Clutch

[CBL-Commish]

Originally Posted by glenmere14

Not to go too far off topic here, but I've always had trouble believing that brush back pitches made any difference at all to a major league hitter. I just find it difficult to believe that someone could perform at this extreme level of competition while feeling intimidation to any degree.

Brush back, maybe not. But I think there are reasonably documented cases of diminished performance after being beaned. Some probably due to physical problems (Dickie Thon), but some skittishness after having their head broken. Mike Devereaux in 1994 comes to mind.

[glenmere14]

Originally Posted by CBL-Commish

Brush back, maybe not. But I think there are reasonably documented cases of diminished performance after being beaned. Some probably due to physical problems (Dickie Thon), but some skittishness after having their head broken. Mike Devereaux in 1994 comes to mind.

Totally agree on beanings possibly affecting the rest of a career, similar to other injuries - Tony Conigliaro comes to mind.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by One Great Matrix

Hernandez worked very hard on his natural talent,

No doubt.
I certainly never suggested otherwise
But if he hadn't lucked into the talent his hard work wouldn't have gotten him there

Whenever elite athletes are tested, the results come up like this

Asked to depress a tapper with his index finger as many times as possible in 10 seconds, Pujols scored in the 99th percentile, a score almost identical to one earned by Ruth on a similar test of movement speed and endurance. White was impressed not only by Pujols’ tapping speed (2.4 standard deviations faster than normal), but also by the fact that his performance kept improving after repeated trials.

https://source.wustl.edu/2006/08/st-...on-university/

Unsurprisingly, elite athletes are elite

did have the foresight to become a baseball player, if you've watched a particular Seinfeld episode or Mets broadcasts lately, you'd agree he could have lost his way very easily if not for his ability to plan.

I don't know what you're talking about

Originally Posted by ablobj

Not to mention fielders, baserunners, manager's decisions, etc. If an outfielder robs a guy of a homerun in a "high-leverage situation" does that make him a "clutch" fielder?

Yes
It also makes the pitcher a clutch pitcher and the batter a choker

[Number5]

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

Whenever elite athletes are tested, the results come up like this

Asked to depress a tapper with his index finger as many times as possible in 10 seconds, Pujols scored in the 99th percentile, a score almost identical to one earned by Ruth on a similar test of movement speed and endurance. White was impressed not only by Pujols’ tapping speed (2.4 standard deviations faster than normal), but also by the fact that his performance kept improving after repeated trials.


https://source.wustl.edu/2006/08/st-...on-university/

Unsurprisingly, elite athletes are elite

I think that's just Parkinson from Pujols' age.

[NoOne]

you can't be more than what is theoretically possible based on your ability, preperation, genetics, etc etc etc...

you either get near that potential, or you fall short... you cannot go over reality and facts of the matter.

so, you do things that limit your ceiling, but it does not raise it ever..

there is no magical button peopel hit that makes them better baseball players in the playoffs... ths is why really bad contracts from really stupid GM's happen -- like brett boone or aaron boone? you can look at illitch overpaying 2-3 SP for no rational reason because of one seasone and good playoff run. one guy blew out his arm in playoffs, one guy only had 2 pitches, and one guy wasn't good to start, lol.... $60M poof!

so, someone does well over 50AB?? that's nothing.. poor quality batters can get hot for 100-200AB in rare instances. simply look up brennan boesch's first couple season first/second half splits. craig monroe is another that would get hot for a short period of time an disappear for long stretches otherwise.

law of independent results... really should look it up.

if some players can mathematically prove they do play better under higher levearage situations, it's because they are playing poorly otherwise, not getting better.

you can play worse becaue of things you do and think, but you cannot play better than your potential through shear will.... just as water only boil at 100C and 1atm pressure. wanting it to boil at 101 without changing environemental factors is simply impossible through trying to willing it to happen.

reality works on causality and not magic.

that new amazon show stole my ideas and phrases... life is on rails.. how you perceive it simply doesn't matter or make it not true. it's not destiny or fate like in movies or religions, it simply is what will happen and it's a domino of reactions (cause and effect)... even our thoughts.

[fuzzy_patters]

Originally Posted by NoOne

you can't be more than what is theoretically possible based on your ability, preperation, genetics, etc etc etc...

you either get near that potential, or you fall short... you cannot go over reality and facts of the matter.

so, you do things that limit your ceiling, but it does not raise it ever..

there is no magical button peopel hit that makes them better baseball players in the playoffs... ths is why really bad contracts from really stupid GM's happen -- like brett boone or aaron boone? you can look at illitch overpaying 2-3 SP for no rational reason because of one seasone and good playoff run. one guy blew out his arm in playoffs, one guy only had 2 pitches, and one guy wasn't good to start, lol.... $60M poof!

so, someone does well over 50AB?? that's nothing.. poor quality batters can get hot for 100-200AB in rare instances. simply look up brennan boesch's first couple season first/second half splits. craig monroe is another that would get hot for a short period of time an disappear for long stretches otherwise.

law of independent results... really should look it up.

if some players can mathematically prove they do play better under higher levearage situations, it's because they are playing poorly otherwise, not getting better.

you can play worse becaue of things you do and think, but you cannot play better than your potential through shear will.... just as water only boil at 100C and 1atm pressure. wanting it to boil at 101 without changing environemental factors is simply impossible through trying to willing it to happen.

reality works on causality and not magic.

that new amazon show stole my ideas and phrases... life is on rails.. how you perceive it simply doesn't matter or make it not true. it's not destiny or fate like in movies or religions, it simply is what will happen and it's a domino of reactions (cause and effect)... even our thoughts.

