[pete the dog]

In every field, it is nearly impossible to prove that something does not exist. I don't believe in ghosts, but I cannot prove they are not real. However, the burden of proof should lie with the people who are positing that something does exist. I have yet to see any compelling evidence that there are players who are clutch.

 

What cracks me up about this argument is when people say it has a huge impact....but can't be measured. That is what I'd really like to have explained sometime.

Personally, I believe that clutch exists, but that MLB hitters operate at such a high mental state that there is very little margin for improvement for most of them, and therefore virtually no possibility for clutch hitting. given that, I consider anti-clutch as proof of clutch.

(in other words, it has a smaller impact on hitting in the majors than other levels)

 

 

I don't follow. They seem like separate questions. Clutch: Do some players hit relatively better than other players in clutch vs. non-clutch situations? Anti-clutch: Do some players hit relatively worse than other players in clutch vs. non-clutch situations? Either, neither, or both could be true.

[Bull]

In every field, it is nearly impossible to prove that something does not exist. I don't believe in ghosts, but I cannot prove they are not real. However, the burden of proof should lie with the people who are positing that something does exist. I have yet to see any compelling evidence that there are players who are clutch.

 

What cracks me up about this argument is when people say it has a huge impact....but can't be measured. That is what I'd really like to have explained sometime.

Personally, I believe that clutch exists, but that MLB hitters operate at such a high mental state that there is very little margin for improvement for most of them, and therefore virtually no possibility for clutch hitting. given that, I consider anti-clutch as proof of clutch.

(in other words, it has a smaller impact on hitting in the majors than other levels)

 

Very interesting take; I like it. In essence ALL major leaguers are good under pressure or they would have been weeded in the minors or their rookie year. No situation is more pressurized than your debut.

 

Perhap clutch stats would be valuable in evaluating prospects...except you don't know if they're facing quality prospects or carrreer minors guys. Alas, the world may never know. *sigh*

[CuseCubFan69]

I know that I've had High School kids change their approach when we have players in scoring postion. Some just use a nice linedrive swing instead of a bit of an uppercut when no one is on. Some, try too hard and their mechanics break down a little. I had one kid that was incredible 2 strike and 2 out hitter. We had his stats and he hit 750 in two years when there were 2 outs but he hit 250 when there were 1 out or less. He never got a hit when there were more than 2 outs though. :D

[CubinNY]

Personally, I believe that clutch exists, but that MLB hitters operate at such a high mental state that there is very little margin for improvement for most of them, and therefore virtually no possibility for clutch hitting. given that, I consider anti-clutch as proof of clutch.

(in other words, it has a smaller impact on hitting in the majors than other levels)

 

So is the thought, there is average then sucky? Again, someone would have to define what situations would qualify as clucth situations. Then the performance would have to significantly varry from the norm (probably as much as two standard deviations) for anti-clutch to have any relevance.

 

It would be an interesting study, I wager one might find a very, very small number of anti-clutch players if any at all.

[biittner77]

It seems to me that some players like the stage and want to be in "clutch" situations while others don't. I can't recall any so called clutch players that weren't already good- great hitters. Actually, there's Mark Lemke but that was such a small sample. In any case, being called clutch is a preception more than anything else.

 

Regarding the who would you want scenario, do you want your best hitter or your hottest hitter up in a clutch situation?

[Magnetic Curses]

It seems to me that some players like the stage and want to be in "clutch" situations while others don't. I can't recall any so called clutch players that weren't already good- great hitters. Actually, there's Mark Lemke but that was such a small sample. In any case, being called clutch is a preception more than anything else.

 

Regarding the who would you want scenario, do you want your best hitter or your hottest hitter up in a clutch situation?

 

best hitter.

[Tim]

It seems to me that some players like the stage and want to be in "clutch" situations while others don't. I can't recall any so called clutch players that weren't already good- great hitters. Actually, there's Mark Lemke but that was such a small sample. In any case, being called clutch is a preception more than anything else.

 

Regarding the who would you want scenario, do you want your best hitter or your hottest hitter up in a clutch situation?

If Neifi is 4-4 and Aramis is 0-4 with 3K's, I'd still want Aramis.

[Bull]

While I don't find any proof (or disproof) for clutch, I do believe in streaks. I do believe that at times players "see the ball better". Barry Bonds or Sammy on June 12, 1998 (in the middle of his 20 homers in one month month). I go with Sammy.

[SonnyD]

First of all, your are DEAD wrong when you say players are not predictable in situational hitting. Ever hear of the phrase "Clutch Hitter??" Some players are born for those types of situations. I am not saying Lugo is a "clutch hitter", simply laying the stats out for everyone to see and decide.

