Clutch

[CBeisbol]

I can't believe that almost every player shows variance in their performance by month but that's not in the game.

SMH

[majesty95]

Originally Posted by Number5

That said, there is an argument to be made for "player quirks" which could be something like streaky hitter, performs well in "x" conditions (which could include postseason, or the first half of the season, or so on), and so on if those can be backed by stats to a point that random deviation is sufficiently unlikely.
This will get some of the Clutchists what they want, but has base in fact, not myth.

How is this not exactly what we’re saying clutch is? Performs better in certain situations based on stats to back it up.... again, you guys are just arguing semantics at this point bc you don’t want to call it clutch bc some arbitrary study that purposely went in trying to disprove clutch says it doesn’t exist.

[majesty95]

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

I can't believe that almost every player shows variance in their performance by month but that's not in the game.

SMH

You are either extremely ignorant or purposely obtuse. A random month in the season isn’t the same as a collection of high leverage or high stress situations. But you don’t want to be wrong so you just keep saying the same irrelevant things.

[majesty95]

Here’s just one of hundreds of articles talking about the mental aspects of high pressure situations

https://medium.com/@thesimonboulter/...t-b271619f17e3

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by majesty95

You are either extremely ignorant or purposely obtuse. A random month in the season isn’t the same as a collection of high leverage or high stress situations. But you don’t want to be wrong so you just keep saying the same irrelevant things.

Keith Hernandez in 1234 PA's had a .782 OPS (90 tOPS) in one month
And in 1659 PA's had a .857 OPS (109 tOPS) in another
But that must be random variation

But because he had a .880 OPS (114 tOPS) in 1754 high-leverage PA's he must have been clutch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

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.

[Number5]

Originally Posted by majesty95

How is this not exactly what we’re saying clutch is? Performs better in certain situations based on stats to back it up.... again, you guys are just arguing semantics at this point bc you don’t want to call it clutch bc some arbitrary study that purposely went in trying to disprove clutch says it doesn’t exist.

So, what situations are we talking about? Postseason is one, but postseason is distinct from regular season baseball in other factors than only pressure. Also, unless you played for 20 years for the Yankees, few players have statistically significant stat lines in the postseason.

Please provide evidence who performs when how in a quantifiable way controlled for situations like sac flies, infield in defenses etc. that might objectively pad the numbers without any clutch ability.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by majesty95

Now, there is legitimate data (ex Keith Hernandez, Mariano Rivera, etc) that suggests it does exist but itÂ’s discarded bc of sample size.

Keith Hernandez
Regular Season: 8553 PA, .821 OPS
High-Leverage: 1754 PA, .880 OPS
Playoffs: 138 PA, .729 OPS

Mariano Rivera
Regular Season: 5103 BF, 1.00 WHIP, 2.21 ERA
ALDS: 200 BF, .571 WHIP, .32 ERA
ALCS: 184 BF, .822 WHIP, .92 ERA
WS: 144 BF, .963 WHIP, .99 ERA

Low-Leverage: .500 OPS against in 1413 PA
Med-Leverage: .527 OPS against in 1123 PA
High-Leverage: .598 OPS against in 2567 PA

Well, I'm thoroughly confused.

Let's start with Rivera. A fantastic pitcher, to be sure. But, it looks like, he performed worse in the World Series than in the ALCS. And worse in the ALCS than in the ALDS. And worse in High-Leverage situations than in Medium-Leverage situations. And worse in Medium-Leverage Situations than in Low-Leverage situations (during the regular season)

So, where exactly is the evidence for his clutchness?
And why does a clutch pitcher perform worse at each level of the playoffs?
And why does a clutch pitcher perform worse the higher the leverage of the game situation?

And Hernandez. He performed better in High-Leverage situations, during the regular season, than he did overall. But, he performed worse in the playoffs

So, where's the evidence for his clutchness?

Maybe I'm confused about how this all works

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Number5

Was he that guy from Moneyball?

