Quote:
Originally Posted by Syd Thrift
Again, as the "lone defender" here for whatever reason...
|
I believe that some players are better in pressure situations than others (and this is different from the level of skill they have). That is, clutch hitters exist (as do clutch pitchers and fielders and basketball players and football players...).
I have not looked extensively at all studies attempting to give insight into the issue. But the studies I have looked fail to convince me that clutch hitters don't exist. Maybe some future study will.
For instance, my very quick scan of the BP study linked to above revealed some problems. Perhaps some of the players claimed to be candidates for clutch hitters were just lucky (and not really clutch hitters). As a result, it would not be surprising if these players had bad luck in other years. Or, maybe they are clutch hitters but in some years randomness overwhelms this characteristic. Or, perhaps clutchiness is not a permanent attribute but just something that some players have some times and not others. (My quick look at the study might have lead me to misunderstand it.)
Now I understand someone might say, "well, clearly you're an idiot who doesn't understand the statistical studies." I might be an idiot (and I think other things might show this) but I do understand the statistical material (when I decide to look at it which I don't always).
The essential problem with any statistical study, and with anyone who fails to find it convincing, is the so-called
Duhem-Quine thesis. Virtually every statistical study (using non-experimental data) needs to make many assumptions, some of which might have little support for them and some that are possibly wrong. This colors the weight you give any of the "conclusions" of the study. Insufficient attention to these various auxiliary assumptions is typical of statistical studies done by amateurs and by those not used to data generated by human activities in a non-experimental setting.