Why do we have to pretend that "clutch" doesn't exist?

[badnews]

Let me be honest my friends. I have grown weary of this facade where we all pretend that no one is more clutch than anyone else. I am tired of pretending that poor Casey Blake is just "unlucky" and we need to take Jeff Francoeur to Vegas.

 

It seems totally disingenuous to pretend that Casey Blake and Jeff Francoeur are equally "clutch." Francoeur has been what some might term "clutch" for 3 years now. Casey Blake has been pathetically, miserably "un-clutch" for eons now. Casey Blake might be the least clutch hitter I have ever seen in my life. But the Baseball Illuminati will not allow us to acknowledge this. Why?

 

Is Casey Blake more likely than Jeff Francoeur to have a better BA or OPS with RISP than with the bases empty? Of course not. He hasn't done it in his career, ever, and Francoeur has done it every year he's been in the league.

 

To me, saying that clutch doesn't exist is tantamount to saying that no one is any more likely than Casey Blake to exceed his bases empty numbers (or, to a lesser extent, his career rate numbers) with RISP or what have you. And that just looks like people lying to themselves to me.

[imb]

No one will ever be able to prove it one way or the other.

 

There's no reason to give an S, either. You can't build a team around clutch, because there's no way to say "well, this guy will be clutch this year!" and even if you could, it's not going to make a enough of a difference in a season that it's worth worrying about.

 

frankly im sick of the stupid arguments, on both sides. If you're debating between two players, there are about a million things I would look at first before I got to wondering whether or not a player was clutch or not. Who cares about the handful of at bats where a players clutchiness or whatever matters when compared to the other 600 plate appearances where it doesnt? Just take the better player and hope he hits well in the 5 at bats he's going to see with 2 strikes and a runner on third with 2 outs down by one in the bottom of the ninth, or whatever.

[CubmanPi]

Clutch exists merely as perception, visible only to those who choose to see it. Does anyone remember Alex Gonzalez as being "clutch"? Or is he just KGon, the REAL 8th inning scapegoat? Everyone remembers Sori's walkoff single against the Rockies last year, but at least equally as "clutch" was Koyie Hill two batters earlier.

 

Are they better players because they've performed in the clutch? Was their performance in the clutch simply a fluke? Does it not even qualify as clutch, since they sucked anyway?

[David]

I don't really believe that clutch exists at all, although I do think that certain players' skills are more likely to diminish in high pressure situations than others. Clutch (in the sense that a player "rises" to high pressure situations)? No. Anti-clutch, yes. I guess that's just semantics though.

 

That said, you would think that you would have to be pretty damn invulnerable to pressure in order to just make it to the Majors.

 

Either way, IMB! is right. It doesn't matter much.

[Vanilla Ice]

in before all hell breaks loose

[WrigleyField 22]

Well, I think that certain players might fold under pressure, so un-clutch may very well exist. But I don't think a majority of the players are skilled enough to the point where they can control the bat exceptionally better than normal in clutch situations year in and year out. There may be a handful of guys who might be able to, but I'd bet those guys are also just good hitters anyways, so how clutch is really?

[Andy]

There are batters better equipped to come through in the clutch than others. The vast majority of the time, those batters are the ones who are better hitters anyway.

 

That's what I have determined after a long time of researching the matter.

[Rob]

"Clutch" exists. There are large moments in ballgames, and some spectacular things can happen.

 

"Clutch players" are a myth, though. Performing better than normal in clutch situations one year doesn't make you more likely to perform in the clutch next year.

[Jon]

If clutch didn't exist, there wouldn't be an entire league dedicated to it.

 

You can't just discount the clutch debate. At least not as long as it has a major impact in personnel decisions and team philosophy (such as not having a philosophy and simply waiting for the clutch hits to come). If it only existed in the media, then it should definitely be ignored.

[CubinNY]

Why? Please make it stop. Please?

[Soul]

Why? Please make it stop. Please?

