what is clutch preformance?

[jbmagic]

what is clutch preformance?

is this how they preform when the game is on the line?

[justgettinginfo2]

I believe it is in clutch situations as "close game at bat", "runners in scoring position" ect...

Ive always seen players with clutch hits usually do well in late inning games with the game close. Others might have a better explanation but I tried

[BaseballMan]

uh oh, here we go again.
Just kidding.
But its strange because a discussion over clutch can get more heated than a discussion over religon.

[wireman]

originally posted by BaseballMan:
uh oh, here we go again.
Just kidding.
But its strange because a discussion over clutch can get more heated than a discussion over religon.

Yeah.

The baseball number-crunchers all say there's no such thing as a clutch hitter/pitcher, so I guess the definition of clutch performance would be: "In baseball, a well-known coincidence."

I just take this on faith.

[theasfl]

the correlation between the heated discussions over clutch and over religion is that most religions dont believe in luck while most people that believe in clutch do....maybe its just me talkin out my ass at 3:45 AM

[Henry]

Originally posted by wireman
"In baseball, a well-known coincidence."

Best definition I've heard yet

[William4192]

Some guys handle pressure better than others. Some people work better on deadelines. This is my understanding of clutch.

[NoxiousDog]

Originally posted by William4192
Some guys handle pressure better than others. Some people work better on deadelines. This is my understanding of clutch.

Unfortunately, they seem to work well one year and not the next, so it's hard to disguish the deadline skill from coincidence.

[Malleus Dei]

Clutch hitting = random clustering of positive events in more critical situations. It doesn't correlate from year to year, which means it's the just the effects of randomness under another name. As a baseball concept, it's a myth.

Read this:

http://www.diamond-mind.com/articles/neyerclutch.htm

[joncon16]

Too bad AI can't really take intangibles into effect. I think then attributes such as "clutch" and "loyalty" would be much more noticable.

[soccercjs22]

so what is the point of the clutch rating

does it enhance the players' skills in certain situation or what??

[twins15]

Originally posted by joncon16
Too bad AI can't really take intangibles into effect. I think then attributes such as "clutch" and "loyalty" would be much more noticable.

No such thing as "intangibles." And no such thing as a clutch player. Simple. Solved.

[cknox0723]

Originally posted by twins15
No such thing as "intangibles." And no such thing as a clutch player. Simple. Solved.

It's funny...I consider myself part of the statheadzz grouping, but I can easily disagree with this. If there's no such thing as intangibles, how can one reasonably explain a run like the Angels in 2002 (or the Marlins last year, but a lot of their success CAN be explained through the likes of 'Trelle, Miguel, and Co.)? I'm not saying that you can reasonably measure "intangibles" or "clutchness", but I think it's there. There's a reason for the Jeff Weavers or Mo Riveras of the world, and it's not all because of DIPS.

My two cents, feel free to refute.

Craig

[CBLCardinals]

Clutch - See Doug Glanville or Ross Gload.

[twins15]

Originally posted by cknox0723
It's funny...I consider myself part of the statheadzz grouping, but I can easily disagree with this. If there's no such thing as intangibles, how can one reasonably explain a run like the Angels in 2002 (or the Marlins last year, but a lot of their success CAN be explained through the likes of 'Trelle, Miguel, and Co.)? I'm not saying that you can reasonably measure "intangibles" or "clutchness", but I think it's there. There's a reason for the Jeff Weavers or Mo Riveras of the world, and it's not all because of DIPS.

My two cents, feel free to refute.

Craig

There are factors I would say that made them win the WS. Luck, playing very good ball at the right time, etc.

Yes there is a difference between the Rivera's and Weaver's. A little something I like to call talent difference.

[cknox0723]

Originally posted by twins15
There are factors I would say that made them win the WS. Luck, playing very good ball at the right time, etc.

Yes there is a difference between the Rivera's and Weaver's. A little something I like to call talent difference.

