, I think that dead horse just moved

    If a clutch pitcher goes against a clutch hitter does anybody notice anything different?

  5. #19
    Churlish Johnny Footstool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Olathe, KS
    Posts
    13,821

    Re: Art of clutch hitting: Or wait, I think that dead horse just moved

    Quote Originally Posted by TRF View Post
    People point to career numbers and say a guy isn't a clutch hitter. I'm not defending Perez here, just saying that perhaps before decrying the existance of a clutch hitter, can someone prove to me clutch PITCHING does not exist?
    I think it's very likely that some pitchers perform better in close situations than they do in blowouts, simply because pitching requires more effort and is more of a strain on your body. It makes perfect sense for a pitcher to give 85% effort when his team has a comfortable lead and save his maximum effort for those moments when the game it on the line.

    I just don't see how a hitter could do that. What, is he going to let a 90 mph fastball sail down the middle of the plate because it's only the third inning?
    "I prefer books and movies where the conflict isn't of the extreme cannibal apocalypse variety I guess." Redsfaithful

  6. #20
    Man Pills
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    25,060

    Re: Art of clutch hitting: Or wait, I think that dead horse just moved

    I prefer much hitting to clutch hitting. (TM)


  7. #21
    Matt's Dad RANDY IN INDY's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Brownsburg, Indiana
    Posts
    15,268

    Re: Art of clutch hitting: Or wait, I think that dead horse just moved

    Quote Originally Posted by Team Clark View Post
    I would venture the numbers are in the eeeooonnnss!
    Glad you picked up on that.
    Talent is God Given: be humble.
    Fame is man given: be thankful.
    Conceit is self given: be careful.

    John Wooden

  8. #22
    Mon chou Choo vaticanplum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    7,248

    Re: Art of clutch hitting: Or wait, I think that dead horse just moved

    I believe that clutch hitting exists. Some people wilt under pressure and some people have a knack for standing up to it. That's true in baseball as much as in any walk of life.

    I put two major caveats on this:
    1. The idea of "clutch" is grossly overplayed in the media, although that's the case with a number of things that are played up to have more worth than they do. For whatever reason, the powers-that-be have decided that this is a good story. I think it is a good story too, for maybe five or six games a year. Talk about it and revisit it one week in October. Fine. Don't talk about it all year long, because then you stretch the definition of clutch to wrap around a player's entire career, which, you know, goes against the whole definition of clutch.

    The media also has a tendency to use misleading players as an example of clutch. Jeter and A-Rod's career postseason stats are a lot closer than most people believe. Again, this is for the sake of a story. That's the stupid media's fault. But the fact that the media plays the idea up foolishly and misleadingly doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

    2. The other major caveat regarding clutch is that while I believe in it, I don't see how it can really affect how anyone runs a team. Certainly it shouldn't play a role in the players you obtain if you're a gM, because players have to play 162 games for you before they play 3+ more (see above re: clutch definition. Although I guess "clutch" can apply to late-game heroics too, but I don't think that's what most people talk about there except maybe regarding Ortiz). It shouldn't affect the way you treat players as a manager. Maybe, maybe, once in a blue moon, it affects a late-game managerial decision. Fine. That's instinct, managers use it all the time. Good managers, in fact, use it very well.

    So I don't think that clutch should play much role in the way the the game is actually played -- and honestly, I doubt it is; I think it's a media tool more than anything else. But I don't think it's a myth. I don't discount the power of adrenalin and focus and -- say it with me -- intangibles. I'd be curious to know who the truly "clutch" players are in terms of lifetime numbers. But I can accept that Reggie Jackson is clutch, that David Ortiz is clutch, even if their high-pressure numbers aren't significantly different than their normal ones, because they performed very well in notably high-pressure situations rather than falling to it. I guess what I mean is that clutch is to me a more case-by-case thing than a comparison to lifetime numbers. Does that make sense?
    There is no such thing as a pitching prospect.

  9. #23
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    796

    Re: Art of clutch hitting: Or wait, I think that dead horse just moved

    Quote Originally Posted by RedsManRick View Post
    Gotta love the instinct for humans to find patterns where random chance is at work.
    The answer of whether or not clutch hitting exists is, "it depends." (Just like so many other questions in life.) It depends on how you study the issue and how you define "clutch."