 

no.

[USSoccer]

Why do we have to pretend the Sun doesn't revolve around the Earth?

 

Seriously, though, if it exists, it's statistically insignifigant. IMB is right. How someone performs during 690 AB's is more telling that 10 AB's scattered over 6 months.

[17 Seconds]

Why do we have to pretend the Sun doesn't revolve around the Earth?

 

Seriously, though, if it exists, it's statistically insignifigant. IMB is right. How someone performs during 690 AB's is more telling that 10 AB's scattered over 6 months.

 

Whoa whoa whoa. 10 at-bats? Francoeur had 182 at-bats with RISP last season, 172 the year before, and 112 (out of 257 total) in 2005. Let's look at the situations for Casey Blake:

 

2007

 

Bases empty: .308 .382 .517

Runners on: .227 .289 .344

RISP: .190 .271 .294

 

2006:

 

Bases empty: .315 .380 .562

Runners on: .242 .329 .379

RISP: .261 .360 .450

 

2005

 

Bases empty: .278 .351 .535

Runners on: .192 .250 .308

RISP: .171 .243 .248

 

2004

 

Bases empty: .280 .364 .544

Runners on: .261 .343 .426

RISP: .254 .359 .364

 

2003

 

Bases empty: .269 .327 .416

Runners on: .239 .291 .404

RISP: .233 .291 .426

 

Career

 

Bases Empty: .286 .357 .504

Runners on: .234 .303 .372

RISP: .219 .303 .348

RISP w/2 outs: .195 .290 .302

 

That's not a coincidence guys, and it's not due to small numbers of at-bats. Those are large sample sizes and a definitive trend. How can you look at those numbers and say he's not more or likely to suck in clutch stats than a guy like Franceour?

 

Now, you can't look at every player in baseball and determine whether he's clutch or not, but for guys like Casey Blake, you absolutely can.

[Hosak8]

Let me be honest my friends. I have grown weary of this facade where we all pretend that no one is more clutch than anyone else. I am tired of pretending that poor Casey Blake is just "unlucky" and we need to take Jeff Francoeur to Vegas.

 

It seems totally disingenuous to pretend that Casey Blake and Jeff Francoeur are equally "clutch." Francoeur has been what some might term "clutch" for 3 years now. Casey Blake has been pathetically, miserably "un-clutch" for eons now. Casey Blake might be the least clutch hitter I have ever seen in my life. But the Baseball Illuminati will not allow us to acknowledge this. Why?

 

Is Casey Blake more likely than Jeff Francoeur to have a better BA or OPS with RISP than with the bases empty? Of course not. He hasn't done it in his career, ever, and Francoeur has done it every year he's been in the league.

 

To me, saying that clutch doesn't exist is tantamount to saying that no one is any more likely than Casey Blake to exceed his bases empty numbers (or, to a lesser extent, his career rate numbers) with RISP or what have you. And that just looks like people lying to themselves to me.

 

Anything that cannot be quantified by an obscure formula is irrelevant. Even I know that.

[CubinNY]

Why do we have to pretend the Sun doesn't revolve around the Earth?

 

Seriously, though, if it exists, it's statistically insignifigant. IMB is right. How someone performs during 690 AB's is more telling that 10 AB's scattered over 6 months.

 

Whoa whoa whoa. 10 at-bats? Francoeur had 182 at-bats with RISP last season, 172 the year before, and 112 (out of 257 total) in 2005. Let's look at the situations for Casey Blake:

 

2007

 

Bases empty: .308 .382 .517

Runners on: .227 .289 .344

RISP: .190 .271 .294

 

2006:

 

Bases empty: .315 .380 .562

Runners on: .242 .329 .379

RISP: .261 .360 .450

 

2005

 

Bases empty: .278 .351 .535

Runners on: .192 .250 .308

RISP: .171 .243 .248

 

2004

 

Bases empty: .280 .364 .544

Runners on: .261 .343 .426

RISP: .254 .359 .364

 

2003

 

Bases empty: .269 .327 .416

Runners on: .239 .291 .404

RISP: .233 .291 .426

 

Career

 

Bases Empty: .286 .357 .504

Runners on: .234 .303 .372

RISP: .219 .303 .348

RISP w/2 outs: .195 .290 .302

 

That's not a coincidence guys, and it's not due to small numbers of at-bats. Those are large sample sizes and a definitive trend. How can you look at those numbers and say he's not more or likely to suck in clutch stats than a guy like Franceour?

