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

[Outshined_One]

I'm going to take things one step beyond denying the existence of clutch by denying the existence of baseball itself.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

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.

 

I've also heard that roulette wheels sometimes hit black many times in a row.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

For those willing to read up, let me suggest you go here.

 

Link.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

For those willing to read up, let me suggest you go here.

 

Link.

 

Hmm. Now I guess I'm done posting in this thread, too. That pretty much covers it.

[Magnetic Curses]

not this crap again. don't people who hate reason have something better to do with their time than to argue the existence of unicorns or leprechauns or ghosts or whatever?

 

clutchiness, as imb said, is a pointless stat to value anyway. it's just an excuse to grind an axe with smart people for acting all smug or something.

[imb]

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.

 

In 2006, Casey Blake hit .281/.431/.526/.957 with RISP and 2 outs.

 

He hit .282/.356/.479/.835 overall. Man, that guy is so clutch.

[SABR Gamer]

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.

 

I don't have an arguement so I'm gonna stay out of this one, just thought I'd let everyone know so they didn't worry.

[Colin Wyers]

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.

 

"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?"

 

Um... because I know about probability distribution?

 

If you dig around long enough, you will find players with split stats that would seem to indicate that there's some sort of effect going on - clutch, unclutch, or any set of things you can look at with splits. But given the size of the population you're looking at, you would expect there to be some unlikely/unexplainable outcomes in the data set. One player's splits don't prove anything, not even about that player. It's not enough to know whether or not your sample is significant, but whether or not your measurement is significant.

 

When you look at major league players as a population, "clutch" tendencies don't seem to persist from season to season, the way that, say, platoon tendencies do.

[imb]

http://otherfifteen.blogspot.com/

 

Just pimping Colin's blog for him. Check it out.

[Ender]

Yeah you can't just look at two players and say it proves anything. If it really is just random with a sample of all of major league baseball you are going to find some that score high and some that are low. It is completely expected that it happens. You have to look at the entire league when trying to prove it does or doesn't exist.

 

I don't believe in clutch unless you want to define it by playing just the same in big situations and say that the majority of players in baseball are clutch.

 

I do believe in anti-clutch, guys who struggle in big situations and try to do too much.

[CubinNY]

Yeah you can't just look at two players and say it proves anything. If it really is just random with a sample of all of major league baseball you are going to find some that score high and some that are low. It is completely expected that it happens. You have to look at the entire league when trying to prove it does or doesn't exist.

Actually that's wrong. If someone is trying to find clutch the only way to do it will be to show that some sample of players (N) has it and some sample (N-1) doesn't. The problem lies in comparing only two players. If it is real it must be a repeatable phenomenon across many ABs for player X. The larger the sample of ABs the smaller the need to show a difference to make it significant, though. Without giving it much thought I would think one could do it by looking at an equal number (say a season's worth) of ABs in and out of "clutch" situations. The real problem is labeling what is a clutch situation and what is not? Is hitting in the first inning as clutch as hitting in the 4th inning or the 9th inning? Is bating against Sidney Ponson as hard as batting against Johan Santana, and the list goes on and on. That's why it's a useless argument.

[Magnetic Curses]

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.

 

"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?"

 

Um... because I know about probability distribution?

 

If you dig around long enough, you will find players with split stats that would seem to indicate that there's some sort of effect going on - clutch, unclutch, or any set of things you can look at with splits. But given the size of the population you're looking at, you would expect there to be some unlikely/unexplainable outcomes in the data set. One player's splits don't prove anything, not even about that player. It's not enough to know whether or not your sample is significant, but whether or not your measurement is significant.

 

When you look at major league players as a population, "clutch" tendencies don't seem to persist from season to season, the way that, say, platoon tendencies do.

 

haha, dextermorgan just got struck down out of nowhere, by a power greater than we could know. oh, the humanity.

 

"did you want to talk about the weather or were you just making chit-chat?"

