Clutch

[majesty95]

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

You know what else exists? Confirmation bias

Yes and you continue to use it to try and disprove what you don’t want to be true.

[majesty95]

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

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

Tell that to Trevor Bauer. Or even Tony Gwynn. The more you post, the less I think you actually know about the sport you think you know so much about.

[majesty95]

Originally Posted by Number5

I postulate that Rivera is not clutch. He blew many more saves against the Red Sox than against other teams. He's just elite, so he saved a ton of games because that is what an elite closer does, but I dont feel it's pretty far fetched to assume a clutch Yankee closer would not underperform against their biggest rivals.

To use your own logic against you, the sample size isn’t big enough to draw that conclusion. You could also postulate that Boston was one of the better teams so he’d therefor have less success or maybe even that they had better clutch hitters. You also can’t account for the possibility that once Boston had gotten to him in the postseason that they were “in his head” so maybe he had more inner demons to tame vs them than others.

[CBL-Commish]

Originally Posted by majesty95

That’s not at all true. That’s like saying a .210 hitter would be weeded our before he got to the majors. Pressure in high school isn’t the same as pressure with 50k fans in the stands.

It's completely true. If you can't hit in clutch situations you're not a professional baseball player. It's not .210 hitters, it's .120 hitters. And they don't even get drafted.

[SirMichaelJordan]

.02

This is psychology and doesn’t have anything to do with skill.

[Hoiles]

Originally Posted by CBL-Commish

It's completely true. If you can't hit in clutch situations you're not a professional baseball player. It's not .210 hitters, it's .120 hitters. And they don't even get drafted.

Even if all MLB players are better clutch-wise than the general public (at least for baseball), it doesn’t mean there aren’t good or bad clutch players by MLB standards. It’s like a MLB pitcher throwing 85 is thought to have a weak arm even if he throws twice as fast as your average guy in the radar booth at the county fair.

[Number5]

Originally Posted by majesty95

To use your own logic against you, the sample size isn’t big enough to draw that conclusion. You could also postulate that Boston was one of the better teams so he’d therefor have less success or maybe even that they had better clutch hitters. You also can’t account for the possibility that once Boston had gotten to him in the postseason that they were “in his head” so maybe he had more inner demons to tame vs them than others.

I know there are plenty of reasonable explanations why a NY Closer blew more saves against BOS then against other teams, including most opportunities to blow games, highest quality opposition, less runs to play with or random luck.


That said, we are talking about "Clutchness" here, a thing I feel is mostly overrated. If "clutch" is a measurable skill (which I believe only in exceptional cases, and even those might be statistical outliers) and Rivera would be "clutch", we would see increased performance in highest pressure situations, either by him being "better" because of clutchness, his opposition suffering more because of lesser "clutchness" compared to him, or both.


I feel safe assuming that for a NY closer, BOS saves are definetly above average pressure situations, due to rivalry and playoff implications or actual playoff matchups.


Him bottling those at an above average rate (for him) makes it unlikely that he is actually performing better in those situations. His sample size against BOS isnt that small either. So if there is a thing like clutchness, even the best CL in the history of baseball lacks it.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by majesty95

This is complete buffoonery. I’ve read through data driven minds trying to prove its wrong because they can’t quantify the psychological impact of sport. This is like saying that Michael Jordan wasn’t clutch.

So just because some players have bad “clutch” years while also having good “clutch” years it’s disproven to exist? It’s nonsense. Have these people ever picked up a bat? I’ve had times where I was so prepared and confident I felt like I could hit Randy Johnson. Other times I felt so insecure at the plate a 10 year old probably could have struck me out. Some people can harness those things better than others. I’ve seen it in reality actually playing the game all throughout my formative years and even into adulthood. It’s just complete nonsense that data crunchers can’t prove the mental aspect because there are so many factors to consider that they just write it off. Casts a serious shadow on these pencil pushers in general.

Hoo boy

And were all the times you felt like you could hit Randy Johnson high-leverage situations? Were you clutch?
Or were you a choker, feeling like you couldn't hit against a ten year old in those situations?

Or were those situations intermittent? Meaning someone couldn't just look up your stats in high leverage spots to see what your mental state was at the time?

