Bill James: Clutch Hitting Might Exist

[abuck1220]

clutch will never be proven because it's ridiculous to think a guy can magically improve to a level beyond his normal ability on cue unless you're playing some type of video game. if a player had the ability to "clutch up" and hit .100 points higher in tight spots, he'd use this magical ability at all times and just hit .100 points higher overall (and become much more wealthy and valuable to his team).

[haltz]

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 would be me. Maybe others too, I don't know.

 

Maybe this is pointless since you said "period," but I'll give it a shot. I said anti-clutch was easier to swallow than clutch, because hitting isn't a marathon. It's a maximum effort and concentration proposition every time. I think it's more likely that a player could be affected negatively by the biggest situation he's ever been in, than that igniting some skill that they can't tap into otherwise.

 

Also, what's a nerve-wracking or "clutch" situation to a player might not be exactly be high leverage situations, or late and close or whatever. As players move up through the levels, what makes an at-bat pressure packed? The fact that they are fighting for their career, promotions, a starting job with every plate appearance or that the Missoula Osprey is down by one run during some double-header in July? A player's entire pre-arb experience should be "clutch."

 

If someone is saying that a major leaguer can only fully concentrate and give maximum effort during an at-bat that's late in the year, maybe has playoff implications, or in the postseason, then I say that's preposterous. If they are saying that they don't fully concentrate all of the time, then that's not what clutch is. That's just a player that must be supremely talented to hold down a job in the bigs with those kind of lapses. And the more we whittle it down to keep the romance alive, the more useless the sample sizes.

 

For the most part, I think that players that are affected by these types of things are weeded out long before the show, so I doubt there is much of it. I don't doubt that there is such a thing as situational hitters, or hitters better suited for certain situations, so maybe some of the clutch debate is semantics.

 

PH and abuck said it pretty well, I think.

[minnesotacubsfan]

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

 

 

see how that works both ways? you cant have "choking" in baseball w/o "clutch".

[abuck1220]

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

 

 

see how that works both ways? you cant have "choking" in baseball w/o "clutch".

 

why? please explain this to me.

[Exile on Waveland]

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

 

 

see how that works both ways? you cant have "choking" in baseball w/o "clutch".

 

why? please explain this to me.

 

Yeah, that's just not true. It can't be explained.

[abuck1220]

that's like saying there aren't people who cancer can kill unless there are people who cancer can make better.

[CuseCubFan69]

I think a good possibility for clutch hitting is how the pitcher attacks the hitter when a man is in scoring position. I wonder if there have been any studies to show the percentage of fastballs thrown and off speed when a runner is in scoring position. For example. Say Z throws 80% fastballs but once a runner is in scoring position does he change that pattern than he does with no one on? If so, does he try to go to the batters weaknesses or does he go to his own strength? If a big percentage of pitchers do go either off speed or fastball wouldn't that change the idea of it just being the batter that is clutch? Do they have clutch pithing and a that breakdown of pitches thrown by pitches in that situation?

[UK1679666180]

I think a good possibility for clutch hitting is how the pitcher attacks the hitter when a man is in scoring position. I wonder if there have been any studies to show the percentage of fastballs thrown and off speed when a runner is in scoring position. For example. Say Z throws 80% fastballs but once a runner is in scoring position does he change that pattern than he does with no one on? If so, does he try to go to the batters weaknesses or does he go to his own strength? If a big percentage of pitchers do go either off speed or fastball wouldn't that change the idea of it just being the batter that is clutch? Do they have clutch pithing and a that breakdown of pitches thrown by pitches in that situation?

 

With Z, his pattern rarely changes either way, you get FB and FB and a frisbee slurve occasionally on the inner half which breaks across the plate during the rare times he actually stays on top of the pitch.

 

It all depends on how bad the hitter's weakness is compared to how much a pitcher's strength is. Use a Marquis vs. Chris Young (AZ) matchup & say it's close in the 7th inning & Marquis is ahead in the count 0-2. Young is a good FB hitter at any level, Marquis' best pitch is the 2 seamer, if I'm calling pitches my next pitch is a curve from Marquis out of the zone, despite Marquis' curve being below avg. My hope is not to strike him out, but to get him to roll over to SS.

 

If it was Webb or Z that Young was facing, I would have them challenge Young with FBs.

 

If a hitter is clutch, he would be able to produce regardless of how the pitcher is pitching to him.

