Clutch Rating?

EckManBangBang · 04-10-2007, 02:12 AM

Probably a wish for '08, but the game needs this. Even arcade games ten years ago had a rating for better performance close and late. Or are there already ratings that influence this? Like maybe Work Ethic? I dunno, what do you guys think?

magnet · 04-10-2007, 02:27 AM

TBH, I hadn't looked yet (nor did I play 2006 long enough to check this) but I know 5 & 6 had a clutch performance rating; you were either "Normal", "Suffers" or "Good"

DougWyatt · 04-10-2007, 02:39 AM

Clutch ... lol.

Bishop · 04-10-2007, 02:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DougWyatt

Clutch ... lol.

What's sad is... I almost typed this exact same thing.

darkenigma510 · 04-10-2007, 02:43 AM

Probably not the best board to start a discussion on clutch...

andy m · 04-10-2007, 02:44 AM

clutch THIS!

DougWyatt · 04-10-2007, 03:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bishop

What's sad is... I almost typed this exact same thing.

lol. I'm surprised you didn't beat me to it; it took me a while to get the wording just right.

darkenigma510 · 04-10-2007, 08:16 AM

However, in all seriousness, this is just a game. I'm not sure if there are any "clutch" factors in OOTP2007. Perhaps hidden, perhaps not.

toxicavenger74 · 04-10-2007, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkenigma510

However, in all seriousness, this is just a game. I'm not sure if there are any "clutch" factors in OOTP2007. Perhaps hidden, perhaps not.

Clutch?

How about a true Yankee rating? or a grittiness rating? How about a rating for pitchers with a slide piece.

Melo · 04-10-2007, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toxicavenger74

Clutch?

How about a true Yankee rating? or a grittiness rating? How about a rating for pitchers with a slide piece.

There should be a rating for "plucky" too, IMO.

battists · 04-10-2007, 09:00 AM

Just so the original poster isn't totally baffled . . . there have been huge, raging debates here in the past, usually very argumentative in nature, over whether "clutch" should be in the game.

Most of the anti-clutch group points to the fact that there is no hard evidence that such a phenomena exists. The other half says that just because it can't be measured doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Etc etc.

bigdgp2 · 04-10-2007, 09:00 AM

How about a Winner rating? I believe David Eckstein would receive a 100 for that!!!!!1

EDIT: [As well as Darin Erstad and Derek Jeter]

toxicavenger74 · 04-10-2007, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigdgp2

How about a Winner rating? I believe David Eckstein would receive a 100 for that!!!!!1

EDIT: [As well as Darin Erstad and Derek Jeter]

You are very wrong about Erstad, he should not get a winner rating. He should get a lunch pail rating or blue collar rating.

andymac · 04-10-2007, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toxicavenger74

You are very wrong about Erstad, he should not get a winner rating. He should get a lunch pail rating or blue collar rating.

Yea, it is his football mentality rating that should be off the charts.

bigdgp2 · 04-10-2007, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andymac

Yea, it is his football mentality rating that should be off the charts.

This may be a little OT; But can we conclude that if the White Sox had a replacement-level RF, rather than Jermaine Dye, then they would have one of the worst outfields in baseball history?

toxicavenger74 · 04-10-2007, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EckManBangBang

Probably a wish for '08, but the game needs this. Even arcade games ten years ago had a rating for better performance close and late. Or are there already ratings that influence this? Like maybe Work Ethic? I dunno, what do you guys think?

I don't want to get to silly about this and you bring up a point that as mentioned before is very much debated. Clutch implies that certain players have some mearsurable ability to perform at a statistically higher level in a given late inning critical situation.

I don't but it and my view is that what you are seeing is good/great players doing good/great baseball things such as hitting when it is their turn in the line up or with fielding when the baseball is hit in their general direction in the late innings of a baseball game. This also applies to poor/average players but since their average baseball performance is statistically at a lower level overall average/poor players will be "clutch" less often.

In my view, clutch does not exist and is somewhat silly as it is essentially saying this player "tries harder" in this situation. Players who are considered clutch are generally considered good to great ball players.

toxicavenger74 · 04-10-2007, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigdgp2

This may be a little OT; But can we conclude that if the White Sox had a replacement-level RF, rather than Jermaine Dye, then they would have one of the worst outfields in baseball history?

It depends....Is Erstad allowed to punt the baseball back to the infield?

CBL-Commish · 04-10-2007, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EckManBangBang

Probably a wish for '08, but the game needs this. Even arcade games ten years ago had a rating for better performance close and late. Or are there already ratings that influence this? Like maybe Work Ethic? I dunno, what do you guys think?

There's a reason they're arcade games. They have silly stuff like exploding baseballs, and hitting harder by pressing the button faster, and supersliders that break eight feet... and clutch ratings.

pressure · 04-10-2007, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toxicavenger74

You are very wrong about Erstad, he should not get a winner rating. He should get a lunch pail rating or blue collar rating.

Not Sure what you mean by this... but Erstad is and will be missed for a long time here in California

toxicavenger74 · 04-10-2007, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pressure

Not Sure what you mean by this... but Erstad is and will be missed for a long time here in California

What I mean is that he is not a very good baseball player, statistically speaking. To get around this he is often described with meaningless terms such as "bringing his lunch pail to the ball park" to work his "blue collar job" of playing baseball. Credit FJM for that last sentence.

04-10-2007, 02:12 AM	#1
EckManBangBang Bat Boy Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 7	Clutch Rating? Probably a wish for '08, but the game needs this. Even arcade games ten years ago had a rating for better performance close and late. Or are there already ratings that influence this? Like maybe Work Ethic? I dunno, what do you guys think?

04-10-2007, 09:00 AM	#12
bigdgp2 All Star Reserve Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 605	How about a Winner rating? I believe David Eckstein would receive a 100 for that!!!!!1 EDIT: [As well as Darin Erstad and Derek Jeter] __________________ https://challenge.ootpdevelopments.c...lawlsopher.jpg Last edited by bigdgp2; 04-10-2007 at 09:02 AM.

04-10-2007, 02:27 AM	#2
magnet Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 5,029	TBH, I hadn't looked yet (nor did I play 2006 long enough to check this) but I know 5 & 6 had a clutch performance rating; you were either "Normal", "Suffers" or "Good"

04-10-2007, 02:39 AM	#3
DougWyatt All Star Starter Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Michigan Posts: 1,117	Clutch ... lol.

04-10-2007, 02:43 AM	#5
darkenigma510 All Star Starter Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: The Wild West Posts: 1,353	Probably not the best board to start a discussion on clutch...

04-10-2007, 02:44 AM	#6
andy m Minors (Double A) Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: UK Posts: 183	clutch THIS!

04-10-2007, 08:16 AM	#8
darkenigma510 All Star Starter Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: The Wild West Posts: 1,353	However, in all seriousness, this is just a game. I'm not sure if there are any "clutch" factors in OOTP2007. Perhaps hidden, perhaps not.

04-10-2007, 09:00 AM	#11
battists Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 18,506 Blog Entries: 7	Just so the original poster isn't totally baffled . . . there have been huge, raging debates here in the past, usually very argumentative in nature, over whether "clutch" should be in the game. Most of the anti-clutch group points to the fact that there is no hard evidence that such a phenomena exists. The other half says that just because it can't be measured doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Etc etc.