 

Now, you can't look at every player in baseball and determine whether he's clutch or not, but for guys like Casey Blake, you absolutely can.

That is known as a case study. Case studies have extremely limited generalizability. In other words, ah forget it carry on... I told myself I wouldn't post in this thread.

[Jon]

There's also a difference between clutch and anti-clutch. The supposed existence of anti-clutch does not prove the existence of clutch.

 

And I'm not getting involved.

[bhogg]

Give me a team full of guys that kick ass for 3 innings, thus eliminating close and late situations.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

There are hundreds of players in the majors each year. It is statistically inevitable that a few will have flukey splits several years in a row.

[USSoccer]

Yeah, I'm staying out of this one too from here on out.

[Illini Iceman]

Yeah, I'm staying out of this one too from here on out.

 

Thanks for the head's up.

 

Anyone else care to declare they won't be posting in this thread? It is important information for us all to know.

[17 Seconds]

Then why did you post here in the first place? Either discuss it or don't post at all. Don't make statements and then say "I'm not gonna post" when someone engages you in an argument.

 

Like badnews said, I don't understand why people have to pretend that id doesn't exist.

 

It is statistically inevitable that a few will have flukey splits several years in a row.

 

No, not really. If it was something like a guy sucking in 6th inning a-bats then that would be flukey. I don't think guys likethat exist, and if they do, there aren't many. Guys that either suck or excel in clutch stats are all over the league. That's a lot of "flukes". Hell, there are guys from both ends of the spectrum on our team alone. There's a reason why Ramirez hits better with guys on base, and there's a reason why Soriano doesn't.

 

Now, I'm not saying it's smart to build teams around clutch guys, but pretending they don't exist just sounds ignorant and stubborn to me.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

A good discussion exists here.

 

Most studies on the matter involved comparing performance in the "clutch" category of statistics (production with runners in scoring position, performance late in close games, etc.) between seasons; if clutch hitting were an actual skill, it would follow that the same players would do well in the clutch statistics year in and year out (the correlation coefficient between players' performances over multiple seasons would be high). Cramer's study was the first of its kind, and it found that clutch hitting numbers between seasons for the same player varied wildly; in fact, the variance was the kind one would expect if the numbers had been selected randomly. Since Cramer published his results, many others have tried to find some evidence that clutch hitting is a skill, but almost every study has confirmed Cramer's initial findings: that "clutch hitting," in terms of certain players being able to "rise to the occasion" under pressure, is an illusion

 

Jeter is perhaps a prime example of the difference between perception and reality when it comes to "clutch hitting." Widely considered a "clutch player," Jeter's career BA/OBP/SLG (through the end of the 2007 season) numbers are .317/.388/.462, while his playoff numbers are in fact marginally worse at .309/.377/.469. Jeter's home run to win Game 4 of the 2001 World Series helped earn him the nickname "Mr. November," but his offensive numbers for the series were a very poor .148/.179/.259. (It is notable that few of the Yankees were able to produce at their normal level in this series, in part due to Arizona's pitching, which included the co- World Series MVP's of Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling. The New York Yankees ultimately went on to lose the series in seven games.)

 

The problem with clutch hitting is that some people interpret it as always getting that big hit in a critical situation, while the reality is that it is unreasonable to think a player can get a hit each time out. To many, being "clutch" is being able to handle the pressure and getting that game tying/go ahead/ or winning hit. No one remembers a poor batting average in a series where a player hits a game winning home run

 

Here's a link to a work done by TangoTiger (Link.), and his conclusion is summed up as follows..