And please tell me what is like to hold the bat in my hands. To feel its heft and balance. And how it feels to slide your hand into a newly oiled mitt. Or how it is to stand on the field on a sunny summer day.

I've never known those feelings. Just the cool dampness of my mother's basement and the clackety clack of the keys of my scientific calculator.

Originally Posted by majesty95

Dude proved it was there by showing an example of how Hernandez for his career was better in high leverage situations and y’all poo poo it with every excuse you can think of. You can’t be proved wrong because you don’t want to be wrong. How can you prove clutch if not that they perform better than their career avg in those situations?

I just flipped a coin ten times. 6 tails. I've found a clutch coin. It obviously has the mental fortitude to come up tails. Even when I was really trying to make it come up like 7 heads to prove my point. Or, maybe I'm just a coin-flippling choker.

Or, random variation is an actual thing that exists.

Selective effort? That’s so ridiculously laughable...To assume that any human could be 100% of prime effectiveness in 100% of their at bats is extremely ignorant.

So, your counter argument against the "ridiculously laughable" suggestion that Hernandez might have tried harder in certain situations is that nobody tries equally hard all the time. Damn. Egg on our faces.

Have you ever even played a 30 game high school baseball season much less a 162 game major league season?

I thought we'd just gone over this.

No. I've never even tossed the old pigskin around in the park with the other boys. Sometimes, though, when, I was pushing my pencil I'd try to knock the crust from my zits off my face. That's pretty much like baseball, isn't it?

Have you ever taken a 101 level class in statistics or logic?

You don’t think that happens on a ball field? Just complete absurdity.

Again. Just to make sure. You're asking this in response to the suggestion that sometimes Hernandez was less focused than others, right?

Originally Posted by majesty95

Probably the same reason some people still make fun of analytics. Maybe Tuesday is the day he meet with his therapist and get his head right before the game. Maybe that’s the day he has his local youth group at the game so is extra focused those days. Maybe the orange juice on Tuesdays balances a carbohydrate or electrolyte deficiency.

There have been...I don't know...tens of thousands of baseball players in history.

Are you going to come up with reasons for every one of them on why they hit differently on Monday than Tuesday, and differently on Tuesday than Wednesday. And differently on Wednesday than Thursday, and so on.

And why they hit differently in April than May. And differently in May than June, etc

And differently during the day than during the night

And differently at home vs on the road.

And differently in that road stadium vs another road stadium.

And differently on a Tuesday in April on the road at night in one year than another?

Or will you just admit that random variation exists. And much of what looks like clutch, or lack of clutch, is just random variation.

Look, in 100% believe in analytics that find ways to compare hitter like WAR, wRC, FIP, etc

Can you tell me how you use FIP to compare hitters?

But if you’re going to dismiss human psychology, which has been studied at least 10 times as long as analytics, just because you can’t quantify it with a metric then you’re not nearly as aware of what you’re studying as you think you are.

I don't think anyone is dismissing human psychology.
I mean I specifically have said that we don't know enough about players' psychology to make judgements. I don't know what makes Mike Trout feel like he's facing a ten year old. Do you?

Originally Posted by majesty95

That’s not at all true. That’s like saying a .210 hitter would be weeded our before he got to the majors. Pressure in high school isn’t the same as pressure with 50k fans in the stands.

But, your majesty, weren't you the one just saying that because you played a 30 game high school schedule, where you sometimes felt like you could hit Randy Johnson and sometimes felt like a ten year old could strike you out, you knew all about the pressure that Keith Hernandez et al felt when facing high leverage situations in MLB? Maybe you played in a really big high school with 50,000 people in the stands.

Originally Posted by majesty95

Yes and you continue to use it to try and disprove what you don’t want to be true.

Why don't I want clutch to be true?
Why would I care?

And, come on, try, honestly try, to tell me why "Keith Hernandez hit better in high leverage situations, therefore clutch!" isn't as much, or more, confirmation bias than anything I've put forth here.

Originally Posted by majesty95

Tell that to Trevor Bauer. Or even Tony Gwynn. The more you post, the less I think you actually know about the sport you think you know so much about.

I don't know those people
And why would I tell them?
And what point are you even trying to make?

