[KingCubsFan]

So they can't perform without their teammates performing first? What time period do those numbers illustrate? 1 year, 2 years, career? Those types of splits generally do not carry over year to year, and often completely flip flop from time to time. For instance, while he was good, Sammy alternated between years when he performed better in close/late situations than his overall numbers, and years when he performed worse in close/late than his overall numbers. ARod has had amazing postseason runs, and bad postseasons. Jeter has been good in the "clutch" or came up short in the "clutch" but in the end, he's been consistent no matter the situation.

Yes, players need teammates to perform in order to get into clutch situations. Whenever someone drives someone in, another player needs to get on base first. I don't really understand how that matters. Anyways, those were last year's numbers, but career numbers paint a similar picture (actually I made a mistake and those

were Ortiz's career numbers):

Career Bases Empty:

Manny: .295 avg/.380 obp

Aramis: .269/.316 obp

 

With Runners On:

Manny: .334 avg/.437 obp

Aramis: .287 avg/.343 obp

[CubfaninCA]

are you implying that manny doesn't produce in "clutch" or, as i like to say "unicorn" situations?

If you don't believe there's such a thing as a clutch player, you must not watch much sports, and you clearly didn't play many either.

 

I watch a lot of sports and have played plenty in my time and I don't believe there is a "clutch player."

 

The numbers don't bear that out. If being "clutch" is an ability, then "clutch players" would have good numbers in "clutch" situations from year to year or at least numbers that are consistent with their career numbers. They do not.

 

You don't consider Mariano Rivera, MJ, Reggie Jackson aka MISTAH OCTOBAH or Larry Bird as clutch??

[UK1679666180]

You'd be hard-pressed to find someone who mocks "those who watch baseball to get a feeling for a player." Most people who value stats realize that you can't scout a player on just stats alone.

 

However, I think people who ignore stats and continually mock people that value stats are "narrow-minded and have little respect for viewpoints other than their own."

 

Exactly, I can watch Telemundo all day (espec. on weekends) and not learn Spanish, simply b/c I don't know what to look for.

 

You don't learn about proper pitching mechanics, hitting mechanics, defensive positioning by watching TV. Can't find it in a baseball Prospectus Handbook either.

 

Quick example...

 

If you're on 1B and a RH'ed pitcher is on the mound, there are 8 ways to try and tell if the pitcher is going to home or 1B and 10 ways to tell if a LH'er is going to home or 1B. TV doesn't teach you that, TV teaches that a runner has a small to large lead and whether it's an ideal count to run on.

Edited January 4, 2006 by UK

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Just so I understand what you guys are saying... you're saying that players don't perform differently in certain situations? Or at least don't do it consistently enough to classify them as being more successful in certain situations than others?

 

They aren't consistent enough to be of any value. A player will perform out of his mind one year in one situation(say bases loaded) and abysmally the next.

[fromthestretch]

I'm generally for objective analysis but I don't think statistics tell you all there is to know about every ball player. You could have two equal players based on basic metrics, but one might just respond better to pressure situations.

 

And I don't think you'll find one person on here who says they do.

[badger1679666666]

so then the concept of clutch does exist...

[fromthestretch]

You don't consider Mariano Rivera, MJ, Reggie Jackson aka MISTAH OCTOBAH or Larry Bird as clutch??

 

Reggie Jackson was great in the World Series (.357/.457/.755). However, his career ALCS numbers are terrible (.227/.298/.380).

[KingCubsFan]

Aramis in '05

 

Runners on: .327/.397/.628/1.025

Scoring position: .285/.367/.492/.859

Scoring position, 2 outs: .186/.314/.322/.636

 

Does the clutch go away?

That last number has a pretty small sample size. Manny has pretty consistent numbers with RISP, 2 outs over the last 5 years, though.

[CubfaninCA]

You don't consider Mariano Rivera, MJ, Reggie Jackson aka MISTAH OCTOBAH or Larry Bird as clutch??