    Andy Dolphin has found that "clutch hitters" do exist here in a study that may put you to sleep before you actually reach the conclusion:

    www.dolphinsim.com/ratings/notes/clutch.html

    Bill James acknowledges his agnosticism, but gives life to the issue and suggests more study is needed:

    http://www.sabr.org/cmsfiles/underestimating.pdf

    So before you dismissively wave away the issue, I recommend taking Bill James' words to heart -- the absence of proof is not proof. Instead, I recommend a serious analysis of the issues. Cyril Morong's web page devoted to nothing but clutch hitters:

    http://www.geocities.com/cyrilmorong...utchLinks2.htm

  10. #24
    One Man Army
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    440

    Re: Art of clutch hitting: Or wait, I think that dead horse just moved

    Let's dig up an old post of mine on another forum...

    Ever notice that clutch players are already really good?

    Seriously, every single person advanced in this thread as being "clutch" are already among the best athletes today. David Ortiz is one of the most feared hitters in baseball, whether it's the first or ninth inning. Derek Jeter is going to be a first ballot Hall of Famer. Joe Montana was one of the greatest QBs of all time. The list goes on and on. You never hear about some fragile and weak RB suddenly becoming an explosive and feared runner in close and late games. You never hear about scrappy defensive shortstops who hit .220 on the season having a long and established career average of .400 with RISP.

    Everyone who plays professional sports today are already among the top athletes in the world for the very fact that they made it far enough to play professionally. That tends to weed out a ton of the headcases who collapse under pressure. Guys like that don't tend to last in sports; they instead drop out of it before even sniffing the pros.

    I think people view clutch in a way that's erroneous in four ways.

    1) It is wrong to think that clutch players are people who are able to go above and beyond their performance potential. While athletes are pretty much at the top of the food chain when it comes to speed, strength, and so on, even they have their limits. If these people actually existed, you would see judy hitting shortstops hitting game-winning home runs on a regular basis. Rather, we have to remember that these guys are already talented.

    However, there is something that does not go against this line of thinking that I am willing to believe in. While someone might not be able to go above and beyond their performance boundaries, they are able to maintain those levels or even drop well below those levels. If you made Mariano Rivera a 7th/8th inning setup man, he still would be one of the best relief pitchers in baseball. He is able to carry his talent and performance into pressure situations into the ninth inning. Adam Vinatieri has a 82.5% success rate as a kicker; he is able to bring that success into close and late situations.

    On another level, some players will delve below their performance levels in pressure situations. Who these players are is up for debate (more on this in a second), but I think we can all agree that this is true for certain people.

    2) Fans and observers are strangely finicky. We have selective memories. The media is happy to play on these notions, as people will happily gobble them up. We remember David Ortiz hitting big game-winning home runs. We remember Jeter legging out an infield hit to start a big comeback rally. We remember Adam Vinatieri hitting Super Bowl-winning field goals.

    However, people tend not to remember the failures of certain people. If David Ortiz strikes out with two men on base in the bottom of the ninth inning during a game, people will forget about it the next day. The same goes for when Jeter strikes out in a similar situation. Nobody remembers Joe Montana's interceptions in close and late games.

    Conversely, people will be all over certain players in similar situations. If A-Rod struck out in that situation, he'd be crucified the next day in the NY Post, with Mike Celzic spewing out approximately twenty articles a day talking about how un-clutch A-Rod is. Prior to his winning the Super Bowl, Peyton Manning throwing an interception in the 4th quarter of a close game would see him strung up by the various talking heads.

    However, on a similar and really weird note (because of reputation or whatever, I do not know), we treat them differently when they succeed in these situations. If the Yankees are down 5-1 and A-Rod hits a two run double which helps lead the Yankees to a 6-5 comeback, it'll go unnoticed. When Peyton Manning would lead the charge on any game when the Colts rallied back after being down, nobody would bat an eye. People either ignore these facts or they write them off as mere flukes.

    In this case, clutch is all about perception.

    3) The biggest problem with clutch moments is that we only have small (albeit memorable) sample sizes to go by. There is a lot of difficulty in attempting to quantify clutch simply because these instances are few and far between. Maybe 8-10 games for an NFL player or 30-50 ABs might seem like a lot, these really are inadequate numbers to create an accurate model to put a label on "clutch" which is more than just an arbitrary designation placed on a player. Perhaps it seems like a guy always gets big hits when they are needed. The problem lies in the word "seems". We could be making a completely unfounded judgment on a player based on our own memories and perceptions, which are subject to all sorts of flaws.

