Mephistopheles wrote:I guess a "clutch" player is one who plays to his abilities at all times, not really "performing better in the clutch"
Agreed.
Unless somebody can find me a guy who hits .250 in low pressure situations but .350 in close and late.
And don't go digging up some guy with 50 ABs.
The problem is defining clutch situation. A team that is up by 15 games in September is, in my opinion going to have far fewer "clutch" at bats than a team that is in a tight race.
I guess my definition of clutch is much narrower that what most of these studies show. I'd say that often the label of clutch is given to a performer in far less than the 50 ABs you mention. Guys that got it done in October are the ones that ultimately got labeled clutch hitters. They didn't get 1000 ABs to establish that. Part of what made it clutch. It was done in "now or never" situations.
Since it's topical, here's a link to enough clutch hitting research to make your eyes bleed, for anyone that cares. Some of it's probably pretty outdated, but there's some interesting stuff there nonetheless.
There is a huge difference between a clutch player and a clutch hit.
Wouldn't this argument best be solved if we noted that there are clutch situations, but not necessarily clutch players?
I don't think anyone would deny that clutch situations exist. Quick research defines "clutch" (in this context) as:
1. Being or occurring in a tense or critical situation: won the championship by sinking a clutch putt.
2. Tending to be successful in tense or critical situations: The coach relied on her clutch pitcher.
Ignoring the second definition (because it would simply rehash all the debate that has gone on to this point), a clutch situation occurs in a "tense or critical situation." While we may never be able to prove that Pujols, or any individual player, is "clutch," clutch (tense, critical) situations undoubtably exist. Then it all becomes about which players perform best in these situations.
"Tending to perform well in tense or critical situations" does not necessarily point to the "repeatable skill" that many have a problem with, but to a "tendency" to maintain one's already high performance level, and/or a tendency to do better than one's existing stats would predict or suggest.
It doesn't mean that the person can magically summon the ability when the situation arises -- just that they tend to do well.
That's not the insinuation from fans and media though. The implications from them are that it is a repeatable skill, i.e. something that the player has control over.
1. As I said (and obviously, something some of you don't believe, which is fine), there are things that exist that we are not yet able to quantify with a statistic. To think we have conquered our existence, and can explain everything that occurs is mighty presumptuous.
2. I, too, might believe that clutch exists when some players simply maintain their performance (and thus become clutch) while the rest wilt under pressure (and thus become un-clutch)...HOWEVER I DO NOT... that scenario does not explain my conversations with clutch players that I mention in my original post. When talking to them about situations they got big hits in--and I'm talking 2 out, game-on-the-line type hits--they speak of hitting only a part of the ball, and hitting it to certain parts of the field. Any "normal"situations would find these guys talking like mere mortals--getting a good pitch, and putting a good swing on it.
boyer14 wrote:1. As I said (and obviously, something some of you don't believe, which is fine), there are things that exist that we are not yet able to quantify with a statistic. To think we have conquered our existence, and can explain everything that occurs is mighty presumptuous.
haltz wrote:I'd always felt like the bigger the situation, the more I was able to focus at the plate. I never played professional baseball and you've (Mr. Boyer) seen and been around a lot more baseball than I have, but looking back on it, I was actually pretty pumped for every AB regardless and I'm not sure there was a real difference in being "locked in" for any particular situation. I was at my happiest hitting a baseball, and BP obviously didn't really fill the void the way an AB that would be recorded and matter did. I'm kind of an adrenaline-junky in the rest of my life as well; e.g., I'll write a better paper by waiting until the night before it's due. I don't know that I ever put a better swing on a fastball though, than I did in other situations because of the situation itself, even though I remember a few clutch instances from my past. Maybe I wasn't clutch.
I think that the mental aspect is incredibly important in baseball, but once you are talking about the best players in the world that most of those guys have achieved that next-level of consciousness already and the gap is too small to be measured (not according to Tom Tippett maybe, but I'd have to refresh my memory on that one) or to have much effect anyway. And frankly, if it can't be measured, I'm not going to take on blind faith that it affects the day-to-day of Major League Baseball just because it sounds romantic.
I think that clutch events happen all the time obviously, and especially at lower levels that anti-clutch is a very real thing. I have a hard time thinking that some guys can flip the switch only in "close and late" situations or whatever. If I had that switch, it would be flipped on and duct taped to the wall.
For me, every actual AB I got, and even playing on 4-5 teams some years, there really weren't that many that I was ever ho-hum about, considering that I was facing that guy 60 feet in front of me that was trying to strike me out, and it was basically my favorite thing to do. I wouldn't allow myself to take a different approach or to have a different mentality for some AB because they were all so important to me. If I'm able to slow things down, recognize spin and hit the part of the ball that I want to hit, I'm doing that every time.