No, he had principles. Or at least one.

[Number5]

Originally Posted by RchW

No, he had principles. Or at least one.

The Trekkie in me thinks he's compensating for something.

[Anyone]

Originally Posted by sprague

I can speak from experience that there is a clutch- or pressure attribute to players. Back in university for example my hockey team were a championship team for 3 of 4 seasons. Most players were about the same regular season to final four. However, one player for example, real good defensemen just became useless in a pressure game. couldn't handle the puck, give aways,

I think that anyone who doesn't admit that among the general population there is clutch ability that with a big enough sample size would be measurable goes against everything anyone who's played sports at any level knows.

The argument that there are no meaningful clutch differences among major league baseball players would have to acknowledge that it exists in the general population, and even among non-elite athletes.

The argument is more that if you routinely choke under pressure, you choke when being scouted to be drafted for the majors and when being considered for promotions to the higher minors or majors, and thus by the time players are in Major League Baseball they've already proven they can handle pressure much better than the average person, or picked up that ability on the way there, to the point any differences are so insignificant it's best to disregard them.

I don't believe that anyone "turns up their game" in clutch situations and any player who does is, as someone wrote, by definition dogging it in others and needs to play his best all the time. There might be small differences, but big enough that ideally OOTP would have clutch as a small factor, in the ability not to choke, or just to hit better with runners on by taking advantage of differences in how pitchers pitch with men on.

But they aren't big differences or sabermetricians, who found the platoon differential easily from the start, would have found them easily from the start as well.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by Anyone

I think that anyone who doesn't admit that among the general population there is clutch ability that with a big enough sample size would be measurable goes against everything anyone who's played sports at any level knows.

The argument that there are no meaningful clutch differences among major league baseball players would have to acknowledge that it exists in the general population, and even among non-elite athletes.

The argument is more that if you routinely choke under pressure, you choke when being scouted to be drafted for the majors and when being considered for promotions to the higher minors or majors, and thus by the time players are in Major League Baseball they've already proven they can handle pressure much better than the average person, or picked up that ability on the way there, to the point any differences are so insignificant it's best to disregard them.

I don't believe that anyone "turns up their game" in clutch situations and any player who does is, as someone wrote, by definition dogging it in others and needs to play his best all the time. There might be small differences, but big enough that ideally OOTP would have clutch as a small factor, in the ability not to choke, or just to hit better with runners on by taking advantage of differences in how pitchers pitch with men on.

But they aren't big differences or sabermetricians, who found the platoon differential easily from the start, would have found them easily from the start as well.

I agree with most of what is written here

The problem, though, is deciding what "clutch" even is. Take the example I just posted of Keith Hernandez. He hit much better over his career in high-leverage situations. But he hit much worse in the playoffs. So, is he "clutch" or isn't he? Did he perform in pressure situations, or not? What's a higher pressure situation? A regular season high-leverage plate appearance or a playoff plate appearance?

Wouldn't we have to be in the mind of the player to know when they were feeling pressure, or when they weren't?

As anyone noted in the quoted post, there are lots of times a player feels pressure besides high-leverage plate appearances, plate appearances with runners in scoring position, playoff plate appearances. And there's no way that we can accurately know when those are for players.


So, sure, say that Keith Hernandez hit better in his career in high-leverage plate appearances. Then also say that he hit worse in his career in the playoffs. And that he hit worse in July than in May. And that he hit worse in tie games than he did in games when there was at least a 4-run lead.

But, if you're going to say that some of that is random, then you've got to prove that the rest isn't. And don't say "psychology" because you don't have any idea what was going on in Keith Hernandez' mind.

[ablobj]

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

I agree with most of what is written here

The problem, though, is deciding what "clutch" even is.

Yeah this the issue I have.

Is the winner of a "high leverage" PA always clutch? Is the loser always a choker? If a dominant pitcher is going against a bad hitter in a high-leverage situation, and the result of the play is an out, was the pitcher "clutch?" Or did the batter "choke?" I would say it was simply a matter of the expected result playing out...the guy who was expected to win the matchup, won the matchup.