Yes, I agree, there's a huge difference between the Rivera's and Weaver's of the world...I didn't clarify enough. What I meant by bringing up their names is that I'd have to think intangibles or intestinal fortitude or whatever would have to come into play when discussing them.

Is it clutchness? Mariano Rivera, for example, has been otherworldly in the postseason in the Yankees' recent run (except for one rather obvious mistake!). I don't have the numbers handy, but rest assured they're significantly better in the postseason. Someone like Kenny Rogers, in his stint in pinstripes, was noticeably worse. I understand the caveat of sample size applies, but something has to account for these variances. I'm not saying that there's any way to measure it, but I think clutch ability and all of the requisite nonsense does exist. I'm not even positive one can discern it, though, except for the most obvious cases (Rivera, Weaver, etc., and those certainly have their flaws, too).

As for your explanation about the recent World Series winners - "luck, playing good ball at the right time, etc". Isn't playing good ball at the right time exactly what clutch ability purports to be?

Enjoyable discussion, thanks.

Craig

[twins15]

Originally posted by cknox0723
Yes, I agree, there's a huge difference between the Rivera's and Weaver's of the world...I didn't clarify enough. What I meant by bringing up their names is that I'd have to think intangibles or intestinal fortitude or whatever would have to come into play when discussing them.

Is it clutchness? Mariano Rivera, for example, has been otherworldly in the postseason in the Yankees' recent run (except for one rather obvious mistake!). I don't have the numbers handy, but rest assured they're significantly better in the postseason. Someone like Kenny Rogers, in his stint in pinstripes, was noticeably worse. I understand the caveat of sample size applies, but something has to account for these variances. I'm not saying that there's any way to measure it, but I think clutch ability and all of the requisite nonsense does exist. I'm not even positive one can discern it, though, except for the most obvious cases (Rivera, Weaver, etc., and those certainly have their flaws, too).

As for your explanation about the recent World Series winners - "luck, playing good ball at the right time, etc". Isn't playing good ball at the right time exactly what clutch ability purports to be?

Enjoyable discussion, thanks.

Craig

Well, let me clarify. I think clutch may exist, though by very few players. Players such as Mariano Rivera, George Brett, John Smoltz, maybe Reggie Jackson. However, I don't think there are clutch players as much as commentators would like people to believe. The fact that "clutch" stats do not translate at all from one year to the next supports that, in my mind.

For the last part, I would disagree that playing well at the right time would be considered clutch. Some teams reach their peak early in the season, then die off. Other reach iot later in the season. It is no coincedence teams that seem to be hot to end the regular seasonusually play better in the playoffs.

Thanks for the good discussion.

[Dagrims]

I believe in an intangible called 'focus', and that there is no mathematical way to place a value on it. Focus is why some players perform better than others in the playoffs or other crucial situations. They are able to concentrate better on the task at hand, while other players get nervous and lose their focus. Mariano Rivera doesn't throw a pitch any better, any faster, any more skillfully in the postseason than during the regular season. He just maintains a single thought and keeps his focus, and capitalizes on the mistakes of the batter. He's not thinking about the circus atmosphere, the pressure of being there, the importance of every pitch, the possibility and repercussions of a mistake. Focus can't be measured in any conventional sense of the word. Rick Ankiel and Steve Sax are two textbook examples of what happens to a player when he loses focus.

[Hank Greenberg]

"Chemistry", "Clutch" ect ect are easily explained away by those who dont believe it, and easily supported by those that do.

Yest here is, no there isn't...thats the whole discussion.

Why did the fish win the series, one would say, great chemistry, the other "got hot late, lots of guys on breakout years", "statheadzzz" like to say the two arn't related, others like to say they are....

[Big Train]

Putting aside the debate as to whether and what extent clutch ability exists in real baseball, I have always wondered what effect the clutch and leadership abilities have in *OOTP*. Does anyone know?