Ditto, your majesty

[Leo_The_Lip]

First, there used to be a 'clutch' rating in OOTP--but over ten years ago. It was eliminated for reasons I'll let those interested research.

One of the big reasons I consider it impossible to measure 'clutch' is that --even if you rate by LEVERAGE -- how do you know if a 'clutch' pitcher is going against a 'clutch' hitter or a 'choking' hitter? Surely that is important information for calculating levels of 'clutch'.

Even more important, who is choking and how do you distinguish a situation where someone choked from one where someone was 'clutch'?

When the season is over, and you have assembled all the leverage data, do you go back and adjust for matchups? At what point do you stop?

In the extreme, if a closer is always getting out of 'high leverage' situations against chokers, is he really clutch? Is a closer who gets the tough out against tough hitters 70% of the time better than a guy who blows it 80% of the time, but against more chokers?

Who is choking and who is bearing down is pretty much impossible to know or measure.

[CBL-Commish]

We're never going to convince the clutch hitting acolytes that their religion doesn't exist, but I think we might have more success with this: even if such a thing exists and there are meaningful differences between players in this ability, the magnitude is still considerably less than the differences in overall ability among MLB players.

For example, Eddie Murray. Eddie is often held up as an example of a great clutch hitter. He had an .879 OPS in high leverage situations and an .808 in low-leverage situations over a very long career.

Whether that was due to random variation, or some kind of magical childhood interactions with John Wayne and General MacArthur we'll never know. But he still had an .808 OPS in low-leverage situations. Even when Eddie supposedly wasn't bearing down because it didn't matter, he was still significantly better than an average MLB hitter of his era.

No matter what your ethos and belief systems are, you're still better off with a good hitter without clutch ability than an okay or a poor hitter who supposedly steps up his game in the clutch. And you're better off with Eddie Murray goofing off than you are with Lenn Sakata having the clutchiest day of his life.

[Number5]

Also, I once again appeal to all those in favour of "Clutch":

Please find data, that the better performance of certain players with RISP is significantly more than the expected better slashline by having balls flied into the outfield with a runner on third count as sacrifice flies that don't harm the batting average and slugging percentage vs. having those same balls detract from ba and sp when there is nobody on.


You need to prove that clutch is something that exist in a meaningful way, so if you want to prove it by better performances of certain players in certain situations, you also need to prove that this is actually better performance, not just a result of a centuries-old scoring quirk of baseball.

[majesty95]

Some of you are so arrogant and elitist that it’s not even worth interacting with. Just because you can’t quantitate something means it doesn’t exist. Yet Eddie Murray suggests it does exist. But if we argue that I a thing then you find reasons to poo poo it like sample size or variance.

There is data that suggests it exists in SOME players. Mariano Rivera’s postseason numbers are LIGHT YEARS better than his regular season numbers. But to the analytic guy, he uses his own confirmation bias to suggest sample size isn’t great enough or his struggles vs BOS disprove its existence.

Again, you guys are so arrogant and elitist that you can’t see your own biases and act like anyone who thinks differently is some half brained yokel who can’t possibly reason on your level.

I think there it reasonable data to suggest it likely exists in some form. I think psychology alike suggests it exists. I think it’s proven to exist in players like Tom Brady so why not Eddie Murray? Why can’t Barry Bonds have been a choker early on and a superhuman steroid freak later? Because you can’t “prove” it? I understand science and statistics. But, as mentioned, you have to understand as a scientist when you can’t quantify something. There is no way to test the variables that might make up “clutch”. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. It just means that YOU can’t provide it doesn’t.

I played poker for a living for two years. I’ve seen guys that have “ice water in their veins”. Those are “clutch” players in my eyes. They are able to harness their emotions and decision making I’m extremely high stress situations. I have no idea how to prove it statistically but I’ve seen it plenty of times while my thoughts get garbled and my adrenaline takes over. I admittedly not clutch. Maybe that why I’m even more sure that it does exist in some form.

[NoOne]

Originally Posted by fuzzy_patters

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.

if you are saying some people crumble under pressure, sure, i can go with that.