    We have no set definition for what is clutch or who is clutch. There are no bright lines marking off the boundaries between those who are and those who are not. Is a guy clutch because he gets big hits when it matters? Is he clutch because he always gets hits when his team has runners in scoring position? Is he clutch because he somehow always manages to make a three point shot within the waning moments of a game?

    All of the statistical evidence that has been compiled so far is inconsistent at best. I will happily grant that it's stupid to assume something does not exist because we lack hard statistical evidence for or against its existence, but I will equally grant that it is stupid to say something exists despite the fact that we have no statistical evidence to back up that assertion. If you want to prove something actually exists, you need more than opinions.

    4) I think this point is the most overlooked point when it comes to the assertions of being clutch. Sports are about much, much more than just single teams and individuals. I think that people focus way too much on a single person in certain situations in this debate, to their detriment.

    Sports involve teammates and the other teams! Context is absolutely critical to making these assertions. Maybe Derek Jeter got a game-winning single in a given game, but the guy he got it off of was a pitcher with a 7.23 ERA and the first baseman was sorely out of position to field the ball cleanly. Maybe Tom Brady led the Patriots to a big comeback victory on the road, but it was against the Texans and their anemic defense. Adam Vinatieri could have nailed a game-winning field goal, but the rest of the Colts could have stunk up the joint for most of the game and nearly blew the game on their own. A-Rod may have struck out in the bottom of the ninth of a 4-3 game with two runners on base, but he drove in two of those runs with a double much earlier in the game. Michael Jordan might have hit the game-winning shot, but his coach drew up the perfect play which the rest of the team executed flawlessly.

    You absolutely, positively cannot look at these players in a bubble. A guy might get the "clutch" label for hitting five game-winning HRs in a season, but he only did so when he faced terrible pitchers. A guy like Peyton Manning might get a bunch of the blame for his team's playoff woes, but lost amidst the criticism was the fact that his running game was ineffective at best, the defense played piss-poor, and the coaching staff refused to adjust throughout the course of the game.

    If you want my honest opinion, I think clutch exists at some level, but I also think people overrate it to an insane degree. I'm happy to admit luck exists, too. The two are not mutually exclusive.

  11. #25
    Vavasor TRF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Amarillo, TX
    Posts
    13,773

    Re: Art of clutch hitting: Or wait, I think that dead horse just moved

    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny Footstool View Post
    I think it's very likely that some pitchers perform better in close situations than they do in blowouts, simply because pitching requires more effort and is more of a strain on your body. It makes perfect sense for a pitcher to give 85% effort when his team has a comfortable lead and save his maximum effort for those moments when the game it on the line.

    I just don't see how a hitter could do that. What, is he going to let a 90 mph fastball sail down the middle of the plate because it's only the third inning?
    no, but don't you think his concentration might increase a tad if it were two outs, runners on 2nd and 3rd, his team down by 1 in the bottom of the 9th.

    Of course it would. doesn't mean he'll perform though.
    Suck it up cupcake.

  12. #26
    Member 15fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    5,518

    Re: Art of clutch hitting: Or wait, I think that dead horse just moved

    Quote Originally Posted by TRF View Post
    can someone prove to me clutch PITCHING does not exist?
    Clutch pitching?

    See: Rivera, Mariano

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/riverma01.shtml

    As good as he is in the regular season, he's arguably the most clutch pitcher in post-season history.

    112 & 2/3 IP in the post-season, with a 0.80 ERA.

    As a point of reference, his career ERA entering the 2007 season is 2.29 in 881 & 2/3 innings.

  13. #27
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    796

    Re: Art of clutch hitting: Or wait, I think that dead horse just moved

    Outshined:

    If you read Andy Dolphin's article, he states that singles hitters and middle infielders are generally the best "clutch hitters," not necessarily "the best athletes," much to everyone's surprise. I recommend reading it. (or at least skip to the conclusion and read it)

    As to your point that "people overrate it to an insane degree," I counter that there is a whole market devoted to dispelling anything having to do with clutch hitters. So there are clearly people who underrate it to an insane degree. How many BP articles include the phrase, "there is no such thing as a clutch hitter"?? There must be thousands by now. How many articles has Neyer written on this subject???? It's boilerplate material at this point. And there is little substance in any of this material. Hence my comment, "the lack of proof is not proof."