While I hear what you're saying, I think that you are completely misrepresenting what people mean when they talk about doing well in the clutch. They mean that the players aren't doing worse than normal. If other people choke and let the pressure get to them, and you don't, you will be doing relatively better than other people. You obviously don't get super-human strength or something. You just don't perform worse under pressure.

That's the problem with attempts to measure it. You cannot possibly measure when a player experiences pressure. You can try by isolating close and late situations, for example, but those are not all the same. A close and late situation in a random July game that is 1 out of 162 isn't much pressure other than that your career is relying on you having a good performance, but that is true of every situation regardless of score. Two outs with the tying run on third in the bottom of the ninth inning of World Series game 7 is a completely different scenario. We know that different people respond to pressure differently because we are human beings and we have experienced it. We can't possibly measure it though because we can't possibly measure when a player feels like they are in a pressure situation.

[chazzycat]

We can measure it though. There is a thing called "leverage index" for every single play.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by chazzycat

We can measure it though. There is a thing called "leverage index" for every single play.

That doesn't measure the pressure that a player feels

It measures the importance of the situation of the game

That's not the same thing

[chazzycat]

you'd think the 2 would be related...but ok. technically that's accurate

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by chazzycat

you'd think the 2 would be related...but ok. technically that's accurate

Sure, they are related

But a rookie making their first career plate appearance in a 5-0 game probably feels more pressure than Albert Pujols making his 900th career high-leverage plate appearance in the bottom of the seventh in a tie game on May 7th.

And it certainly doesn't measure that.

Without wiring up a player, there's no way to know how much pressure a player is feeling.

So, we're left with making assumptions using things like LI. And those studies always come back negative for clutch

[Syd Thrift]

IIRC there is a small "clutch" effect in OOTP that some players have. It's small enough to be washed away by all the other factors that go into a given at-bat, and I'm not entirely sure how the game defines "clutch" either.

[dkgo]

When you look at thousands of players obviously some of them are going to perform better than their career numbers in a subset of situations and some will perform worse. That's just how baseball works. You could use the same thing to "prove" certain players are better or worse on Tuesday.

Also you need to be careful comparing batting stats between different situations. Nearly every single hitter has better numbers with runners in scoring position because a standard flyball to right is suddenly a sacrifice fly that doesn't count as an at-bat instead of an out.

[ablobj]

Originally Posted by glenmere14

Not to go too far off topic here, but I've always had trouble believing that brush back pitches made any difference at all to a major league hitter. I just find it difficult to believe that someone could perform at this extreme level of competition while feeling intimidation to any degree.

Humans have an innate biological fear of being hit in the face with a 95 MPH rock, regardless of their skills at baseball

[thklein]

I definitely think there is such a thing as "choking." To me, "clutch" just means you don't choke. You are as good in high pressure situations and you otherwise are.

[ablobj]

Originally Posted by CBL-Commish

Brush back, maybe not. But I think there are reasonably documented cases of diminished performance after being beaned. Some probably due to physical problems (Dickie Thon), but some skittishness after having their head broken. Mike Devereaux in 1994 comes to mind.

The Reds used to throw at Andrew McCutchen because the numbers showed that he didn't perform as well in games in which he was plunked in his first PA. I'm pretty sure that Dusty Baker admitted it.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by ablobj

The Reds used to throw at Andrew McCutchen because the numbers showed that he didn't perform as well in games in which he was plunked in his first PA..

But how'd he hit on Tuesdays?

[ablobj]

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

But how'd he hit on Tuesdays?

Depends...waxing crescent moon, or waning gibbus?

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by ablobj

Depends...waxing crescent moon, or waning gibbus?

Whichever small sample you prefer

[CBL-Commish]

Originally Posted by ablobj

The Reds used to throw at Andrew McCutchen because the numbers showed that he didn't perform as well in games in which he was plunked in his first PA. I'm pretty sure that Dusty Baker admitted it.

McCutchen has been hit with 72 pitches in his entire career, spread over 11 years. 20 of those came in the first or second innings of a game.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Dusty Baker believed he could make meaningful strategic decisions based on 20 plate appearances. His time in Houston is going to be delightful.

[ablobj]

Originally Posted by CBL-Commish

McCutchen has been hit with 72 pitches in his entire career, spread over 11 years. 20 of those came in the first or second innings of a game.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if Dusty Baker believed he could make meaningful strategic decisions based on 20 plate appearances. His time in Houston is going to be delightful.

Remember though, this is baseball. Sabermetrics, analytics, rational thought, etc, will never take anecdotal evidence and superstition out of the game. Guys will continue to hop over the basepath chalkline on their way back to the dugout until the end of time...