Edit: Or perhaps it wouldn't be considered "high-leverage" for the pitcher? I'm not sure exactly how these situations are defined.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by ablobj

Yeah this the issue I have.

Is the winner of a "high leverage" PA always clutch? Is the loser always a choker? If a dominant pitcher is going against a bad hitter in a high-leverage situation, and the result of the play is an out, was the pitcher "clutch?" Or did the batter "choke?" I would say it was simply a matter of the expected result playing out...the guy who was expected to win the matchup, won the matchup.

Edit: Or perhaps it wouldn't be considered "high-leverage" for the pitcher? I'm not sure exactly how these situations are defined.

Right

That's why joe schmoe looking at someone's baseball-reference page and saying that so-and-so is clutch, makes no sense.

A high-leverage situation? Sure, that's easily defined
A playoff game? Little ambiguity
RISP? Not a question
Against a left-handed opponent? Almost no doubt
A high pressure situation? Who knows?

[NoOne]

that's like saying a mlb player knows his BA because he played the games...

if he didn't have access to the info and you asked them after the season what their BA was, they'd have no clue beyond a good guess that would have significant volatility from reality.

nerves can make you play worse... that's fine and i don't think anyone is arguing that. if clutch means the absence of playing below what you are capable of, sure.. that's fine too, but i think that's contradictary to what it means to many people. words.. meh..

as long as it isn't some super human power that allows you to lift a car under stress to save your poor little baby... it's all good. your bones would snap and your ligaments and tendons would rip form the bones and muscles under that kind of weight regardless of any andrenneline or urban myths, lol. shear will cannot change tensile and shear strength of the various materials involved.

i once heard a college athlete brag that "athletes know their bodies' better." Sadly, she was a pre-med student too, lol.

you couldn't possibly know your success/failure rate in any unique situation, even less so than the ones we speak of, just as you couldn't possibly know your BA over 162 games just because you played them out.

it's not something that can be stratified in that way. it's merely some information to use or ignore as your personal biases see fit

i bet if you drew up some basic questions about the rules of each professional sport, it would be astonishing how poor many would fair on those tests in their respective sports.. playing the game doesn't require that sort of knowledge, but most will pick it up along the way... quite a few will be obstinate.

being great at a sport is not mutually exclusive to anything, but it also doesn't cause anything beyond what it is and a few things related to it. sports are simple things.

[NoOne]

Originally Posted by majesty95

Now, there is legitimate data (ex Keith Hernandez, Mariano Rivera, etc) that suggests it does exist but it’s discarded bc of sample size. I understand sample size and that with 1,000 more games it “might” not play out the same. But most players don’t even get 1,000 career games so you have to go with what you have. Just because there isn’t a bigger sample size doesn’t mean it definitely doesn’t exist. It just means there is enough data to prove it. It just boggles my mind that people so seemingly smart can’t make that correlation. It comes off as I don’t want it to be true so I’m going to find this data that says it doesn’t and argue sample size for anything that may suggest it does.

FWIW, I’m not saying it 100% has to be in the game in a specific way. But we all seem to agree that clutch exists in basketball and football but some his think baseball is immune from it? Lol. It is 100% a mental component that some have and others don’t. And it’s not just not regressing in high leverage situations. Rivera was insane in the playoffs as has been Bumgarner. Again, I’m fine if you say there not enough data to be conclusive. But to rationalize that those numbers, which blow away their career regular season numbers, are just statistical variance is lunacy. Madison Bumgarner just happens to pitch five of his 7-8 best Gabe of his career in the World Series? Tell me the odds on that being statistical variance and let’s compare that to the likelihood of some kind of clutch existing.

i bet mariano rivera is within normal volatility of his entire career, and if not more precisely choosen data centered on relevant years in playoffs would back that up... would be more volatility due to smaller sample, but that's kinda the point.

i don't think his play numbers blow away his career numbers at all. you can likely find stretchs of 10-15 g that easily match up... as you likely can with batters over a similar sample to what you saw in their playoff runs.

i can show you a mlb-has-been-never-was that started his career off with 9hr and a ~.400 BA for a month. (possibly exagerrated and maybe not his first month - chris shelton i think the name was? lol mentoned bosch before, he looked like vlad guerrero for 80games. i got fooled by him, but learned not to trust the ones that swing like a maniac all the time... few can be Vlad, and he could have been better) those small sample numbers are meaningless for a reason.

