GatewayRedbirds.com

Popeye_Card wrote:

jim wrote:

Izzyman wrote:

jim wrote:
Really, if it exists in baseball I really want to know why you never hear of a clutch curveball.

I thought Adam Wainwright threw apretty clutch curveball to Beltran.

I thought Beltran choked.

Can't it be both?

A non-clutch pitcher could have thrown a hanger there, and Beltran doesn't "choke"--he becomes a postseason god. Similar to Lidge hanging a slider to Pujols in 2005. If Lidge executes on that pitch, he's an Astro hero.

--P--

See, this is the problem with discussing clutch, I think. What if Wainwright throws the exact same pitch, and Beltran -- sitting on a curveball -- hits a rocket line drive to the gap and win the game?

Then what? Sure, Beltran wins the game... but what stigma is attached to Wainwright? "He's a choker, he can't handle the pressure." And then people would probably argue, "well, he made a good pitch, you can't fault him for it." But if he was so clutch in the first place, why were the bases loaded to begin with?

Richie Allen wrote:Don't let anyone fool you. There are, and always have been clutch hitters. And that's part of the reason I'm still such a fan of the good old RBI. The entire purpose on offense is to score runs and to do that you need guys to drive runs in. Look up Tony Perez' RBI totals, year after year. It didn't matter what team he was on (Reds, Expos, Red Sox) he almost always led his team in RBIs and almost always had around 100+. Luck? Players around him? To some extent but you're rising to the occasion when year after year you have only 145 hits and over 100 RBIs. He was clutch.

I'm glad you brought this up.

Andruw Jones knocked in 128 runs in 2005. 128 RBI's -- he must have been a pretty "clutch" player, right? With runners in scoring position, he hit .208; conversely, he hit .286 with nobody on / a runner on first.

On average, Jones is projected to put up about 103 games in a 162-game season. Despite this, look at his career averages:
With runners in scoring position: .256 average
Without: .269

But then again, you never insinuated that Andruw Jones was, in fact, a clutch hitter. But as far as RBI's being a barometer for clutchness... well, I strongly disagree.


I think the problem with clutch is hitting how limited of a sample size we have to work with. Now, hear me out. I know you think you're hearing the same broken record over and over again, but this is what I'm getting at: remember last year? There was a Saturday day game against the Cubs. It was the bottom of the ninth with one out. Pujols stepped to the plate. Ryan Dempster was on the mound. The bases were juiced. The score was close. Pujols absolutely rocketed a line drive up for the middle... only to have it snatched down by whoever was playing short for the Cubs. He prompted stepped on second for a double play and ended the game.

To some extent, a hitter has control over where he's putting the ball. But doesn't it ultimately boil down to putting as good a swing on the ball as possible? After it leaves your bat, its basically up to luck as to whether or not its going to drop. You can -- like in Pujols's case -- obliterate a ball and hit into a double play. Or you can swing at a bad pitch, somehow manage to make contact and bloop a fluke base hit into no man's land.


Finally, I do agree that it's more anti-clutch than anything else. A lot of people have expressed this belief. It's not so much players rising to the occasion so much as it is players falling and succumbing to pressure.

Interesting example on Andruw. I remember, too, that the criticism of Ron Santo, back in the day, was that he wasn't a clutch hitter - he'd drive in a bunch of runs when the Cubs were way ahead or way behind, but in a tight game, he'd choke.

I don't know how accurate that is, but it might explain why he's still not in the HOF, despite numbers that look good enough now that 30-40 years have passed since he played.

cabby7588 wrote:SPIEZIEO==TEH CLUTCH

Often he is as a LH batter. Not nearly as much RH. I love him against righties.

The ability to slow down the game in key moments is clutch rather than them raising their game to another level. You can only do so much with what god gave you, the ability to cont. to maximize it at key points is what it's about.

It's a trait, something that becomes more evident over time.

Just like a player who is a tough and one that in a competitor, it's not something you'll see at a showcase or most games from a particular kid.

While I'm a sucker for athletes, I love kids that are tough SOBs.

Mephistopheles wrote:i dont really believe in a person performing better in the clutch (accepting this also makes you accept that they dont care when it isnt "clutch"). I do believe there's a such thing as cracking under pressure. So I guess a "clutch" player is one who plays to his abilities at all times, not really "performing better in the clutch"

That's more along the lines of my feelings. I don't necessary believe in a player being "clutch" as much as I believe in players who are decidedly "not clutch".

All we are doing is debating and/or arguing for the concept that certain players just handle pressure better than others, and a select few who even have possitive reactions to stress see a rise in their numbers.

To me, clutch is nothing more than some players being better equiped to handle pressure than other players. For most that means not wilting under pressure and maintaining career norms. For a few it appears it might even mean a possitive reaction that leads to their numbers actually going up. Those players are more rare, but you know we've seen examples of them throughout the years.