[CuseCubFan69]

I think a good possibility for clutch hitting is how the pitcher attacks the hitter when a man is in scoring position. I wonder if there have been any studies to show the percentage of fastballs thrown and off speed when a runner is in scoring position. For example. Say Z throws 80% fastballs but once a runner is in scoring position does he change that pattern than he does with no one on? If so, does he try to go to the batters weaknesses or does he go to his own strength? If a big percentage of pitchers do go either off speed or fastball wouldn't that change the idea of it just being the batter that is clutch? Do they have clutch pithing and a that breakdown of pitches thrown by pitches in that situation?

 

With Z, his pattern rarely changes either way, you get FB and FB and a frisbee slurve occasionally on the inner half which breaks across the plate during the rare times he actually stays on top of the pitch.

 

It all depends on how bad the hitter's weakness is compared to how much a pitcher's strength is. Use a Marquis vs. Chris Young (AZ) matchup & say it's close in the 7th inning & Marquis is ahead in the count 0-2. Young is a good FB hitter at any level, Marquis' best pitch is the 2 seamer, if I'm calling pitches my next pitch is a curve from Marquis out of the zone, despite Marquis' curve being below avg. My hope is not to strike him out, but to get him to roll over to SS.

 

If it was Webb or Z that Young was facing, I would have them challenge Young with FBs.

 

If a hitter is clutch, he would be able to produce regardless of how the pitcher is pitching to him.

 

Yeah but a lot of pitchers get cute when ahead and nibble. Also, what happens if player X has had worse pitchers to hit against in the clutch while player Y has faced the upper echelon? It's a pretty small number and each year this may differ.

[UK1679666180]

There are definitely more factors not concerning the hitter in clutch situations than the actual hitter.

 

Look at the HR that just circled my house that Pujols hit off of Lidge in '05, was that clutch?

Sure, but he's the best hitter in the game and I could've thrown a slider with more break than that one.

[minnesotacubsfan]

that's like saying there aren't people who cancer can kill unless there are people who cancer can make better.

 

um..no its not, and that is the dumbest analogy I have read on this board to date.

 

cancer isn't a performance under stress.

[CubinNY]

that's like saying there aren't people who cancer can kill unless there are people who cancer can make better.

 

um..no its not, and that is the dumbest analogy I have read on this board to date.

 

cancer isn't a performance under stress.

I hope this helps:

 

Not that I necessarily agree with this but here it goes, Clutch is simply performing at "typical" levels in "pressure situations". The player doesn't get better, he simply performs at or near expected levels

 

Anti-clutch is the player performing at significantly worse levels in "pressure situations". I don't know how they would measure drop-off and how to control for opportunities, but I think that is the logic.

 

It makes sense at some level.

[minnesotacubsfan]

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

 

 

see how that works both ways? you cant have "choking" in baseball w/o "clutch".

 

why? please explain this to me.

 

Yeah, that's just not true. It can't be explained.

 

 

It’s very simple. If stress of a situation can drain a player’s ability and concentration, then it can also help them to elevate it. You cannot claim in a reasonable argument that stress only takes from a player’s ability. (well you could, but you aren’t being reasonable). Some players may have the ability to elevate their game in a situation that they recognize it to be critical.

 

Another poster mentioned that a "critical" situation is subjective, and can depend on the player (critical to his career, to his batting ave, etc etc etc.) I could buy this argument, but if that is the case it can also be said for "choking".

 

I cannot accept someone claiming there is such an event of choking with out its antithasis, clutch.

[minnesotacubsfan]

that's like saying there aren't people who cancer can kill unless there are people who cancer can make better.

 

um..no its not, and that is the dumbest analogy I have read on this board to date.

 

cancer isn't a performance under stress.

I hope this helps:

 

Not that I necessarily agree with this but here it goes, Clutch is simply performing at "typical" levels in "pressure situations". The player doesn't get better, he simply performs at or near expected levels

 

Anti-clutch is the player performing at significantly worse levels in "pressure situations". I don't know how they would measure drop-off and how to control for opportunities, but I think that is the logic.

 

It makes sense at some level.

 

ok, I can buy that, but then there is neither "clutch" nor "choke", simply performing at expected levels and not performing at expected levels.

[haltz]

ok, I can buy that, but then there is neither "clutch" nor "choke", simply performing at expected levels and not performing at expected levels.