 

Anyone have a link to the clutch debate? SonnyD is new here.

 

You guys can post as many links as you'd like, I'd be more than happy to go through those debates, but there is no way I will change my mind on "clutch hitters".

 

"Clutch" is all relative. Relative to when and how often it happens. A player can be a cluth hitter for a day. For example, 8th inning, 2 outs, down 1 run, men on 2nd and 3rd, hits a double to knock the go ahead run in. He was a "clutch hitter" that day. A player can be a "clutch hitter" for an entire season ( DLee's .304 avg/.431obp with RISP). But the most telling line, is what a player does THROUGHOUT his career. I'm sorry, but if a player hits .325/.425obp throughout his ENTIRE career with RISP, he is a "CLUTCH HITTER".

 

Saying there is no such thing as clutch hitting, is like saying Ichiro isn't a good hitter. He just gets lucky when he gets his hits.

 

To put it another way, every player, every time they go to the plate, is up there with the intention to get on base. For this example, let's just say to get a hit. Would you rather have a player hit .300 with runners on base, or .300 with the bases empty???

 

Another example, player 1 hits .400 with RISP and .200 without. player 2 hits .200 with RISP and .400 witout. Both hitters are batting .300 OVERALL. Which scenario would you rather have??? Player 1 is obviously a "clutch hitter".

 

The point is, situatinal hitting is VERY important, and can actually be measured and truly means something.

[SonnyD]

Sorry about my last post (I realize it doesn;t belong in this thread), was actually typing it up as the last post went up...

[RockTheIvy]

First of all, your are DEAD wrong when you say players are not predictable in situational hitting. Ever hear of the phrase "Clutch Hitter??" Some players are born for those types of situations. I am not saying Lugo is a "clutch hitter", simply laying the stats out for everyone to see and decide.

 

Anyone have a link to the clutch debate? SonnyD is new here.

 

You guys can post as many links as you'd like, I'd be more than happy to go through those debates, but there is no way I will change my mind on "clutch hitters".

 

"Clutch" is all relative. Relative to when and how often it happens. A player can be a cluth hitter for a day. For example, 8th inning, 2 outs, down 1 run, men on 2nd and 3rd, hits a double to knock the go ahead run in. He was a "clutch hitter" that day. A player can be a "clutch hitter" for an entire season ( DLee's .304 avg/.431obp with RISP). But the most telling line, is what a player does THROUGHOUT his career. I'm sorry, but if a player hits .325/.425obp throughout his ENTIRE career with RISP, he is a "CLUTCH HITTER".

 

Saying there is no such thing as clutch hitting, is like saying Ichiro isn't a good hitter. He just gets lucky when he gets his hits.

 

To put it another way, every player, every time they go to the plate, is up there with the intention to get on base. For this example, let's just say to get a hit. Would you rather have a player hit .300 with runners on base, or .300 with the bases empty???

 

Another example, player 1 hits .400 with RISP and .200 without. player 2 hits .200 with RISP and .400 witout. Both hitters are batting .300 OVERALL. Which scenario would you rather have??? Player 1 is obviously a "clutch hitter".

 

The point is, situatinal hitting is VERY important, and can actually be measured and truly means something.

 

Clutch hitting may very well exist. But is it reason enough to trade a cheap, young and tatlented starter and a very productive second baseman?

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Sorry about my last post (I realize it doesn;t belong in this thread), was actually typing it up as the last post went up...

 

No problem, we're all here to learn. I just didn't want this thread to spiral out of control (as some others have). Carry on...

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Edited: These quotes were split from the Lugo thread and are being inserted here to keep them in order. --S

 

But the most telling line, is what a player does THROUGHOUT his career. I'm sorry, but if a player hits .325/.425obp throughout his ENTIRE career with RISP, he is a "CLUTCH HITTER".

 

If a guy hits .325/.425 his entire career, and hits the same with RISP, is he clutch? What if a guys hit .350/.450 overall, but just .325/.425 with RISP?

[SonnyD]

If a guy hits .325/.425 his entire career, and hits the same with RISP, is he clutch? What if a guys hit .350/.450 overall, but just .325/.425 with RISP?

 

In both of your examples, that player is BOTH very good and CLUTCH.

 

Why do I get I sense that some people don't think that a player can be both good and clutch at the same time. It goes hand and hand.