Also does the "clutch" hit have to drive in a run? And is there such a thing as a "clutch walk"?

fanforever wrote: Also does the "clutch" hit have to drive in a run? And is there such a thing as a "clutch walk"?

I think so.

Depends on the hitter though and how they pitch him, Barry Bonds drawing a walk to be the winning run on base isn't the same as Deivi Cruz doing so.

fanforever wrote: Also does the "clutch" hit have to drive in a run? And is there such a thing as a "clutch walk"?

I think there are clutch walks. Delgado walked on a full count with the bases loaded vs the Cubs the other night, fouling off several pitches. That was a clutch at bat, therefore a clutch walk.

So I would say definitely there are clutch walks.

jim wrote: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.

Golf and hitting a baseball depend a lot on the mental frame of mind of the competitor. So in that sense I don't think it's necessarily way different. Confidence, or lack thereof, often dictate the success of either. And I'm certain that the same holds true at the top level. In fact, it's often argued that that's what differentiates between top performers of similar talent.

And yes, I would say there is definitely clutch play in most all areas of sport. And I do think you do hear of it, although possibly to a lesser extent. Just because the term clutch isn't used, we're talking about the same thing. Rising to the occasion when the pressure is on. Free throws, blocking a field goal, making a perfect pass, an unbelievable backhand winner, up and down out of a bunker, breaking through an offensive line and stopping the run. All take extraordinary people to perform when the pressure is high and the game is on the line.

I think the clutch hitting debate will never satisfactorily be resolved for a number of reasons. Here are a few that immediately come to mind:

*The definition of clutch. Must a player exceed his "normal" performance to be considered clutch? Must there be some wild anomaly in his statistics that indicate this player is actually better in high pressure situations?

*The inability to define clutch situation. Without actually being there and watching the game, it's often impossible to know what situations should be considered clutch. "Late and close" doesn't do it for me. In fact, even if you are watching the game, it could be debatable between two fans whether it's truly a clutch situation. So, to some extent, it's a somewhat subjective topic.

*The inability to measure clutch performance in clutch situations. It's surprising to me that, in many cases, the individuals that like to minimize the importance of batting average, are the same folks that depend on it to discount the possibility of a clutch hitter existing. Has anyone done a study examining slugging percentage in clutch situations? But again, that wouldn't necessarily tell the entire story either.

But back to batting average, there is the dilemma of how wide or narrow the study should be. If too many ABs are considered clutch, it's a lot more likely that the clutch average is going to resemble that player's lifetime average. Since no one has hit over .390 for a single season in the last 66 years, what would make someone believe that a player would be able to top that during those high pressure situations? So we need to determine how much of a bump in average is necessary to be considered relevant?

Thirty points in batting average is often the difference between a good hitter and a great hitter, over the course of a career. .280 hitters are a dime a dozen but .310 typically gets you into a Hall of Fame discussion. So shouldn't even a small rise in batting average, .020 to .030 points, be considered sufficient to support the assertion that a player may be a clutch hitter? Must a player exceed his normal output by .050 to .100 points? The feeling I get among folks that discount clutch hitting is that such a small increase in average. .020 to .030 points, doesn't strongly correlate with anything. "A .290 hitter does not hit .290 in all situations, but it doesn't necessarily point to anything in particular." And I'd agree.

If too narrow of a study in undergone, the results are also questionable. Limit clutch situations to September or later, late and close, within 5 games of leading the division, etc...and you're going to have hitters that have a negligible number of clutch ABs over a season or career. And you might have player that is 4 for 7 for a season. Hardly the solid proof that we're looking for to base our conclusions on. Eventually, it becomes an exercise in futility.

So I believe that the clutch hitter dilemma is best left to subjective debate. Numbers can't tell us everything we want from the game of baseball. A radar gun can tell us that a fastball is 92 MPH and the location of a pitch can be logged and the type of pitch can be noted...but it's still not the same as seeing that pitch. Not all 92 MPH fastballs are the same. How much did the pitch move? What was the pitcher's motion? Some pitchers throw 92 but it seems like 98 to the hitter, while others are quite hittable. And, likewise, some hitters seem like good clutch hitters to me, based on my experiences watching. I'm sure other folks may have different ideas as to who is clutch. Or that the term doesn't apply to hitting in baseball. But that's part of the fun of being a baseball fan. There's no one right answer.

Richie Allen wrote:

jim wrote: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.

Golf and hitting a baseball depend a lot on the mental frame of mind of the competitor. So in that sense I don't think it's necessarily way different. Confidence, or lack thereof, often dictate the success of either. And I'm certain that the same holds true at the top level. In fact, it's often argued that that's what differentiates between top performers of similar talent.

And yes, I would say there is definitely clutch play in most all areas of sport. And I do think you do hear of it, although possibly to a lesser extent. Just because the term clutch isn't used, we're talking about the same thing. Rising to the occasion when the pressure is on. Free throws, blocking a field goal, making a perfect pass, an unbelievable backhand winner, up and down out of a bunker, breaking through an offensive line and stopping the run. All take extraordinary people to perform when the pressure is high and the game is on the line.