Maybe you could think about it like this: all major leaguers are clutch. To stay in the bigs, it takes an insane amount of talent, and an insane amount of concentration. Hitting major league pitching is just really hard. Everyone knows that. If you can concentrate any more, you will use that. And if you want to talk about stressful, I expect a rookie season in the bigs would be at the top of the list. Not the playoffs when you are 31 and an established player.

 

However, part of the reason that some people wash out, might be mental. They are prone to lapses in concentration, or their game lowers under stress. If you care about the game and making a career out of it. If you have that self-interest to set yourself and your family up financially, then all of the at-bats are going to be big until that happens. I'd usually assume this kind of thing is a matter of talent, but whatever, sometimes there's a grey area on what's what exactly.

 

This is just another one of those things were the level of play is so elite that you are going to have weird findings. Like DiPS or catcher ERA. Stuff that people don't want to believe, but it's true because you have to have so much of whatever that "stuff" is or you never get your cup of coffee.

[minnesotacubsfan]

ok, I can buy that, but then there is neither "clutch" nor "choke", simply performing at expected levels and not performing at expected levels.

Maybe you could think about it like this: all major leaguers are clutch. To stay in the bigs, it takes an insane amount of talent, and an insane amount of concentration. Hitting major league pitching is just really hard. Everyone knows that. If you can concentrate any more, you will use that. And if you want to talk about stressful, I expect a rookie season in the bigs would be at the top of the list. Not the playoffs when you are 31 and an established player.

 

However, part of the reason that some people wash out, might be mental. They are prone to lapses in concentration, or their game lowers under stress. If you care about the game and making a career out of it. If you have that self-interest to set yourself and your family up financially, then all of the at-bats are going to be big until that happens. I'd usually assume this kind of thing is a matter of talent, but whatever, sometimes there's a grey area on what's what exactly.

 

This is just another one of those things were the level of play is so elite that you are going to have weird findings. Like DiPS or catcher ERA. Stuff that people don't want to believe, but it's true because you have to have so much of whatever that "stuff" is or you never get your cup of coffee.

 

I can fully agree with that, but none of it takes into account situational hitting, and I would argue people who use the term "choke" only use it in refernce to situational hitting. Nobody says a player "chokes" when he stirkes out to make the first out of the top of the second inning.

[haltz]

I can fully agree with that, but none of it takes into account situational hitting, and I would argue people who use the term "choke" only use it in refernce to situational hitting. Nobody says a player "chokes" when he stirkes out to make the first out of the top of the second inning.

Situational hitting is mainly bat control. It's a skill that has to do with not striking out basically and it's not all that important. There's really nothing clutch about it in the sense of a new stress-induced level of performance.

 

Any player that makes an out in a big situation has choked, just like if he got a hit it would've been clutch. The question is whether he was performing at a different talent level because of the situation and if it's repeatable. I find the that hard to believe.

[CuseCubFan69]

There are definitely more factors not concerning the hitter in clutch situations than the actual hitter.

 

Look at the HR that just circled my house that Pujols hit off of Lidge in '05, was that clutch?

Sure, but he's the best hitter in the game and I could've thrown a slider with more break than that one.

 

I've seen you throw, I doubt you could!

 

Did Lidge choke? Was he beat up from throwing 1000 innings on no days rest? Ooooh...the ball just went past my house!

[minnesotacubsfan]

I can fully agree with that, but none of it takes into account situational hitting, and I would argue people who use the term "choke" only use it in refernce to situational hitting. Nobody says a player "chokes" when he stirkes out to make the first out of the top of the second inning.

Situational hitting is mainly bat control. It's a skill that has to do with not striking out basically and it's not all that important. There's really nothing clutch about it in the sense of a new stress-induced level of performance.

 

Any player that makes an out in a big situation has choked, just like if he got a hit it would've been clutch. The question is whether he was performing at a different talent level because of the situation and if it's repeatable. I find the that hard to believe.

 

I agree.

[abuck1220]

It’s very simple. If stress of a situation can drain a player’s ability and concentration, then it can also help them to elevate it.

 

give me a break. you speak that as if it's gospel. you have no proof or reasoning to back up such a statement. it's ridiculous.

 

You cannot claim in a reasonable argument that stress only takes from a player’s ability.

 

why the hell not? having a broken arm only takes away from a player's ability. there isn't some kind of unseen balance in the force that mandates every outside force has some kind of equal effect on the universe.

 

what a moronic couple of statements.

