Bill James: Clutch Hitting Might Exist

[minnesotacubsfan]

yeah, cancer's the best.

 

your missing the point.

 

it isnt whether or not cancer, or pressure, or a [expletive] goat is good or bad, it is the idea that it can affect someone both positively or negatively. it doesnt have to do a damn thing. but it COULD do either.

[abuck1220]

i think you're missing the point.

 

just because X has a negative effect on people, doesn't mean that X necessarily has a positive effect on some people.

 

of course, it depends on what X is. but it is impossible for me to imagine how pressure could make a baseball player play at a higher level than he normally does.

 

generically speaking, say player A is typically an 7 on a scale of 1-10. i can see how pressure could bring him down to a 5, but i don't see how pressure can make him a 9. it just isn't possible. if he had the ability to elevate his game to a 9 at will, he'd just be a 9 all the time.

[minnesotacubsfan]

 

generically speaking, say player A is typically an 7 on a scale of 1-10. i can see how pressure could bring him down to a 5, but i don't see how pressure can make him a 9. it just isn't possible. if he had the ability to elevate his game to a 9 at will, he'd just be a 9 all the time.

 

I can buy the thought that choking is much much more likely then clutch hitting because of things mentioned in this thread (such as minor leagues weeding people out), but I dont think everyone plays up to their full capacity at all times. I feel, it is possible for a player to play at less then his potential in a minority of times and it is ALSO likely that a player can play at less then his potential in the majority of times, thus reaching his potential in the minority of times, even at the major league level. They are human, and have both the mental and physical sides of their ability.

[haltz]

I feel, it is possible for a player to play at less then his potential in a minority of times and it is ALSO likely that a player can play at less then his potential in the majority of times, thus reaching his potential in the minority of times, even at the major league level. They are human, and have both the mental and physical sides of their ability.

I disagree that you can be an MLB regular and not play to your potential almost all of the time. Like I said earlier, you'd have to be extremely talented to get away with that. There's no reason to not bring your maximum whatever in an at-bat. It's a sprint, not a marathon. There's really no need to coast in an at-bat.

 

Putting that aside though, what you are describing isn't really clutch. Clutch requires that you play over your head only at certain times. That there's a level of ability that you can only tap into when the at-bat is at its utmost importance (and the assumption that this is during critical times for your team, I've argued self-interest likely trumps that for a lot of a player's career, but whatever).

 

What you are describing is a player that doesn't take at-bats to his potential the majority of the time. Even if that were the case for the majority of players, that's not clutch. There have to be players that do have that kind of focus to take 500 at-bats a year. It is the highest level of competition, after all. So what you're saying is that there are players that focus better and more often than others. I'd argue that weed-out takes care of most of that, but you're essentially arguing for an anti-clutch mechanism, not a new magical level of performance.

[minnesotacubsfan]

i think y...he'd just be a 9 all the time.

 

thank you for this post, abuck. it was one of the clearest, most direct replies to one of my posts I can remember. I now understand the point you are trying to make.

 

Haltz & abuck,

 

I wanted to re-read the James article one more time before I made a final post. I understand your points of view, and I think you make some valid points, but it is still troubling to me the singularity of your argument. I guess we could go round and round, but I don't think it would be productive anymore. And if I read James' article correctly, then he is still shifting through all the nuances of the discussion. So, at this point, I just will wait patiently to here more from him (as I respect him a great deal in matters of baseball) before I can really think it through anymore. He has the time and resources to study this in more depth then any of us, I believe, anyway.

[Careless]

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'm quite certain that there are people who perform better under pressure (you should see my career baseball stats, not to mention other aspects of my life). I'm not at all certain that anyone like that will ever make the major leagues. Baseball is a high pressure sport. If you're not good at playing under intense pressure, how will you ever make it as a MLB player for any length of time?

which is to basically say that nearly everyone who plays in the majors is probably better at playing under stress than the average person and probably unlikely to play better under unusually high-stress situations.

[abuck1220]

i'm not saying a guy can't perform "better" under pressure than another guy. i'm saying a guy can't improve his own individual game under pressure.

 

obviously player X could be a 7 overall and a 7 under pressure, whereas player Z could be a 7 overall and a 5 under pressure. player X is obviuosly better under pressure than player Z, but player X's game under pressure is not better than player X's game not under pressure.