I think the clutch hitting debate will never satisfactorily be resolved for a number of reasons. Here are a few that immediately come to mind:

*The definition of clutch. Must a player exceed his "normal" performance to be considered clutch? Must there be some wild anomaly in his statistics that indicate this player is actually better in high pressure situations?

*The inability to define clutch situation. Without actually being there and watching the game, it's often impossible to know what situations should be considered clutch. "Late and close" doesn't do it for me. In fact, even if you are watching the game, it could be debatable between two fans whether it's truly a clutch situation. So, to some extent, it's a somewhat subjective topic.

*The inability to measure clutch performance in clutch situations. It's surprising to me that, in many cases, the individuals that like to minimize the importance of batting average, are the same folks that depend on it to discount the possibility of a clutch hitter existing. Has anyone done a study examining slugging percentage in clutch situations? But again, that wouldn't necessarily tell the entire story either.

I have not read anything that uses batting average when deciding if clutchiness is a skill that is repeatable. It's usually OPS, or EqA, or some other metric that accounts for the type of hit.

But back to batting average, there is the dilemma of how wide or narrow the study should be. If too many ABs are considered clutch, it's a lot more likely that the clutch average is going to resemble that player's lifetime average. Since no one has hit over .390 for a single season in the last 66 years, what would make someone believe that a player would be able to top that during those high pressure situations? So we need to determine how much of a bump in average is necessary to be considered relevant?

Statistically speaking, you need a certain number of a sample to make your outcome relavent. Deciding the definition is hard, but if your definition comes up with too small of a sample than it doesn't really matter what you get out of it, it's going to be statistically insignificant.

Thirty points in batting average is often the difference between a good hitter and a great hitter, over the course of a career. .280 hitters are a dime a dozen but .310 typically gets you into a Hall of Fame discussion. So shouldn't even a small rise in batting average, .020 to .030 points, be considered sufficient to support the assertion that a player may be a clutch hitter? Must a player exceed his normal output by .050 to .100 points? The feeling I get among folks that discount clutch hitting is that such a small increase in average doesn't strongly correlate with anything. "A .290 hitter doesn't not hit .290 in all situations, but it doesn't necessarily point to anything in particular." And I'd agree.

I don't like to use batting average, but to be consistent with what you are using I will continue to do so for the sake of the discussion. No doubt a .020 rise in clutch situations (whatever they are) would be a very significant increase. Every study I have ever seen shows MUCH much less of a change than that. I don't recall the exact numbers, but we are talking about a .290 hitter that maybe hits .295. If you get your sample size up high enough to be statistically relevant, as you said earlier the guys numbers regress back to his norm. That's really the argument against clutchiness - that far and away what happens is hitters go back to being themselves.

If too narrow of a study in undergone, the results are also questionable. Limit clutch situations to September or later, late and close, within 5 games of leading the division, etc...and you're going to have hitters that have a negligible number of clutch ABs over a season or career. And you might have player that is 4 for 7 for a season. Hardly the solid proof that we're looking for to base our conclusions on. Eventually, it becomes an exercise in futility.

Yeah, it's a hard problem. Just what is clutch? It's easier to say it when you see it, and most of the time you get agreement, but coming up with a general definition that applies to all situations is pretty tricky.

So I believe that the clutch hitter dilemma is best left to subjective debate. Numbers can't tell us everything we want from the game of baseball. A radar gun can tell us that a fastball is 92 MPH and the location of a pitch can be logged and the type of pitch can be noted...but it's still not the same as seeing that pitch. Not all 92 MPH fastballs are the same. How much did the pitch move? What was the pitcher's motion? Some pitchers throw 92 but it seems like 98 to the hitter, while others are quite hittable. And some hitters seem like good clutch hitters to be, based on my experiences watching. I'm sure other folks may have different ideas as to who is clutch. Or that the term doesn't apply to hitting in baseball.

Just to restate, it's not that I don't think clutch events happen (of course they do), and that there maybe a small set of people who can rise to the occasion and perform a little above the norm in those situations. It's just that it's so small, so hard to pin down, so fleeting - that it's best to just look at the players norm as a gauge at how he will do in those situations.

Of course the mental side is important, but I guess what I'm saying is that is already factored in. Saying a guy would be like Greg Maddux if he only had Greg Maddux's intelligence/grit/drive/... is like saying if I could throw a baseball with accuracy at 100 mph I'd have a job playing major league baseball.

I've seen to many hungover (and sometimes still drunk) players who would rather have been anywhere on the planet rather than the ballfield get six hits in a doubleheader all the while complaining how they are sick of baseball and just want the damn games and season to be over. I've seen guys doing Indian rain dances in the locker room hoping to rain the game out go out and pitch lights out. I guess I'm just accustomed to some guys in the worst mental and physical state coming up big that I've decided that plain old talent rules the day.

Interesting debate though.