[minnesotacubsfan]

It’s very simple. If stress of a situation can drain a player’s ability and concentration, then it can also help them to elevate it.

 

give me a break. you speak that as if it's gospel. you have no proof or reasoning to back up such a statement. it's ridiculous.

 

You cannot claim in a reasonable argument that stress only takes from a player’s ability.

 

why the hell not? having a broken arm only takes away from a player's ability. there isn't some kind of unseen balance in the force that mandates every outside force has some kind of equal effect on the universe.

 

what a moronic couple of statements.

 

abuck, you insist that its on one way street, that you can only do worse in a "pressure" situation. That is a facetious arguement. my statements are not moronic. they are arguements. The "proof" is simply what I just stated.

 

personally, I dont really want to believe in either a "clutch" hitter or "choke artist". I would like to believe haltz's explanation. But, as of yet, I see definitive prove of neither arguements. It really is abit of "mental masturbation." My whole reason for this discussion is the lack inclusion of "clutch" to the "choke" arguement.

 

I am sorry if you were offended because I think your cancer analogy was stupid, but it was.

[RegulusBlue]

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.

 

Incorrect. There may be no clutch, but there is choke. I would argue that you can fall apart under stress of a certain level as a baseball player, but usually those guys don't make it to the majors, so there aren't many to tell you about.

 

Bill James misses two pretty important things in his meandering non-argument. First, most players have similar statistics in clutch and non-clutch situations, given enough tries. There is a skill level that a player will eventually regress/progress to after a large enough sample size.

 

The other one is even easier. David Ortiz, or any other hitter known as 'clutch' does not become stronger, quicker, or faster when it "really matters". His body is his body from any random at-bat to the next. He is biologically the same being in April (disregarding age) as he is October, or on Friday as he is on Thursday. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that he only gets 100% of his ability in certain situations, which signifies a lack of effort during non-clutch situations.

[abuck1220]

It’s very simple. If stress of a situation can drain a player’s ability and concentration, then it can also help them to elevate it.

 

give me a break. you speak that as if it's gospel. you have no proof or reasoning to back up such a statement. it's ridiculous.

 

You cannot claim in a reasonable argument that stress only takes from a player’s ability.

 

why the hell not? having a broken arm only takes away from a player's ability. there isn't some kind of unseen balance in the force that mandates every outside force has some kind of equal effect on the universe.

 

what a moronic couple of statements.

 

abuck, you insist that its on one way street, that you can only do worse in a "pressure" situation. That is a facetious arguement. my statements are not moronic. they are arguements. The "proof" is simply what I just stated.

 

personally, I dont really want to believe in either a "clutch" hitter or "choke artist". I would like to believe haltz's explanation. But, as of yet, I see definitive prove of neither arguements. It really is abit of "mental masturbation." My whole reason for this discussion is the lack inclusion of "clutch" to the "choke" arguement.

 

I am sorry if you were offended because I think your cancer analogy was stupid, but it was.

 

no, it wasn't. just because something has a negative effect on some people (whether it's pressure or cancer) doesn't mean it has to have a positive effect on other people.

 

that's stupid.

[minnesotacubsfan]

It’s very simple. If stress of a situation can drain a player’s ability and concentration, then it can also help them to elevate it.

 

give me a break. you speak that as if it's gospel. you have no proof or reasoning to back up such a statement. it's ridiculous.

 

You cannot claim in a reasonable argument that stress only takes from a player’s ability.

 

why the hell not? having a broken arm only takes away from a player's ability. there isn't some kind of unseen balance in the force that mandates every outside force has some kind of equal effect on the universe.

 

what a moronic couple of statements.

 

abuck, you insist that its on one way street, that you can only do worse in a "pressure" situation. That is a facetious arguement. my statements are not moronic. they are arguements. The "proof" is simply what I just stated.

 

personally, I dont really want to believe in either a "clutch" hitter or "choke artist". I would like to believe haltz's explanation. But, as of yet, I see definitive prove of neither arguements. It really is abit of "mental masturbation." My whole reason for this discussion is the lack inclusion of "clutch" to the "choke" arguement.

 

I am sorry if you were offended because I think your cancer analogy was stupid, but it was.

 

no, it wasn't. just because something has a negative effect on some people (whether it's pressure or cancer) doesn't mean it has to have a positive effect on other people.

 

that's stupid.

 

but you see, cancer CAN have a positive effect on people

[abuck1220]

yeah, cancer's the best.