GatewayRedbirds.com

Fan Graphs has Holliday at a -2.59 Clutch lifetime. In his 9 years in baseball, only 2 are years where he had a positive value (this year is one of them, he's at a 0.08). I have absolutely no idea what these numbers mean, but I wonder if there is something to this.

Yadi on the other hand is a lifetime +3.60, and has had a positive value every year but two (this year being one where he is a -.006). And I think Yadi is clutch as hell, so there you go.

But then again ... David Freese is a negative and puts up negative numbers every year.

So what is this stat, and what is it saying? Is it quantifying what I always thought about Holliday and Molina? Is Freese really a choker who came up big a couple of times?

There is no such thing as "Clutch".Matts numbers in risp are low because of the small sample size.If a player is intimidated, scared or whatever with runners on base or in the postseason he wouldnt be in the majors.Player pool is huge, only best of the best make it.

Great example is Jeter. Here are his reg season numbers 314/383/450/833. Here are postseason 307/374/465/839. Almost identical, its just matter of sample size.

The mistake that is made when analyzing clutch by looking at statistics, is dismissing it as non existent because there is not some obscene number (a .400 BA) in clutch situations. There's typically about a .100 point range of batting averages throughout all of major league baseball with, what, well over 50% falling into a range of about .030 or .040 points. So the difference between the best hitters in the game and an "average" hitter might be about .030 points? .040 points? But that's a very significant difference. I think the straw argument that is propped up by anti-clutch proponents is this idea that believers think a clutch hitter will either always come through in key situations and/or will have a significant increase in BA in such situations. I like to think that some players are better than others in high leverage situations but I would never contend that either of the two previous statements will necessarily hold true for any player that I've watched and thought was good under pressure. But timeliness of hits is what scoring in baseball is all about. Nine hits spread evenly over nine innings might result in no runs, while 9 consecutive hits will likely result in at least 6 or 7. Some like to think that RBIs are a result of luck, having the baserunners out there when you get your hits, but I like to think the best clutch hitters get more of their hits when there are runners on base than others. But, I've never changed anyone's opinion on this yet so I'm not going to go on. Just make up your mind based on your own experiences of watching the game rather than simply repeating what has been said over and over and over by countless millions that have all read from the same texts. Clutch hitting is meant to be judged by watching the games and making arguments from your experiences. Just saying it doesn't exist derails the conversation into boring sample size arguments. IMO, trying to define a clutch hitter by using numbers is like trying to describe how pretty a girl is by using numbers. May give you some useful information but it's ultimately a subjective issue.

First off all welcome to the board strahinjak.

I'm pretty sure the SABRtooth cats have shown that clutch does exist as a "skill". I think you mean that clutch doesn't exist as a skill, right? Because certainly clutch exists, we see it every night.

The problem is that so many fans, some very knowledgeable, seem to boil down the situation entirely to "clutch" or "choke" - I know you are saying that isn't happening richie but I think it does. It almost seems like the counter argument is to tell them that clutch is such a small skill that it shouldn't be a factor, which might also be too strong of a statement.

I think for most hitters at this level clutch is a prerequisite skill because virtually every AB is clutch, and the mast majority of MLB hitters simply treat every AB more or less the same and mileage doesn't vary. But there also seems to be some outlier cases where it's noticeable, and for me watching these players day in and day out if you were to ask me who the "clutchiest" Cardinal is I probably would have said Molina, and if you asked who the least clutchiest Cardinal is I probably would have said Holiday, and low and behold the Fangraph site has a metric called Clutch that jives perfectly with that.

Some pretty good thoughts from five years ago

http://gatewayredbirds.com/forum/viewto ... =1&t=18110

The Holliday clutch is fine but he could use a new pressure plate and throwout bearing...

I would have to say that since a hitter can't choose to get a hit when he wants at any one point, its more or less a "being in the right place at the right time" scenario. Although there are some players that seem to feed off of the tense atmosphere of clutch situations. While others just feel the added pressure of of expectancies.

What is fangraphs's "Clutch" statistic telling us? Nothing? Something?

jim wrote:What is fangraphs's "Clutch" statistic telling us? Nothing? Something?

Win probability uses leverage, and clutch removes that and takes the difference between the two statistics. So it's WPA - WPA/LI, which effectively tells you how "clutch" a player has performed versus his individual baseline.

It's not necessarily predictive, sort of like splits for a RHH, but it does describe what has happened.

haltz wrote:

jim wrote:What is fangraphs's "Clutch" statistic telling us? Nothing? Something?

Win probability uses leverage, and clutch removes that and takes the difference between the two statistics. So it's WPA - WPA/LI, which effectively tells you how "clutch" a player has performed versus his individual baseline.

It's not necessarily predictive, sort of like splits for a RHH, but it does describe what has happened.

So how many times does it have to happen before it does become somewhat predictive?