 

So, who are the clutch hitters? From 1999-2002, Jason Giambi and Miguel Tejada have shown to have the true talent clutch ability to add 2 runs per year. That's it. That's the effect of clutch ability.

 

Again, I should say that that's how much clutch ability we can detect. It's possible that there is more. After all, the clutch performance of these players over this time period suggests they added 12 runs during clutch performance each year. Our current detection process says that most of that was due to good luck, but not all of it.

 

Clutch hitting is there. It's an ability that does exist, and is detectable. And its effect is rather limited.

 

 

He comes to a bit of a different conclusion than the fact it doesn't exist. He claims it is an actual ability, but that the effects of it are limited.

 

Another study is included here.

 

His conclusions were as follows...

 

1.Clutch hitting is an important skill in baseball.

2.The difference between a good and a bad clutch performer is about 28% the difference between a good and a bad hitter, a much larger effect than had previously been thought from sabermetric work. So it is unlikely that any 0.250 hitters turn into 0.400 hitters in clutch situations, but there are 0.285 hitters who turn into 0.300 hitters.

 

3.Because of random effects, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to peg a specific player as a clutch performer or choker with a high degree of certainty. (For that matter, it is extremely difficult to ascertain much of anything about a player's batting skills to an accuracy better than 20 points of OBP based on one season's stats.)

 

4.That said, power hitters that perform better in the clutch are fairly rare, as are singles hitters that perform worse in the clutch. This can be used to make an educated guess of a player's clutch tendencies.

 

There's more to read, and frankly, I find it interesting.

 

What I think we can take from it, has been stated already.

 

First, if clutch hitting exists as an ability, it's not going to show itself in enough situations to make much difference over the course of a season.

 

Secondly, it's very hard to peg players as "clutch" because it's not a skill that seems to repeat itself year after year.

 

Third, while some players may appear to be anti-clutch or clutch, it's still not wise to make player personel decisions based on this idea.

 

Continue the debate if you must, but I think that's about all that needs to be said.

[17 Seconds]

First, if clutch hitting exists as an ability, it's not going to show itself in enough situations to make much difference over the course of a season.

 

Did anybody say it did? The original post said nothing about what effect clutch hitters have on a team.

 

Secondly, it's very hard to peg players as "clutch" because it's not a skill that seems to repeat itself year after year.

 

What? For a lot of players, it certainly is. Multiple players have been mentioned already in this thread who repeat their trend year after year.

 

Third, while some players may appear to be anti-clutch or clutch, it's still not wise to make player personel decisions based on this idea.

 

Again, he didn't say it was. People are derailing this thread by talking about building teams around clutch players when that wasn't the point of this thread at all.

[Vanilla Ice]

Yeah, I'm staying out of this one too from here on out.

 

Thanks for the head's up.

 

Anyone else care to declare they won't be posting in this thread? It is important information for us all to know.

 

Im going to try

[Hairyducked Idiot]

"I don't think guys likethat exist, and if they do, there aren't many. Guys that either suck or excel in clutch stats are all over the league. That's a lot of "flukes". "

 

I don't think you've really done any research to support that conclusion. I suspect you pretty much just made it up. If you want to do a statistically sound study of whether or not that is the case, feel free. Others have already done the legwork for you, though.

 

It is cool that you link Andy Dolphin's study. I know him, and have played a lot of the awesome statistical games he designs. But with that study, I strongly suspect what he actually discovered was not "clutchness," but the ability to exploit defensive inefficiencies in situations that involve runners on base.

 

I'm perfectly willing to accept that ground-ball hitters do a slightly better job of taking advantage of hitting with runners on base because of defensive inefficiencies (or, if you prefer a different explanation for Dolphin's results). But that's a long step from Dolphin's study to making the sorts of claims you have made in this thread.