Bill James: Clutch Hitting Might Exist

[Bruno7481]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/baseball/mlb/11/30/james.clutch/index.html Edited December 1, 2007 by Bruno7481

[Bruno7481]

This backs up, at least some, the claims about Dunn not coming through when it counts.

[NewUserName]

Wouldnt it be proper to not just show how a player did in clutch situations, but to compare those ABs to regular ABs. I mean if a guy has a 1.000 OPS in regular ABs and has a 1.010 OPS in his limited clutch ABs, is he really clutch?

[Jon]

I'm not sure what the purpose of that article was other than to introduce a new way to define "clutch." His numbers didn't address whether or not it actually exists, though.

[Outshined_One]

Um...nowhere in the article does he definitively say one way or another clutch hitting exists. That's a misleading title you have for this thread.

 

He's basically saying the assertion that clutch hitting does not exist may not be true based on data he has been examining and extrapolating, but that he hasn't come to the conclusion that clutch hitting does in fact exist.

 

Some examples...

 

1. Do you think clutch-hitting ability exists?

2. I don't know, what do you think?

3. I don't know. How would we study that?

4. Define a clutch situation and accumulate data on how players perform over a period of years? That would seem to work.

5. How would you define a clutch situation?

 

We would then proceed to debate the definition of a clutch situation, and gradually we would develop data, and perhaps even an understanding of the data.

 

Instead, the discussion went more like this:

 

(A) Clutch hitting doesn't exist.

(B) Umm...OK.

© I don't know...I think maybe it could exist.

(A & B in unison) Prove it.

© I can't prove it.

(A) OK then, it doesn't exist.

(B) If you can't prove it exists, we have to assume that it doesn't.

 

The discussion has been premised upon an assertion, rather than flowing from the question itself. What I have been trying to do for the last couple of years is to back up, define a clutch situation, begin accumulating data, and gradually go down the other path.

 

...

 

As to whether these data prove that David is a clutch hitter ... I ain't going there. This discussion has been messed up for 30 years because we got our shoulders way out in front of our shoelaces. From now on, I'm holding back.

 

...

 

One reason that I have been reluctant to write about clutch hitting, in the absence of hard data, is that I am reluctant to interpret sporting events as tests of character. If you write that Johnny Baseball is a poor clutch hitter, what you are implicitly saying is that Johnny Baseball lacks courage. I am extremely reluctant to impugn the character of any player based on what could be a random data outcome.

[Outshined_One]

This backs up, at least some, the claims about Dunn not coming through when it counts.

 

BALONEY!

 

He has a .395 OBP in what Bill James defines as clutch situations. That's noticably better than his career .381 OBP. You're telling me that's not coming through when it counts? Big freaking deal, he has a .218 AVG in those situations. The purpose of a clutch situation is not to make an out, something that he seemed to be quite adept at, especially compared to his career numbers.

[Bruno7481]

This backs up, at least some, the claims about Dunn not coming through when it counts.

 

BALONEY!

 

He has a .395 OBP in what Bill James defines as clutch situations. That's noticably better than his career .381 OBP. You're telling me that's not coming through when it counts? Big freaking deal, he has a .218 AVG in those situations. The purpose of a clutch situation is not to make an out, something that he seemed to be quite adept at, especially compared to his career numbers.

 

FOOEY! :wink:

 

In those situations I want Adam Dunn to drive someone in, not walk. I'm not saying the walk is bad, but a hit in those situations means a whole lot more for his team. From reading what James wrote, I think that may be the point he is trying to make as well. Why else would he have included him in the list?

 

(i'll edit the title)

[Ender]

No study of clutch hitting can begin without including R/L splits either. I have to imagine that Dunn sees a steady diet of LOOGY's in late inning clutch situations and it is going to really change his stats. Not to mention they'll be willing to BB him many times which will inflate his OBP. I just think it is a really hard thing to prove or disprove and it would take a very in depth study to even touch on the subject properly.

[AllStarMe]

FOOEY! :wink:

 

In those situations I want Adam Dunn to drive someone in, not walk. I'm not saying the walk is bad, but a hit in those situations means a whole lot more for his team. From reading what James wrote, I think that may be the point he is trying to make as well. Why else would he have included him in the list?