'clutch' intimates someone magically gets better under pressure -- better than they normally are.

someone can psyche themselves out and make them worse than they should be in certain situations. regardless it takes a large enough sample in order to use statistics in a meaningful way. Too much changes in the time that takes to build up in many cases, which makes those statistics useless.

i'm not misrepresenting anything. i think the 'clutch' meaning is a misrepresentation of reality... and it is. lol.

it's not just 'statistics'... personality will impact each batters strategy in real life. Just imagine how much better guerrero would have been if he didn't swing at everything -- unless you can show that he hit everything in a similarly successful and powerful fashion, then it wouldn't have mattered. Jim furyk would have had a better career with a more orthodox swing instead of being obstinate for so long that it would have hurt him to change by the time he was sniffing the tour or shortly thereafter.

there's lots of flavor... and as long as you can't tie a change in behaviour to the numbers or other relevant factors like long-term injuries like tommy-john (first year back is usually horrible etc), once there is a suitable sample you can use it and use it well.

these numbers are almost always small sample stuff you see for entertainment during a telecast of a baseball game. it's like shoting slash for runnings in scoring position... again, you can only make yourself worse than you should be, never better... and those small sample numbers are at an extremely low confidence level in any one season or even multiple seasons in a few imaginative cases.

this is the type of stuff that gives analytics a bad name. not as bad as just slapping a few stats together and calling it OPS

a more relevant comment to ootp -- if it were to be modelled it's be some rating for nerves.. and it only makes you worse in some situations, never better. it should be able to go away with time in many cases -- modeling someone like ... name? the former royals picther... that would be a tcr change like someone just getting on meds, if that was the cause in the first place, of course.

everything has a cause and effect, and if you can't identify it, you can't just assume things. you cannot prove non-existence, you can only prove existence.

[Number5]

Originally Posted by majesty95

There is data that suggests it exists in SOME players. Mariano Rivera’s postseason numbers are LIGHT YEARS better than his regular season numbers. But to the analytic guy, he uses his own confirmation bias to suggest sample size isn’t great enough or his struggles vs BOS disprove its existence.

Sweetie, you're cherrypicking his post season numbers to prove he's clutch. If clutch is a repeateable and true skill, why did it fail him against BOS? It's logical and psychological when it suits your narrative, example postseason, but wrong if it's not, example Boston.


If his clutchness only shines when it's the postseason and relievers get extra rest days, maybe his clutchness is more aptly described by well-restedness.


You provide no evidence, actual or circumstancial, that clutchness exists in baseball as a measurable skill. Correlation does not imply causation, there are some postseason performers and postseason chokers, but if they were "clutch" they would be "clutch" on that ****ing cold rainy night in april with runners at 1st and 2nd bottom 8th down 2 as well and the stats tend to not show that.

[ablobj]

Originally Posted by majesty95

Some of you are so arrogant and elitist that it’s not even worth interacting with. Just because you can’t quantitate something means it doesn’t exist. Yet Eddie Murray suggests it does exist. But if we argue that I a thing then you find reasons to poo poo it like sample size or variance.

There is data that suggests it exists in SOME players. Mariano Rivera’s postseason numbers are LIGHT YEARS better than his regular season numbers. But to the analytic guy, he uses his own confirmation bias to suggest sample size isn’t great enough or his struggles vs BOS disprove its existence.

Again, you guys are so arrogant and elitist that you can’t see your own biases and act like anyone who thinks differently is some half brained yokel who can’t possibly reason on your level.

I think there it reasonable data to suggest it likely exists in some form. I think psychology alike suggests it exists. I think it’s proven to exist in players like Tom Brady so why not Eddie Murray? Why can’t Barry Bonds have been a choker early on and a superhuman steroid freak later? Because you can’t “prove” it? I understand science and statistics. But, as mentioned, you have to understand as a scientist when you can’t quantify something. There is no way to test the variables that might make up “clutch”. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. It just means that YOU can’t provide it doesn’t.

I played poker for a living for two years. I’ve seen guys that have “ice water in their veins”. Those are “clutch” players in my eyes. They are able to harness their emotions and decision making I’m extremely high stress situations. I have no idea how to prove it statistically but I’ve seen it plenty of times while my thoughts get garbled and my adrenaline takes over. I admittedly not clutch. Maybe that why I’m even more sure that it does exist in some form.

Let me start by saying that I'm not trying to be arrogant or elitist, so I hope I don't come off that way. I don't consider myself to be half-brained, although I am a bit of a yokel sometimes...