[Careless]

And I thought I made it quite clear that I think you're wrong.

 

I'm not sure how you missed my point so completely]

 

let me try again:

Statement 1: if you do not play well under very high stress situations, you will not become a professional baseball player unless you are ungodly talented.

 

Statement 2: given that, there are probably no baseball players (and more likely none beyond an amount that could be considered statistical noise) who are not adept at playing at extremely high levels of stress, and therefore there is very little room for clutch improvements

 

statement 3: that does not preclude the existence of clutch hitting/playing/test taking/etc at lower levels of play.

[minnesotacubsfan]

And I thought I made it quite clear that I think you're wrong.

 

I'm not sure how you missed my point so completely]

 

let me try again:

Statement 1: if you do not play well under very high stress situations, you will not become a professional baseball player unless you are ungodly talented.

 

Statement 2: given that, there are probably no baseball players (and more likely none beyond an amount that could be considered statistical noise) who are not adept at playing at extremely high levels of stress, and therefore there is very little room for clutch improvements

 

statement 3: that does not preclude the existence of clutch hitting/playing/test taking/etc at lower levels of play.

 

is Statement 1 an arguement against the idea of "chokers"?

[abuck1220]

And I thought I made it quite clear that I think you're wrong.

 

I'm not sure how you missed my point so completely]

 

let me try again:

Statement 1: if you do not play well under very high stress situations, you will not become a professional baseball player unless you are ungodly talented.

 

Statement 2: given that, there are probably no baseball players (and more likely none beyond an amount that could be considered statistical noise) who are not adept at playing at extremely high levels of stress, and therefore there is very little room for clutch improvements

 

statement 3: that does not preclude the existence of clutch hitting/playing/test taking/etc at lower levels of play.

 

that doesn't even make sense, and your statements have nothing to do with each other or with what i said.

 

what level you play at makes no difference. whether you're an eight year old playing little league or arod, pressure can 1) make you perform below your norm or 2) have no effect on you (and you stay at your norm). but it cannot elevate you above your norm so that you hit better, do better on tests, whatever. it defies logic.

[Fro]

i'm not saying a guy can't perform "better" under pressure than another guy. i'm saying a guy can't improve his own individual game under pressure.

 

obviously player X could be a 7 overall and a 7 under pressure, whereas player Z could be a 7 overall and a 5 under pressure. player X is obviuosly better under pressure than player Z, but player X's game under pressure is not better than player X's game not under pressure.

 

How do you explain the fact that we have closers in baseball, and some of them suck in non-save situations? Or the fact that a guy like a LaTroy Hawkins can be lights-out in the 7th or 8th inning but fall apart in the 9th?

 

I see no reason why clutch play doesn't exist in baseball like any other sport... just the effects are limited as a hitter since so much depends on the pitcher and luck.

[chopsx9]

Your skill level will not change given the situation. Your skill is constant, it is what is (at a given time - over time it can chage- i.e aging). The ability to perform to the full extent of your skill level is absolutely variable. Performance suffering in pressure situations is fairly evident I think (See Latroy Hawkins, Rick Ankiel) But can you perform better??

 

Can knowing being in a pressure situation cause you to concentrate more and thus perform better?? ( I could see a personality like Manny Ramirezs' being a palyer like this) I don't think that it is that huge of a streach to think that is possible. Should it happen in professional atheletes? Absolutely not, and I would imagine it happens much less and to a much smaller degree but I certainly think it could happen.

 

I imagine it is the definiton of a clutch hitter that needs to be determined. I have always thought (perhaps erroneously)a clutch hitter as one that comes through in "clutch situations" more often than the typical player. Not so much that he is better than he is in other situations.

 

What is the major league average (or OBP or OPS or whatever you want to use) of all players in non-clutch situations? Then in clutch situations? Is there a difference? (I have no idea)

 

If a players performance in clutch situations is greater than the league average I would say he is a clutch hitter. (It's a fairly loose term) You could even look at their deviations from league averages in each situation to assess their relative performance to the league. I don't think a player has to perform "better" (than himself in other situations) to be clutch - I just think he has to perform well. So, yes, better hitters are more likely to be clutch hitters but I think that is fairly logical. Maybe the difference is in what your definition of clutch is.