 

(i'll edit the title)

Sure a hit is ideal for driving in runs, but you have to figure in those clutch situations a hitter like Dunn is a lot less likely to see good pitches to hit, if there's a base open the other team may issue the unitentional IBB. The ability to recognize this, work the count and keep the inning alive is something that Dunn has shown to be adept at. While the .218 BA could certainly be improved upon, I'd have no problem with a guy who'll only make an out in 60% of those situations.

[UK1679666180]

Clutch hitting exists, any base hit in a crucial situation or sac. fly is clutch hitting.

 

The reasons for the clutch hit is a main problem. Was it b/c the ability to relax and push the added pressure aside, the pitcher getting caught up in the moment, or just a random pitcher/batter moment?

 

Then, is that hitter a clutch hitter? I lean towards the catagory of most clutch hitters being good hitters in any circumstance and able to block everything out rather than raising his game. There are good hitters who can fold under pressure though. It's more about maintaining rather than raising, IMO.

[erik316wttn]

What gets me is that there was a discussion on this very website during the season in which some argued that there was no such thing as "clutch", but in the same breath mentioned that there is such a thing as anti-clutch.

 

If there is no clutch, there is no anti-clutch. Period.

[Guest]

What gets me is that there was a discussion on this very website during the season in which some argued that there was no such thing as "clutch", but in the same breath mentioned that there is such a thing as anti-clutch.

 

If there is no clutch, there is no anti-clutch. Period.

 

Explain why.

[minnesotacubsfan]

What gets me is that there was a discussion on this very website during the season in which some argued that there was no such thing as "clutch", but in the same breath mentioned that there is such a thing as anti-clutch.

 

If there is no clutch, there is no anti-clutch. Period.

 

Explain why.

 

if you cannot have the ability to focus, concentrate, and adjust your approach/skill set in a "pressure" situation, you cannot have the ability to loose focus, concentaration, and ability to adjust youre approach/skill sets and thus "choke"

 

I do believe ther is somthing to being "clutch", although I think it is overblown by mainstream media

[Jon]

Clutch doesn't enter into the anti-clutch equation. Anti-clutch numbers would have to be compared to overall numbers, not clutch numbers. All it means is that a player can do worse in a tight situation that what they'd normally do.

[minnesotacubsfan]

Clutch doesn't enter into the anti-clutch equation. Anti-clutch numbers would have to be compared to overall numbers, not clutch numbers. All it means is that a player can do worse in a tight situation that what they'd normally do.

 

 

I guess what bothers me on this arguement is why cant they do better?

[Guest]

Clutch doesn't enter into the anti-clutch equation. Anti-clutch numbers would have to be compared to overall numbers, not clutch numbers. All it means is that a player can do worse in a tight situation that what they'd normally do.

 

 

I guess what bothers me on this arguement is why cant they do better?

 

If they can do better, why can't they do that all the time? Why are they doing worse than they should a majority of the time.

[minnesotacubsfan]

Clutch doesn't enter into the anti-clutch equation. Anti-clutch numbers would have to be compared to overall numbers, not clutch numbers. All it means is that a player can do worse in a tight situation that what they'd normally do.

 

 

I guess what bothers me on this arguement is why cant they do better?

 

If they can do better, why can't they do that all the time? Why are they doing worse than they should a majority of the time.

 

maybe they are unaware of how it happens-the same whay some onw who is a "chock-artist" is unaware of how not to choke

 

the flaw in the anti-clutch arguement for me is that it can only happen one way-that a player can only get worse then their typical/average, but never better. statistics are based on average, but lets face it, NO ONE give 110% every day every second.

[Dirt Dog Sparly]

It has been touched on here also but not said.

 

Not everything a player can do that is "clutch" results in a positive statistical outcome for themselves. An example would be what looks like a routine 4-3 putout on the scorecard. In reality that out was made when the second baseman laid out to keep a ball from going through the hole and just beats the runner going up the line to first. Instead of the batter getting credit for driving in the runners at second and third it becomes a fielders choice and the runner at second advancing to third.