    And frankly, I hold BP and Neyer to a higher standard because they are supposed to be the guys who carry the torch of using knowledge to improve the game. Rather, I see them writing material that supports their own biases, not engaging in quests for the truth.

    Andy Dolphin published his article three years ago, and there has been little more than a murmur in these communities about this issue. The silence is deafening.

  14. #28
    Member Ron Madden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,815

    Re: Art of clutch hitting: Or wait, I think that dead horse just moved

    Quote Originally Posted by gonelong View Post
    If you have sports media covering the event, there has to be a REASON for everything.

    The players practiced too much this week and lost - they were on tired legs. They players practiced too lightly this week and lost - they were a bit rusty/not sharp.

    I think the problem with clutch is that the media wants you to think the players are "elevating their game" when what they are truely doing is maintaining their games under pressure better than the rest of the players. Thats a kind of clutch I'll believe in.

    GL

  15. #29
    Matt's Dad RANDY IN INDY's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Brownsburg, Indiana
    Posts
    15,268

    Re: Art of clutch hitting: Or wait, I think that dead horse just moved

    Quote Originally Posted by vaticanplum View Post
    I believe that clutch hitting exists. Some people wilt under pressure and some people have a knack for standing up to it. That's true in baseball as much as in any walk of life.

    I put two major caveats on this:
    1. The idea of "clutch" is grossly overplayed in the media, although that's the case with a number of things that are played up to have more worth than they do. For whatever reason, the powers-that-be have decided that this is a good story. I think it is a good story too, for maybe five or six games a year. Talk about it and revisit it one week in October. Fine. Don't talk about it all year long, because then you stretch the definition of clutch to wrap around a player's entire career, which, you know, goes against the whole definition of clutch.

    The media also has a tendency to use misleading players as an example of clutch. Jeter and A-Rod's career postseason stats are a lot closer than most people believe. Again, this is for the sake of a story. That's the stupid media's fault. But the fact that the media plays the idea up foolishly and misleadingly doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

    2. The other major caveat regarding clutch is that while I believe in it, I don't see how it can really affect how anyone runs a team. Certainly it shouldn't play a role in the players you obtain if you're a gM, because players have to play 162 games for you before they play 3+ more (see above re: clutch definition. Although I guess "clutch" can apply to late-game heroics too, but I don't think that's what most people talk about there except maybe regarding Ortiz). It shouldn't affect the way you treat players as a manager. Maybe, maybe, once in a blue moon, it affects a late-game managerial decision. Fine. That's instinct, managers use it all the time. Good managers, in fact, use it very well.

    So I don't think that clutch should play much role in the way the the game is actually played -- and honestly, I doubt it is; I think it's a media tool more than anything else. But I don't think it's a myth. I don't discount the power of adrenalin and focus and -- say it with me -- intangibles. I'd be curious to know who the truly "clutch" players are in terms of lifetime numbers. But I can accept that Reggie Jackson is clutch, that David Ortiz is clutch, even if their high-pressure numbers aren't significantly different than their normal ones, because they performed very well in notably high-pressure situations rather than falling to it. I guess what I mean is that clutch is to me a more case-by-case thing than a comparison to lifetime numbers. Does that make sense?
    Talent is God Given: be humble.
    Fame is man given: be thankful.
    Conceit is self given: be careful.

    John Wooden

  16. #30
    Member klw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    6,541

    Re: Art of clutch hitting: Or wait, I think that dead horse just moved

    Living in the land of David Ortiz, I am a firm believer in clutch hitting but see the biggest problem is in how to define it. For instance those who look at career playoff average as an indication may be looking at a incorrect definintion. For instance, if the player gets their average up with hits when the game is lopsided they are not clutch. If a hit comes with two outs in the 2nd and nothing comes of it- not clutch. If it comes with their team up 3-0 in games and by 5 runs in the game, not clutch. Or if someone goes 1 for 5 but that one comes in a close game in the 8th with runners on, you got yourself a full bottle of clutch. ex. hits in 76 series game 4 are a little less clutch than in game 4 of the 75 series.


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25