 

I'll end my thoughts on this subject with one last example (otherwise we can take it to another thread), but if a player hits .265/.295 throught his entire career, but hits .325/.390 with RISP, that plyer isn't a very good player, but he sure is hell was "Clutch"..........Whether or not there are players out there with those types of numbers is besides the point. The fact of the matter is that it CAN exist, and that's what defines clutch and not clutch.

 

Again, I realize they usually go hand and hand, but that's why they are both Good and Clutch hitters.

 

Julio Lugo has demonstrated last year (and progrssively gotten better every year) he is a good hitter. I think he's only going to continue to get better.

[frostwyrm]

Can a mod please split the thread and put the clutch discussion someplace where it can be properly ignored?

[goonys evil twin]

Why do I get I sense that some people don't think that a player can be both good and clutch at the same time. It goes hand and hand.

 

Possibly because a lot of people don't believe in clutch.

 

I think guys can be bad, below average, average, above average or good. Throughout their career they may fluctuate, maybe up and down, maybe like a bell curve.

[pete the dog]

First of all, your are DEAD wrong when you say players are not predictable in situational hitting. Ever hear of the phrase "Clutch Hitter??" Some players are born for those types of situations. I am not saying Lugo is a "clutch hitter", simply laying the stats out for everyone to see and decide.

 

Anyone have a link to the clutch debate? SonnyD is new here.

 

You guys can post as many links as you'd like, I'd be more than happy to go through those debates, but there is no way I will change my mind on "clutch hitters".

 

"Clutch" is all relative. Relative to when and how often it happens. A player can be a cluth hitter for a day. For example, 8th inning, 2 outs, down 1 run, men on 2nd and 3rd, hits a double to knock the go ahead run in. He was a "clutch hitter" that day. A player can be a "clutch hitter" for an entire season ( DLee's .304 avg/.431obp with RISP). But the most telling line, is what a player does THROUGHOUT his career. I'm sorry, but if a player hits .325/.425obp throughout his ENTIRE career with RISP, he is a "CLUTCH HITTER".

 

Saying there is no such thing as clutch hitting, is like saying Ichiro isn't a good hitter. He just gets lucky when he gets his hits.

 

To put it another way, every player, every time they go to the plate, is up there with the intention to get on base. For this example, let's just say to get a hit. Would you rather have a player hit .300 with runners on base, or .300 with the bases empty???

 

Another example, player 1 hits .400 with RISP and .200 without. player 2 hits .200 with RISP and .400 witout. Both hitters are batting .300 OVERALL. Which scenario would you rather have??? Player 1 is obviously a "clutch hitter".

 

The point is, situatinal hitting is VERY important, and can actually be measured and truly means something.

 

 

And we're back to the same old question: If it's real--if players do consistently and reliably differ in these ways--show me the stats and prove it. No one has been able to show it yet. Of course, if you're inclined to believe in it despite the lack of evidence, that's your prerogative.

[Guest]

Another example, player 1 hits .400 with RISP and .200 without. player 2 hits .200 with RISP and .400 witout. Both hitters are batting .300 OVERALL.

Doubtful, considering only about 26% of PA occur with RISP. (In 2005 there were 32,856 PA w/RISP, 91,663 without.) Using that as the theoretical ratio, player 1 would hit .252 while player 2 would hit .344 overall.

 

The point is, situatinal hitting is VERY important, and can actually be measured and truly means something.

Situational hitting does have a significant impact on run production. High-leverage base-out situations can (and do) show different linear weight values for the various offensive events when compared to lower leverage situations.

 

That being said, situational hitting stats are more or less useless as metrics for player evaluation. Due to sample size and other issues, numbers that measure a player's "clutch" ability -- such as BA w/ RISP -- display almost zero year-to-year correlation. In other words, looking a player's stats with runners in scoring position from last year will tell you little to nothing about what those same stats will be next year. Add that to the above fact that "non-clutch" situations vastly outnumber their pressurized counterparts and a player's ability for situational hitting should be an ancillary concern at best. (And it probably wouldn't hurt to ignore it completely.)

[ltb]

bump for the people going on and on about this in the most overpaid player thread...

[FergieJ31]

First of all, your are DEAD wrong when you say players are not predictable in situational hitting. Ever hear of the phrase "Clutch Hitter??" Some players are born for those types of situations. I am not saying Lugo is a "clutch hitter", simply laying the stats out for everyone to see and decide.

 

Anyone have a link to the clutch debate? SonnyD is new here.

 

You guys can post as many links as you'd like, I'd be more than happy to go through those debates, but there is no way I will change my mind on "clutch hitters".