 

Reggie Jackson was great in the World Series (.357/.457/.755). However, his career ALCS numbers are terrible (.227/.298/.380).

 

So he produced when it mattered most, which is "clutch."

 

I'm sure there are some pitchers who have been dominant in the playoffs. I could be wrong, but didn't Bob Gibson, Sandy Kofaux, and Whitey Ford have real good playoff numbers????

[fromthestretch]

so then the concept of clutch does exist...

 

I wouldn't go so far to say it doesn't exist. But I would say that it's nearly impossible to predict. From year to year, most players' numbers in certain situations will vary.

 

Chances are if you know what player you want up in a "clutch" situation, that player is someone who has performed well overall. I saw Alex Gonzalez come through in the clutch when he hit a handful of game-winning homers for the Cubs. But if it was bottom of the ninth, two-outs, the winning run on second and the Cubs World Series hopes on the line, do you want him up? I sure as hell don't.

 

Let me ask you this...do you think A-Rod is clutch? A lot of Yankee fans don't due to his .133/.381/.200 line in the playoffs this season. But who knew he'd hit that low, considering his career postseason line is .305/.393/.534.

[UK1679666180]

I'm sure there are some pitchers who have been dominant in the playoffs. I could be wrong, but didn't Bob Gibson, Sandy Kofaux, and Whitey Ford have real good playoff numbers????

 

Sure, but they were dominant in the regular season. Gibson dominated the Tigers in '68 and the Sox in '67, but he was an amazing pitcher in almost any situation.

 

It is very rare to find a player who was avg. during his career during the season and then be significantly better in the post-season/WS, especially as the sample grows larger.

 

The same traits that made Gibson, Ford, and Koufax great post-season pitchers are the same traits that made them great reg. season pitchers.

 

But... Gibson, Ford, and Koufax had great mental makeups.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Aramis in '05

 

Runners on: .327/.397/.628/1.025

Scoring position: .285/.367/.492/.859

Scoring position, 2 outs: .186/.314/.322/.636

 

Does the clutch go away?

That last number has a pretty small sample size. Manny has pretty consistent numbers with RISP, 2 outs over the last 5 years, though.

 

His scoring position numbers are in twice the size of the last one, and that's worse than his numbers for the season.

 

For his career, Manny's numbers in different situations aren't significantly different from his career totals, which is exactly the point. The vast majority of the time, situational numbers revert towards the player's career numbers.

[badger1679666666]

I'm sure there are some pitchers who have been dominant in the playoffs. I could be wrong, but didn't Bob Gibson, Sandy Kofaux, and Whitey Ford have real good playoff numbers????

 

Sure, but they were dominant in the regular season. Gibson dominated the Tigers in '68 and the Sox in '67, but he was an amazing pitcher in almost any situation.

 

It is very rare to find a player who was avg. during his career during the season and then be significantly better in the post-season/WS, especially as the sample grows larger.

 

The same traits that made Gibson, Ford, and Koufax great post-season pitchers are the same traits that made them great reg. season pitchers.

 

But... Gibson, Ford, and Koufax had great mental makeups.

 

I'll have to go back to basketball for my point, but Scottie and MJ were both really good ball players - top 50 of all time, however, without a doubt, MJ was more clutch in the final minutes of a game than scottie was.

 

I think the response or thriving under pressure is what counts.

 

Hell I'm a great darts player, have won several leagues (nowhere near professional) and my buddy/partner is as well - however in really pressure situations I wan't him throwing for our team because he comes through more often in those situations. If you look at our overall stats they are similar - but when we really need a number/win he's more of a "go-to guy".

[KingCubsFan]

It is very rare to find a player who was avg. during his career during the season and then be significantly better in the post-season/WS, especially as the sample grows larger.

Orlando Hernandez?

[fromthestretch]

You don't consider Mariano Rivera, MJ, Reggie Jackson aka MISTAH OCTOBAH or Larry Bird as clutch??

 

Reggie Jackson was great in the World Series (.357/.457/.755). However, his career ALCS numbers are terrible (.227/.298/.380).