I really did love being up there when I could win the game with one swing, and I never thought I was going to make an out regardless of the situation. That's just my take though, I can't speak to anyone's personal psychology other than my own.
This is my feelings almost to a tee. And I agree with Mephistopheles, there are more "chokers" than "clutch" players, and to some extent the chokers get weeded out.
As I said recently on another thread, I believe that there is a such thing as an ability to perform well under pressure.
However, I believe that nearly all major leaguers have this ability, and I believe that most have a very similar amount of it.
Therefore, the ability to perform well under pressure does not have a significant impact on performance in the major leagues; since nearly everyone has it, and since most have roughly the same amount of it, it affects most players to about the same degree. And because the differences are very small, they are there, BUT they typically are smaller than the amount of error in the measurements we would use to find them, and they typically are smaller than the amount of random variation.
Therefore it is impossible to meaningfully tell which successes were because of clutchitude, and which were the result of a nervous wreck sticking the bat out and getting lucky; likewise it is impossible to meaningfully tell which failures came from chocking, verses which came from someone totally zoned in, BUT getting beat (like every hitter does at least 55% of their times at bat).
It's out there, but it is too small to accurately measure, and it is so small it really does not explain very much variance in outcome anyhow.
I also related to Haltz' personal experience about every AB feeling kind've the same. My pro experience was pretty limited, but that was how I experienced it too -- every AB was a not-to-be-missed opportunity to succeed. At the upper levels of competition, every player was accustomed to being the best player within 100 miles of home, was used to success, and was confused by -- not down about -- not getting the big hit.
I completely understand Boyer's argument of "knowing it when he sees it" -- yes, I'm paraphrasing, I know he did not use those words, and I hope I did not mischaracterize his sentiments ("I just know, in my heart, there is a group of players that have been "different" for me down through the years"). I also completely understand his position that there is a real arrogance to assuming that something does not exist (or, in my case as above, assuming it does exist but that it does not matter) just because we can't devise a way to identify and measure it. I respect the opinion, and do not dispute it -- maybe it is arrogant, and it certainly is not the only valid opinion out there.
But personally, I'd suggest that there ALSO is a certain arrogance to assuming that even though it can't be measured, even though it can't be shown to make a difference in performance, some people know so much and see so clearly and understand the game so well and have such reliable inside information, that what they think they see is real, and what the numbers say is not.
Finally, a word about what players tell us.
The player was there. He knows what he was thinking, he knows how he felt. So these kinds of first hand statements do have some credibility.
But at the same time, the things players think about how and why stuff happens simply is not always accurate. We're talking about events that occur in less than half a second. Yes, absolutely, once in awhile a player will freeze, or a player will experience the whole world slowing down for him in a moment of crystal clarity. But generally speaking, all witnesses make lousy reporters and inaccurate historians.
In any given moment, Carlos Beltran might freeze and take a series-ending pitch he should have hammered. Did he freeze? Was that a choke? Maybe yes to one or both (or maybe he got beat that time, by the right, well-executed pitch). If he DID freeze, does it mean it will happen next time, when the stakes are similar or higher? Nope, not necessarily; random variation exists not only in ordinary performance, but in handling pressure, too. Handling it poorly so it affects the outcome once, does not mean we always or even usually will; and vice versa with handliong it well. Aaron Miles beat the Astros twice in one series with key 9th inning hits; was it random variation? Most likely. Was it because he was uncommonly focused? Maybe, I don't know for sure, but if so, it does not mean he will be similarly escalated under pressure the next time.
OK, there's my opinion on clutch. It's not the only opinion, I'm not even arguing that it is the right one. Just how *I* feel, and after all, the original post in this thread invited discussion.
Richie Allen wrote:If it didn't exist, I wouldn't be that interested in watching sports. For me, that's pretty close to the entire thrill I get out of watching athletes perform.
To some extent, I've often considered myself a clutch performer. Take me out on a practice round of golf and I'll rarely be really sharp. But come tournament time, for whatever reason, I always played my best. Especially when I "chopped" the day before and went into the round a little uneasy about my chances. The same held true, to varying extents, with baseball and basketball.
So having recognized a level of clutch play in myself, how could I possibly think that it doesn't exist on professional levels? I was a professional golfer for a few years and I know that it exists, possibly to a greater extent in that sport. But what could reasonably convince someone that it doesn't (and I suppose never will) exist in baseball.
Golf is so much different, I don't see how you can compare the two. Baseball is much more of a reaction, golfers ponder each shot.
Are there clutch blocks? We never hear of a clutch offensive guard, or a clutch linebacker, and we don't even really hear much about clutch pitchers, or clutch catches. Only hitters in baseball, because it's a nice storyline. Really, if it exists in baseball I really want to know why you never hear of a clutch curveball.