[CBL-Commish]

Originally Posted by NoOne

i can show you a mlb-has-been-never-was that started his career off with 9hr and a ~.400 BA for a month. (possibly exagerrated and maybe not his first month - chris shelton i think the name was? lol mentoned bosch before, he looked like vlad guerrero for 80games. i got fooled by him, but learned not to trust the ones that swing like a maniac all the time... few can be Vlad, and he could have been better) those small sample numbers are meaningless for a reason.

David Newhan had a clause in his minor league deal that if he wasn't called up by the Rangers by June 15th he could opt out. He did, at the age of 30. Up to that point in his career he had 86 MLB plate appearances and a .550 OPS.

The Orioles picked him up, and being the 2004 Orioles, immediately put him in the starting lineup on June 18th. On July 24th he ended the day with a slash line of .403/.447/.612. For a month he hit like Ty Cobb. From then to the end of the '04 season he hit .283 with a .764 OPS. For the remainder of his career he had a .629 OPS, and he retired with a .692.

For a month he was Ty Cobb. For the rest of his career he was Ty Gainey.

[Leo_The_Lip]

Originally Posted by RchW

Heisenberg is not sure about that.

And, to bring this full circle back to baseball, Moe Berg wasn't certain he should shoot Heisenberg, so he didn't.

I'll let y'all look that up.

[ablobj]

Originally Posted by CBL-Commish

David Newhan had a clause in his minor league deal that if he wasn't called up by the Rangers by June 15th he could opt out. He did, at the age of 30. Up to that point in his career he had 86 MLB plate appearances and a .550 OPS.

The Orioles picked him up, and being the 2004 Orioles, immediately put him in the starting lineup on June 18th. On July 24th he ended the day with a slash line of .403/.447/.612. For a month he hit like Ty Cobb. From then to the end of the '04 season he hit .283 with a .764 OPS. For the remainder of his career he had a .629 OPS, and he retired with a .692.

For a month he was Ty Cobb. For the rest of his career he was Ty Gainey.

Yasiel Puig's first month...436/.467/.713

[NoOne]

Originally Posted by CBL-Commish

David Newhan had a clause in his minor league deal that if he wasn't called up by the Rangers by June 15th he could opt out. He did, at the age of 30. Up to that point in his career he had 86 MLB plate appearances and a .550 OPS.

The Orioles picked him up, and being the 2004 Orioles, immediately put him in the starting lineup on June 18th. On July 24th he ended the day with a slash line of .403/.447/.612. For a month he hit like Ty Cobb. From then to the end of the '04 season he hit .283 with a .764 OPS. For the remainder of his career he had a .629 OPS, and he retired with a .692.

For a month he was Ty Cobb. For the rest of his career he was Ty Gainey.

exactly... was he clutch? nope... and any similar sample would need more evidence liek this, but in the absence of evidence it doesn't prove a thing.

now, if oyu go through all the players that have a hot month or two in their early call-ups, then see if they are more or less likely to develop further -- not neccessarily HoF-quality -- that would be useful information.

i think how they do it is a bigger factor than how well they do in such a small sample in the absence of other information... if it's a free-swinger you can be 99+% sure he's a flash in the pan. the qualatative stuff (things a scout would say without a calculator) is more important in a small sample... extremely more important than any small sample stat.

[jimmysthebestcop]

well I know what is not clutch and that's the ootp 21 drafts