 

So he produced when it mattered most, which is "clutch."

 

I'm sure there are some pitchers who have been dominant in the playoffs. I could be wrong, but didn't Bob Gibson, Sandy Kofaux, and Whitey Ford have real good playoff numbers????

 

So you're saying that his ALCS numbers don't matter because his World Series numbers did? Who's to say that his poor performances in the 1980, 1982, and 1986 ALCS weren't the reason his teams didn't even make it to the World Series? By your rationale, then he wasn't very clutch in those situations, was he?

 

Koufax and Gibson had great postseason numbers. Ford's were very good but also pretty much on par with his career regular season numbers.

 

However, all of these guys were great players to begin with. I think it's reasonable to assume that they would come through in the clutch, just as they came through in virtually every other situation. Great players are great players, regardless of situation. I'm not going to say Derek Jeter is clutch because of his impressive career postseason line of .307/.379/.463, when that's actually slightly worse than his career regular season numbers.

[fromthestretch]

It is very rare to find a player who was avg. during his career during the season and then be significantly better in the post-season/WS, especially as the sample grows larger.

Orlando Hernandez?

 

He said it's rare, not impossible.

[goonys evil twin]

so then the concept of clutch does exist...

 

The concept certainly does exist, because people are always looking for complicated explanations for why stuff happens.

 

But the reality of clutch is that it is really only a crutch word used to describe regular occurences in irregular situations.

[badger1679666666]

so then the concept of clutch does exist...

 

The concept certainly does exist, because people are always looking for complicated explanations for why stuff happens.

 

But the reality of clutch is that it is really only a crutch word used to describe regular occurences in irregular situations.

 

I wouldn't think that the "clutch" explanation is a simple explanation for why something happens - you can simply say so and so is clutch.

 

I think we might just agree to disagree, but I know my dart partner is more clutch than me - even though we are equal skill levels. And I know MJ is more clutch than Scottie even though they are both great players.

[goonys evil twin]

so then the concept of clutch does exist...

 

The concept certainly does exist, because people are always looking for complicated explanations for why stuff happens.

 

But the reality of clutch is that it is really only a crutch word used to describe regular occurences in irregular situations.

 

I wouldn't think that the "clutch" explanation is a simple explanation for why something happens - you can simply say so and so is clutch.

 

I think we might just agree to disagree, but I know my dart partner is more clutch than me - even though we are equal skill levels. And I know MJ is more clutch than Scottie even though they are both great players.

 

They are both great, but MJ is far better. You act as if they are equal in other situations.

 

Clutch isn't the simple explanation. It's the complicated one I talked about. It's the stuff that keeps sportswriters in business. I like to think of it as the overromanticizing of sports.

[craig]

Notes:

1. I don't have them, but I think numbers throughout the league differ in "clutch" situations, or late-situations, etc., from normal. Pitchers work more carefully, nibble mroe, walk more (OBP rises), but allow fewer hits. It's common to consider rotation pitchers superior to relievers, but year after year relievers allow lower batting averages but higher WHIPs. For the hitter, the situation is *not* the same as normal, because pitchers don't pitch the same as normal.

 

2. My understanding is that in baseball, studies indicate little evidence for such thing as a super-clutch hitter, guys who can significantly or consistently **outperform** their norm in clutch situations. Notable stuff is typically a result of small sample size, and tends to flatten out. (As suggested by reggie Jackson in WS versus playoffs...)

 

3. However, it's my understanding that many players are able to perform about as well in "clutch" situations as they do under normal circmstances. That's my idea of a clutch guy. He doesn't choke when the pressure is on. Doesn't overthrow, doesn't overswing, doesn't expand his strike zone, etc..

 

4. My hypothesis is that while few if any players can consistently "overachieve", that there may be some who "underachieve" in the clutch. Guys who are "anti-clutch". When the pressure is really on, the pitcher starts to overthrow, or his delivery starts to erode a little. When the pressure is really on, a hitter maybe swings too hard, or begins to expands his strike zone.