 

Is a situation like that taken into account when you look for the "clutchiness" or "Anti-Clutchiness" of a player?

 

Like others have said the players who are most often viewed as "clutch" are only maintaining standards as opposed to the majority of their peers who either "press" or who mentally are failing when they step to the plate.

[Exile on Waveland]

I just appreciated this:

 

Those things are all interesting, but Tampa Bay playing Texas in April is not the same as San Diego playing Los Angeles in September.

 

I don't know if clutch exists. But I am certain there is no stat yet to define it. RISP and close and late are NOT good stats for clutch. They are garbage. Not every game and situation is the same. Hitting a home run when leading by one run in the seventh inning in April is not clutch. Hitting a walk-off home run in the bottom of the ninth in the last game of the season when you're tied for the wild card is clutch. Both are close and late stats. That, of course, doesn't mean the clutch hitter exists.

[erik316wttn]

What gets me is that there was a discussion on this very website during the season in which some argued that there was no such thing as "clutch", but in the same breath mentioned that there is such a thing as anti-clutch.

 

If there is no clutch, there is no anti-clutch. Period.

 

Explain why.

 

if you cannot have the ability to focus, concentrate, and adjust your approach/skill set in a "pressure" situation, you cannot have the ability to loose focus, concentaration, and ability to adjust youre approach/skill sets and thus "choke"

 

I do believe ther is somthing to being "clutch", although I think it is overblown by mainstream media

 

I will agree with this explanation.

 

Clutch is hard to define, but I do think there are players who do better in pressure situations than others, just like there are teams that play better in big games than others.

 

The whole "anti-clutch" argument can be debunked by the law of averages. If there is an "average" performance which some argue can go down under certain situations, then it can also go up, otherwise it's not the "average" performance but rather the pinnacle of a hitter's abilities.

[Exile on Waveland]

What gets me is that there was a discussion on this very website during the season in which some argued that there was no such thing as "clutch", but in the same breath mentioned that there is such a thing as anti-clutch.

 

If there is no clutch, there is no anti-clutch. Period.

 

Explain why.

 

Yeah, I don't believe that's intrinsically true. I do believe some players tighten up in certain situations and are thereby "anti-clutch." It's human nature; some of which isn't good. That doesn't automatically mean other players are better in certain situations. Why would they be? And, if so, then aren't they under-performing in other situations? Unless, of course, the argument is that clutch players simply perform the same in all situations.

[abuck1220]

What gets me is that there was a discussion on this very website during the season in which some argued that there was no such thing as "clutch", but in the same breath mentioned that there is such a thing as anti-clutch.

 

If there is no clutch, there is no anti-clutch. Period.

 

that's absolutely ridiculous. there are people who choke and people who don't choke, but the existence of chokers doesn't mean there are people who perform better under pressure.

[CubinNY]

What gets me is that there was a discussion on this very website during the season in which some argued that there was no such thing as "clutch", but in the same breath mentioned that there is such a thing as anti-clutch.

 

If there is no clutch, there is no anti-clutch. Period.

 

that's absolutely ridiculous. there are people who choke and people who don't choke, but the existence of chokers doesn't mean there are people who perform better under pressure.

 

I think the entire exercise is silly. There is no objective way to define "pressure situations" that includes all instances and excludes all non-instances. The debate is mental masturbation.

 

I'll take both Jeter and A-Rod on my team any day, who wouldn't?

[Bruno7481]

What gets me is that there was a discussion on this very website during the season in which some argued that there was no such thing as "clutch", but in the same breath mentioned that there is such a thing as anti-clutch.

 

If there is no clutch, there is no anti-clutch. Period.

 

The debate is mental masturbation.

 

 

Will that make me go blind as well?

[dougdescenzo]

Clutch will never be proven because it is impossible to define. It's basically just someones opinion whether something is clutch or not. A 2-out rbi single in the 5th against a pitcher who is dealing in a 0-0 game to me maybe clutch, but to someone else watching it isn't since it happened in June against the Orioles.