The Color of Clutch

[bucksfan2]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

I'd say the take home is "clutch exists but we have not yet been able to harness it with a stat."

This is a frustrating reality for some folks intent on proving everything with numbers. Not everything can be reduced to stats and this is one of them. Further complicating this is that there are clutch batters and clutch pitchers. In fact you'll find fierce competitors at the top of every sport.

This sums up my way of thinking as well.

If you have ever played or watched a sport you can see that clutch exists. Any game that involves humans is going to have players who succeed under pressure and players who don't. The problem with analyzing baseball is there no good number to put on clutch and you can't pick and choose who is up during clutch situations.

[Highlifeman21]

So what do we call guys that are rather pedestrian during the majority of their PAs yet somehow elevate their game during "clutch" situations?

Do they completely skew this discussion, or do they personify the argument?

[bucksfan2]

Originally Posted by Highlifeman21

So what do we call guys that are rather pedestrian during the majority of their PAs yet somehow elevate their game during "clutch" situations?

Do they completely skew this discussion, or do they personify the argument?

Robert Horry

[redsbuckeye]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

I'd say the take home is "clutch exists but we have not yet been able to harness it with a stat."

This is a frustrating reality for some folks intent on proving everything with numbers. Not everything can be reduced to stats and this is one of them. Further complicating this is that there are clutch batters and clutch pitchers. In fact you'll find fierce competitors at the top of every sport.

I would contend that if anything exists in this universe then it is in some way quantifiable. Doesn't mean we necessarily know how to do that just yet, but the possibility or eventual probability is there. If it isn't quantifiable then I don't know how we can have any reliable knowledge of it.

[nate]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

I'd say the take home is "clutch exists but we have not yet been able to harness it with a stat."

This is a frustrating reality for some folks intent on proving everything with numbers. Not everything can be reduced to stats and this is one of them. Further complicating this is that there are clutch batters and clutch pitchers. In fact you'll find fierce competitors at the top of every sport.

It's not frustrated because there aren't any people here intent on proving everything with numbers.

I think you'll find fierce competitors at the top, middle and bottom of every professional sport.

[Highlifeman21]

Originally Posted by bucksfan2

Robert Horry

Excellent big shot Rob reference.

[Highlifeman21]

Originally Posted by redsbuckeye

I would contend that if anything exists in this universe then it is in some way quantifiable. Doesn't mean we necessarily know how to do that just yet, but the possibility or eventual probability is there. If it isn't quantifiable then I don't know how we can have any reliable knowledge of it.

It's pretty much intro Philosophy. Theories, Knowledge, Reality.

You can never prove that you "know" something. You can "know" something, but you can't "know" that you "know" that something.

Hierarchy of Knowledge, I believe it's called.

The movie "Total Recall" is an excellent example of the whole concept of a brain in a vat. How do we know anything is real? How do we know that we know anything?

You're absolutely right that the Universe is nothing but the ongoing discovery of ways to quantify things, and you're also right that we haven't yet been able to quantify "clutch".

... but eventually, we will.

[bucksfan2]

Originally Posted by Highlifeman21

Excellent big shot Rob reference.

He is the type of player that proves to me clutch is very real. The guy can only play a handful of minutes in a game but when he comes in during the crunch time you have to know where he is. You have to defend around him because he always ends up with the ball in his hands for a big shot.

Clutch just doesn't exist at the plate, it also exists in the field. It may not be turning plays into outs, but prevent extra bases. Knocking balls down that would prevent a run. Throwing to the right base or hitting the cut off man to prevent a run or prevent a runner from advancing. Maybe the most fundamental players will look clutch when they continue to play fundamental baseball even when the pressure is uped.

[redsbuckeye]

Originally Posted by bucksfan2

Clutch just doesn't exist at the plate, it also exists in the field. It may not be turning plays into outs, but prevent extra bases. Knocking balls down that would prevent a run. Throwing to the right base or hitting the cut off man to prevent a run or prevent a runner from advancing. Maybe the most fundamental players will look clutch when they continue to play fundamental baseball even when the pressure is uped.