Concerning Eddie Murray...his HL OPS of .879 looks a lot better than his LL OPS of .808. But if you do the math, it's only 8% higher. If a person with an annual salary of 50K a year gets an 8% raise, they're now making 54K a year. Sure, it's more money but they are not "significantly" better off than they were. Considering that OPS is a combination of three different stats, I don't think that Murray's 8% increase means that he was significantly better.

Regarding Mo Rivera...Mo appeared in over 1100 regular season games as opposed to 96 postseason games...that's a HUGE difference in sample size, in my opinion too big to be ignored.

As far as Tom Brady (or any NFL QB) is concerned, football is a lot different than baseball in that there are play calls, schemes, alignments, lineman who have to make blocks, receivers who have to get open and make catches, etc.

There have been thousands of "clutch" performances in sports over the years, I'm not arguing that, but I'm definitely on the side of those who believe they aren't quantifiable enough to be included in OOTP.

Best wishes to you and yours in these crazy times we're all living in.

-TJ

[jimmysthebestcop]

I can't believe this thread is still going on lol

Who cares there is a dozen things that need improvements on ootp

Coaching, challenge mode, owner goals, stories, events, fans, financial options, personalities, traits I could go on and on

[ablobj]

Originally Posted by jimmysthebestcop

I can't believe this thread is still going on lol

Who cares there is a dozen things that need improvements on ootp

Coaching, challenge mode, owner goals, stories, events, fans, financial options, personalities, traits I could go on and on

haha, yeah I guess you're right...this one should probably be moved to the "Talk Sports" forum

[majesty95]

Originally Posted by Number5

Sweetie, you're cherrypicking his post season numbers to prove he's clutch. If clutch is a repeateable and true skill, why did it fail him against BOS? It's logical and psychological when it suits your narrative, example postseason, but wrong if it's not, example Boston.


If his clutchness only shines when it's the postseason and relievers get extra rest days, maybe his clutchness is more aptly described by well-restedness.


You provide no evidence, actual or circumstancial, that clutchness exists in baseball as a measurable skill. Correlation does not imply causation, there are some postseason performers and postseason chokers, but if they were "clutch" they would be "clutch" on that ****ing cold rainy night in april with runners at 1st and 2nd bottom 8th down 2 as well and the stats tend to not show that.

Let me give you a psychology lesson. Any time you have to start a reply with something like sweetie to try and break down your opponent you’ve already admitted your argument is weak. Just move along. You’re in pale of using logic to rationalize what’s being said so just miss me with your childish retorts.

[majesty95]

I think the biggest issue in this argument is the idea of what is clutch. Some think it’s a superhuman ability to excel in pressure situations while others seem to think it’s a lack of decreased production in such situations. I, personally, think it’s more of the latter but I do think “clutch” players have the ability to “lock in” for big games and big at bats better than others. It’s just not rational to expect any player to at 100% peak performance every at bat of every game for 6 months. As I’ve mentioned, we all zone out while driving when our lives are literally on the line. To expect any baseball player to be 100% in every situation of every season is lacking a true understanding of the human psyche at best, extremely ignorant at worst.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by majesty95

Some of you are so arrogant and elitist that it’s not even worth interacting with. Just because you can’t quantitate something means it doesn’t exist. Yet Eddie Murray suggests it does exist. But if we argue that I a thing then you find reasons to poo poo it like sample size or variance.

You are so elitist.
You have a perfectly good explanation as to why Murray has better performance in some plate appearances than others - random variance - and you just poo poo it.

I understand science and statistics.

You know, when you say stuff like

you find reasons to poo poo it like sample size or variance.

I don't believe that you actually do understand science and statistics (related, I'm still curious how you use FIP to evaluate hitters)

you have to understand as a scientist when you can’t quantify something. There is no way to test the variables that might make up “clutch”. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. It just means that YOU can’t provide it doesn’t.

That goes both ways there, your majesty

In deference to Syd's post let me restate my opinion on clutch here:

Yes, I think it is certain that individuals respond to pressure differently.

What I don't think is that simply looking at a players performance with RISP () or in high-leverage plate appearances, or with your own two eyes, is sufficient to discern which players do and do not have that ability.