GatewayRedbirds.com

Interesting what you say about the guy that was hungover. "Mental" is a word that can take on many meanings, IMO. In some cases, it's turning the brain off and letting the player's cruise control take over. So a player with "mental toughness" may be a guy that can imagine he's playing in the backyard, when in fact 50,000 fans are screaming for him to make the last out. It's often not letting your brain get in the way. That hangover, of for some people it may be getting high, may enable that player to really relax and let his natural abilities come through. Whereas the pitcher that is a wreck, trying to aim the ball, knowing that this may be his last batter if he doesn't get him out, can't perform to his abilities.

So I suppose a player may be able to perform better in the clutch if he can take on an almost aloof attitude. Others may rely on their pride to come through in those tough times. They will do anything to avoid being the guy that makes the last out. I always took note that Fernando Vina seemed like that kind of guy. Far from the best hitter on the team, but come the ninth inning in a close game, he seemed to be a much better hitter. Never seemed to make that last out.

Anyway, as you mentioned, it is an interesting subject to debate.

I'm enjoying the discussion too, but I have to ask ---

If "ability to perform in the clutch" is so hard to define, and is so hard to agree upon, and is so hard to measure that no one has been able yet to find tangible proof it even exists at all --

if measuring it using large samples simply regresses to the mean, but small samples are meaningless, such that trying to see evidence of patterns of it are 'an exersize in futility" --

If it is so intangible and ephemeral as to best be left to subjective debate --

--

how much effect can it really be having on the outcome of AB, innings, games, or seasons????

If it's presence were making any difference, isn't it likely that some of those would be nailed down by now? Wouldn't there be general agreement on ANY of them?

skmsw wrote:how much effect can it really be having on the outcome of AB, innings, games, or seasons????

If it's presence were making any difference, isn't it likely that some of those would be nailed down by now? Wouldn't there be general agreement on ANY of them?

I don't think it'll ever be nailed down statistically...a single number that will tell us clutch, not clutch or marginally clutch. And it is an elusive trait. It can come and go, just as hitting in general can come and go. Clutch hitters don't always come through in the clutch. But there are players, in my small scope of experience, that seem to continually come through in the clutch.

But I think it's totally reasonable to say "Albert was sure clutch for us in 05" or "Bennett was clutch during that Chicago series" or "Yadi was clutch during the WS run" or "George Brett was the best clutch hitter I ever saw," without someone saying "clutch hitters do not exist."

And I do think it'll always be somewhat subjective. It's like talking about the greatest catch you've ever seen. We all have different experiences in watching games, we can't all possibly see all games ever played, we all have different opinions on what constitutes a great catch but we all have an opinion. Not a fact, simply an opinion. We certainly can't say that great catches don't exist because there's no way to pin down which are the best of them.

A final reason I don't think it'll ever be nailed down statistically. I think there are times a clutch at bat ends up as an out. A guy could have a great clutch at bat, pound the ball to deep center, or a line drive right to an infielder...and the end result statistically is a failure. But the guy still did a good job of hitting the ball hard only to make a loud out. You can make a perfect 20 foot putt that lips out. You can hit a perfect line drive that ends up in the third baseman's glove. Clutch guys seem to at least give it their best when the chips are down. Not always succeeding but at least looking competitive out there. Others look to earn a walk, flail at bad pitches and find a way to lose. Again, tough to determine this on paper.

Also what determines if a "clutch event" occurs on teh first 3 innings compared to the last three innings?

A tense or critical situation could occur in any of the nine innings. Plenty of clutch hits happen in the early innings of games.

Richie Allen wrote: But I think it's totally reasonable to say "Albert was sure clutch for us in 05" or "Bennett was clutch during that Chicago series" or "Yadi was clutch during the WS run" or "George Brett was the best clutch hitter I ever saw," without someone saying "clutch hitters do not exist."

No doubt about that, no disagreement at all. One of the biggest clutch hits I've seen in a while was AP's HR in game 5 of the NLCS in 2005. No dispute from me that it was clutch. But is it repeatable? To me, that's the meat and potatoes of the argument.

I have seen one AB that I think fits all definitions - Gibson's HR in the WS. I have no doubt, that if it were a regular game, he would not have been able to hit that. I think he needed an extra shot of adrenelin, and while in general it might not work because it gets you too amped up, in that situation it was his only chance.

Richie Allen wrote:Interesting what you say about the guy that was hungover.

Often, it was more like "the team" instead of "the guy". For some reason, at least when/where I played, it was a badge of honor to tie one on until the wee hours and take pride in fighting through it the next day.

I had a teammate that claimed he got so drunk one night before a morning makeup game in the Alaskan Summer League that he and a couple of teammates snuck onto the field and set the sprinkler system off and successfully "rained out" the contest. But those stories are for another thread.

haltz wrote: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.

I read this early today and then this evening it dawned on me that there may be something of a counter-example in chess to the mind working that way.

Wikipedia wrote:Karpov had cemented his position as the world's best player and world champion when Garry Kasparov arrived on the scene. In their first World Championship match in 1984, held in Moscow, Karpov quickly built a 4-0 lead, and needed only two more wins to keep his title. Instead, the next 17 games were drawn, and it took Karpov until Game 27 to finally win another game. In Game 31, Karpov had a winning position but failed to take advantage and settled for a draw. He lost the next game, but drew the next 14. In particular, Karpov held a solidly winning position in Game 41, but again blundered terribly and had to settle for a draw. After Kasparov suddenly won Game 47 and 48, Karpov suffered a physical collapse, having lost 10 kg (22 lb) over the course of the match. The FIDE President Florencio Campomanes controversially terminated the match, which had lasted an unprecedented five months, with five wins for Karpov, three for Kasparov, and a staggering forty draws.

Basically the best chess player in the world lost his focus a couple of months into the match. I don't how analogous chess is to baseball, but this is evidence that you can't leave the light switch permanently on.

greenback44 wrote:Basically the best chess player in the world lost his focus a couple of months into the match. I don't how analogous chess is to baseball, but this is evidence that you can't leave the light switch permanently on.

I don't really like the analogy of a mental endurance test, because at-bats aren't really like that. Now, I'm not saying that some players can't/don't lose their focus just like Karpov, but that they are precious enough and take so much talent and focus in the bigs that I doubt someone could save that extra je ne sais quoi just for clutch-time at-bats. Maybe I put those guys on too high a pedestal.

On a related note, do you know if there's historical WPA data available?

Often, it was more like "the team" instead of "the guy". For some reason, at least when/where I played, it was a badge of honor to tie one on until the wee hours and take pride in fighting through it the next day.

Many still do. I have to give credit where credit is due for men (former players) in their 50s, to be able to drink all night and go golfing at 6:30 in the morning the next day.

UK wrote:

Often, it was more like "the team" instead of "the guy". For some reason, at least when/where I played, it was a badge of honor to tie one on until the wee hours and take pride in fighting through it the next day.

Many still do. I have to give credit where credit is due for men (former players) in their 50s, to be able to drink all night and go golfing at 6:30 in the morning the next day.

So is it still part of baseball culture? I would have thought that with the emphasis on conditioning (other than pitchers, conditioning meant taking an extra 100 swings in the cage) that maybe guys were taking a little better care of themselves.