 

I would think that some players are better at playing to fullest extent of their abilities in pressure situations than others and I would also assume that in most cases these are the same players that can do so in non pressure situations.

 

And I am sorry but the cancer analogy is incorrect (and other things) but I'll leave it at that.

[abuck1220]

 

Can knowing being in a pressure situation cause you to concentrate more and thus perform better?? ( I could see a personality like Manny Ramirezs' being a palyer like this) I don't think that it is that huge of a streach to think that is possible. Should it happen in professional atheletes? Absolutely not, and I would imagine it happens much less and to a much smaller degree but I certainly think it could happen.

 

 

then that's not clutch, as he's apparently not trying his hardest in non-pressure situations.

[haltz]

If a players performance in clutch situations is greater than the league average I would say he is a clutch hitter.

That's great. I would say that he's a better than average player, in clutch and non-clutch situations. If you want to call Albert Pujols a clutch hitter because he's a monster in all situations, go for it. No one's going to dispute that because it's obvious.

 

We can make up all sorts of definitions for whatever we want, but that is not what the clutch debate is over.

[Careless]

And I thought I made it quite clear that I think you're wrong.

 

I'm not sure how you missed my point so completely]

 

let me try again:

Statement 1: if you do not play well under very high stress situations, you will not become a professional baseball player unless you are ungodly talented.

 

Statement 2: given that, there are probably no baseball players (and more likely none beyond an amount that could be considered statistical noise) who are not adept at playing at extremely high levels of stress, and therefore there is very little room for clutch improvements

 

statement 3: that does not preclude the existence of clutch hitting/playing/test taking/etc at lower levels of play.

 

that doesn't even make sense, and your statements have nothing to do with each other or with what i said.

 

what level you play at makes no difference. whether you're an eight year old playing little league or arod, pressure can 1) make you perform below your norm or 2) have no effect on you (and you stay at your norm). but it cannot elevate you above your norm so that you hit better, do better on tests, whatever. it defies logic.

Well, then you're just clueless in this topic. end of story. It defies no logic. It simply points out that you have a closed and simple mind

 

 

honestly, if I didn't know you were serious, I;d think this was a sarcastic comment. It's purely stupod.

 

Let it be clear:if you think that stress means you perform at the exact same level or worse and cannot possibly perform at a better level, I think you are a fool

 

(and yes, I've been drinking. note: I still spell better than NY)

 

How can you never have met a slacker in your entire life, abuck? that seems beyond reason

 

If you think that no one performs worse in a stressless situation than a streesful one, you are... I'm sorry, I'm not sure of the appropriate adjective

 

Also, what about it doesn't make sense? your objection to the differences in the level of play was pathetically shortsighted, as if you actually thinik that MLB is like your high school team. I can't believe you don't see that high level baseball play selects for both baseball talent and stressful play talent. it's so very obvious

[abuck1220]

Well, then you're just clueless in this topic. end of story. It defies no logic. It simply points out that you have a closed and simple mind

 

thanks!

 

 

honestly, if I didn't know you were serious, I;d think this was a sarcastic comment. It's purely stupod.

 

classic sentence, really.

 

Let it be clear:if you think that stress means you perform at the exact same level or worse and cannot possibly perform at a better level, I think you are a fool.

 

well, then i guess i'm a fool for thinking that stress doesn't magically give a guy a better eye at the plate, bigger muscles, or the extra strength to throw another 5 mph. yep, i'm a fool.

 

How can you never have met a slacker in your entire life, abuck? that seems beyond reason

 

i'll chalk this random sentence up to you being drunk.

 

If you think that no one performs worse in a stressless situation than a streesful one, you are... I'm sorry, I'm not sure of the appropriate adjective

 

if they perform worse in a stressless situation it's because they aren't concentrating as much as they could or not putting forth their best effort. if they then do concentrate fully or put forth their best effort in a stressful situation, they aren't raising their game above their highest level, they're simply playing at their highest level.

 

Also, what about it doesn't make sense? your objection to the differences in the level of play was pathetically shortsighted, as if you actually thinik that MLB is like your high school team. I can't believe you don't see that high level baseball play selects for both baseball talent and stressful play talent. it's so very obvious

 

again with the drunkenness.

 

 

good post though.