 

"Clutch" is all relative. Relative to when and how often it happens. A player can be a cluth hitter for a day. For example, 8th inning, 2 outs, down 1 run, men on 2nd and 3rd, hits a double to knock the go ahead run in. He was a "clutch hitter" that day. A player can be a "clutch hitter" for an entire season ( DLee's .304 avg/.431obp with RISP). But the most telling line, is what a player does THROUGHOUT his career. I'm sorry, but if a player hits .325/.425obp throughout his ENTIRE career with RISP, he is a "CLUTCH HITTER".

 

Saying there is no such thing as clutch hitting, is like saying Ichiro isn't a good hitter. He just gets lucky when he gets his hits.

 

To put it another way, every player, every time they go to the plate, is up there with the intention to get on base. For this example, let's just say to get a hit. Would you rather have a player hit .300 with runners on base, or .300 with the bases empty???

 

Another example, player 1 hits .400 with RISP and .200 without. player 2 hits .200 with RISP and .400 witout. Both hitters are batting .300 OVERALL. Which scenario would you rather have??? Player 1 is obviously a "clutch hitter".

 

The point is, situatinal hitting is VERY important, and can actually be measured and truly means something.

 

 

And we're back to the same old question: If it's real--if players do consistently and reliably differ in these ways--show me the stats and prove it. No one has been able to show it yet. Of course, if you're inclined to believe in it despite the lack of evidence, that's your prerogative.

 

It is true that demonstrating "clutchness" as a persistent, measurable quality seems impossible, for the reasons Bob's Keeper states. This oft-cited paper by Bill James is also germane to the debate: http://www.sabr.org/cmsfiles/underestimating.pdf

 

I'm personally agnostic on the whole clutch hitting debate. Just because it's not measurable doesn't imply it doesn't exist, only that it cannot be verified statistically. Read the Bill James paper for a beautiful explanation of that concept.

 

As that great baseball theorist Albert Einstein once said:

 

"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."

[Neuby]

Reggie Miller is Clutch.

[Magnetic Curses]

This argument is that Hawkins is anti-clutch, and that clutchness (or it's lack) does exist. Why does he need any different peripherals or any different offspeed stuff in the 9th than in the 8th or 7th, if clutchness does not exist? The suggestion is that he's more relaxed in 7th/8th and thus has a better breaking ball is arguing that he's anti-clutch and being unrelaxed in the 9th compromises his effectiveness. He didn't need to be magically clutch, or overachieve; if he'd simply been able to pitch at the same level, with the same kind of K rate and GB/FB rates that were good enough to give him 2.13/1.86 ERA's in setup, if he'd simply pitched that same way in closing he'd have been fine.

 

I'm not concluding that Hawkins was anti-clutch, by the way. It's possible that his demise was simply coincidental. His arm was sore, or his mechanics changed, or whatever.

 

i never said that clutch pitching was fictional, just clutch hitting.

 

pitchers, i believe, are subject to "clutchness".

 

I don't understand the logic that pitchers can be subject to clutchness and not hitters. Hitters are subject to the same pressure as pitchers, and they too can have their mechanics falter as they try to press.

 

i think it's more that pitchers have less room for error than hitters, who are afforded the luxury of being able to make more mistakes, and get away with them, than pitchers. add that to the fact that a pitching motion generally involves more moving parts and you get my assertion.

[Warpticon]

This argument is that Hawkins is anti-clutch, and that clutchness (or it's lack) does exist. Why does he need any different peripherals or any different offspeed stuff in the 9th than in the 8th or 7th, if clutchness does not exist? The suggestion is that he's more relaxed in 7th/8th and thus has a better breaking ball is arguing that he's anti-clutch and being unrelaxed in the 9th compromises his effectiveness. He didn't need to be magically clutch, or overachieve; if he'd simply been able to pitch at the same level, with the same kind of K rate and GB/FB rates that were good enough to give him 2.13/1.86 ERA's in setup, if he'd simply pitched that same way in closing he'd have been fine.

 

I'm not concluding that Hawkins was anti-clutch, by the way. It's possible that his demise was simply coincidental. His arm was sore, or his mechanics changed, or whatever.

 

i never said that clutch pitching was fictional, just clutch hitting.

 

pitchers, i believe, are subject to "clutchness".

 

I don't understand the logic that pitchers can be subject to clutchness and not hitters. Hitters are subject to the same pressure as pitchers, and they too can have their mechanics falter as they try to press.

 

i think it's more that pitchers have less room for error than hitters, who are afforded the luxury of being able to make more mistakes, and get away with them, than pitchers. add that to the fact that a pitching motion generally involves more moving parts and you get my assertion.

 

But what if the hitter is Derrek Lee?