Bill Buckner is putting a hex on you right this moment.

[nate]

Originally Posted by Highlifeman21

So what do we call guys that are rather pedestrian during the majority of their PAs yet somehow elevate their game during "clutch" situations?

Fortunate to find their "good" spurts occurring in an important game?

Do they completely skew this discussion, or do they personify the argument?

Well, professional sports are series of up, down and nominal performance on micro and macro scales. That a poor to middling player's "up" performance coincides with a crucial situation doesn't make him "clutch" anymore than a great player's "down" performance in a similar situation. If you have a big game on the line, do you want ARod, a great hitter throughout his career, at the plate or Billy Hatcher, who hit .750 in a dozen or so ABs during the World Series?

[Highlifeman21]

Originally Posted by nate

Fortunate to find their "good" spurts occurring in an important game?



Well, professional sports are series of up, down and nominal performance on micro and macro scales. That a poor to middling player's "up" performance coincides with a crucial situation doesn't make him "clutch" anymore than a great player's "down" performance in a similar situation. If you have a big game on the line, do you want ARod, a great hitter throughout his career, at the plate or Billy Hatcher, who hit .750 in a dozen or so ABs during the World Series?

Yankees fans would probably pick Billy Hatcher.

Me? I want the guy who's put up the best numbers with the biggest sample size.

[marcshoe]

Originally Posted by redsbuckeye

I would contend that if anything exists in this universe then it is in some way quantifiable.

Do you have numbers to prove that? :


(btw, some people perform better than others under pressure. That has been proven outside of sports; it's just that no one has figured out how to prove it using the matrix of baseball statistics. I don't buy the idea that I've seen put forth that by the time players reach the majors, everyone's pretty much even in this area simply because it doesn't flow that performance under pressure equals overall ability.

One possible reason that this hasn't been quantified yet is that what amounts to a pressure situation can vary widely from person to person. Of course that reasoning can be circular, since those who are more "clutch" are likely to have a smaller range of situations in which they feel pressure.)

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by redsbuckeye

I would contend that if anything exists in this universe then it is in some way quantifiable. Doesn't mean we necessarily know how to do that just yet, but the possibility or eventual probability is there. If it isn't quantifiable then I don't know how we can have any reliable knowledge of it.

I disagree. The world is more complex than that but I understand where you are coming from. There are people out there that are very black and white and if they can't "quantify" something, it doesn't exist. People who think like you do have tried to prove human souls exist by weighing dying human beings to see if their weight changes shortly after their last breathe. If it does then that shows the existence of a soul leaving the body.

Back to sports, there are a lot of things that difficult if not impossible to quantify such as the play of interior linemen on a football team. In baseball we first have to define clutch before we can attempt to quantify it.

[marcshoe]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

I disagree. The world is more complex than that but I understand where you are coming from. There are people out there that are very black and white and if they can't "quantify" something, it doesn't exist. People who think like you do have tried to prove human souls exist by weighing dying human beings to see if their weight changes shortly after their last breathe. If it does then that shows the existence of a soul leaving the body.

Well, if you're going to bring the feather of Maat into it....

(Sorry. I'm teaching Egyptian mythology now, and these references just pop out.)

[bucksfan2]

Originally Posted by redsbuckeye

I would contend that if anything exists in this universe then it is in some way quantifiable. Doesn't mean we necessarily know how to do that just yet, but the possibility or eventual probability is there. If it isn't quantifiable then I don't know how we can have any reliable knowledge of it.

Ok. IMO baseball is such a stat heavy sport that it is difficult when something isn't quantifiable. Why a umpire calls a boarder line pitch a strike one time and then a ball the next. Whether said umpire determines a curve clips the outside corner or not. On Jeter's most famous play why was he there, and why didn't Gimabi slide? There are too many things that are unquantifiable in the area of sports.