 

Vance, I think there have been saber stuff on supposedly "clutch" performers. Have there been saber studies on "anti-clutch" performers?

 

If my hypothesis was true, then a "clutch" guy is simply somebody who performs as well as normal in crisis, whereas an "anti-clutch" guy is somebody who doesn't.

 

The other thing is, if a guy is responding to stress or pressure or crisis or whatever, what constitutes a pressure situation for one guy might be quite different for somebody else.

[UK1679666180]

It is very rare to find a player who was avg. during his career during the season and then be significantly better in the post-season/WS, especially as the sample grows larger.

Orlando Hernandez?

 

That's one of the very few, never said it didn't exist, just that the you'll have to search to find them.

[KingCubsFan]

For his career, Manny's numbers in different situations aren't significantly different from his career totals, which is exactly the point. The vast majority of the time, situational numbers revert towards the player's career numbers.

Most athletes aren't clutch performers, so that makes sense that situational numbers will eventually revert back closer to career numbers. As for Manny, I've already illustrated that his extraordinary career numbers are a direct result of his extraordinary ability to hit with runners on base and in scoring position. Without that rare ability, his numbers simply wouldn't be as good.

[Mizzou]

I have a question for those of you who don't believe in clutchness... or clutchitivity... or clutchosity... anyways... when you're at a baseball game with a buddy and the game is tight and a guy steps up to the plate, your buddy says "I have a feeling he'll drive them in here, this guy is great in the clutch" what do you say to him? I'm just curious.

[goonys evil twin]

I have a question for those of you who don't believe in clutchness... or clutchitivity... or clutchosity... anyways... when you're at a baseball game with a buddy and the game is tight and a guy steps up to the plate, your buddy says "I have a feeling he'll drive them in here, this guy is great in the clutch" what do you say to him? I'm just curious.

 

I probably say something like "I hope he does". But more often than not whether or not that feeling is right just falls in line with the rate that you would expect the player to succeed. With few exceptions, I don't really get into objective analysis type discussions while at the game. Just look at the game threads here. Guys are always talking about getting that feeling that somebody will come through. Usually it doesn't happen, and it's ignored. But on the rare times when the guess is right, people keep bringing up how great it was that somebody predicted it. I'd bet on just about every pitch, somebody somewhere is predicting what will happen, based on their feelings of a person's clutchness, and is dead wrong.

 

I brought a girl to Wrigley one time in the mid 90's, sat in the RF bleachers. Brian McRae was up. I forget the situation, but I said something like, this is when he'll hit one out. He put one about 2 rows in front of us. It was just chance. I actually believed in stuff like clutch and intangibles at the time. I was raised on the mythology of baseball. That was before I started reading about the new wave of thought coming into the game.

[badger1679666666]

I have a question for those of you who don't believe in clutchness... or clutchitivity... or clutchosity... anyways... when you're at a baseball game with a buddy and the game is tight and a guy steps up to the plate, your buddy says "I have a feeling he'll drive them in here, this guy is great in the clutch" what do you say to him? I'm just curious.

 

I probably say something like "I hope he does". But more often than not whether or not that feeling is right just falls in line with the rate that you would expect the player to succeed. With few exceptions, I don't really get into objective analysis type discussions while at the game. Just look at the game threads here. Guys are always talking about getting that feeling that somebody will come through. Usually it doesn't happen, and it's ignored. But on the rare times when the guess is right, people keep bringing up how great it was that somebody predicted it. I'd bet on just about every pitch, somebody somewhere is predicting what will happen, based on their feelings of a person's clutchness, and is dead wrong.

 

I brought a girl to Wrigley one time in the mid 90's, sat in the RF bleachers. Brian McRae was up. I forget the situation, but I said something like, this is when he'll hit one out. He put one about 2 rows in front of us. It was just chance. I actually believed in stuff like clutch and intangibles at the time. I was raised on the mythology of baseball. That was before I started reading about the new wave of thought coming into the game.

 

How old are you, just curious?