[jyoung55]

Like nearly all things in life... the reality is somewhere between the two extremes.

 

I'll use myself for an example (not that I am an elite athlete like major leaguers, but that I am human like them), I played in High school and play a good amount of softball every summer and when its a tough situation I'm likely to put too much pressure on myself and force things rather playing within myself. Is it possible that some major leaguers do the same thing... perhaps... is it possible that some big leaguers are the polar opposite... probably. But is it something that can be reliably quantified? Meh. Is it the end-all be-all of how to evaluate a hitter? No.

 

Before you flame away, all I am trying to say is that the new wave of statistical analysis that is popular here has substantial value but not to the point of excluding other forms of analysis.

[Magnetic Curses]

Like nearly all things in life... the reality is somewhere between the two extremes.

 

I'll use myself for an example (not that I am an elite athlete like major leaguers, but that I am human like them), I played in High school and play a good amount of softball every summer and when its a tough situation I'm likely to put too much pressure on myself and force things rather playing within myself. Is it possible that some major leaguers do the same thing... perhaps... is it possible that some big leaguers are the polar opposite... probably. But is it something that can be reliably quantified? Meh. Is it the end-all be-all of how to evaluate a hitter? No.

 

Before you flame away, all I am trying to say is that the new wave of statistical analysis that is popular here has substantial value but not to the point of excluding other forms of analysis.

 

yes, there are other forms of analysis, but those forms are rather trivial when compared with statistical analysis. there are so many games and so much data that it would be stupid to put anything before numbers. in other words, you can analyze however you want, but if you aren't basing most if not all of your decisions on large deposits of numbers, you are going to fail.

[Rob]

Upon thinking about it some, I would believe that there might be one player in baseball whom if the numbers said they were better in the clutch, I would think it was more than statistical noise. That player is Manny Ramirez. He might be the only player in the entire league that I would buy just coasts through without max effort, but steps it up in big situations (again, providing that the numbers showed it). Everybody else in the league is probably already attempting to do their best everytime up there though.

[Balsa]

Upon thinking about it some, I would believe that there might be one player in baseball whom if the numbers said they were better in the clutch, I would think it was more than statistical noise. That player is Manny Ramirez. He might be the only player in the entire league that I would buy just coasts through without max effort, but steps it up in big situations (again, providing that the numbers showed it). Everybody else in the league is probably already attempting to do their best everytime up there though.

Yeah. I mean, think about it. Are "clutch" players inherently lazy then? Because they don't step up the rest of their game until it's "close and late"?

 

Why only perform when the game is close? Why not be that good all the time?

[Magnetic Curses]

Upon thinking about it some, I would believe that there might be one player in baseball whom if the numbers said they were better in the clutch, I would think it was more than statistical noise. That player is Manny Ramirez. He might be the only player in the entire league that I would buy just coasts through without max effort, but steps it up in big situations (again, providing that the numbers showed it). Everybody else in the league is probably already attempting to do their best everytime up there though.

Yeah. I mean, think about it. Are "clutch" players inherently lazy then? Because they don't step up the rest of their game until it's "close and late"?

 

Why only perform when the game is close? Why not be that good all the time?

 

manny is good all the time, though.

[17 Seconds]

Upon thinking about it some, I would believe that there might be one player in baseball whom if the numbers said they were better in the clutch, I would think it was more than statistical noise. That player is Manny Ramirez. He might be the only player in the entire league that I would buy just coasts through without max effort, but steps it up in big situations (again, providing that the numbers showed it). Everybody else in the league is probably already attempting to do their best everytime up there though.

 

You obviously aren't familiar with Manny's work ethic. He's a douche but he probably works harder than any player in baseball. That guy doesn't take his hitting lightly by any stretch of the imagination.

[17 Seconds]

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.

 

"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?"

 

Um... because I know about probability distribution?

 

If you dig around long enough, you will find players with split stats that would seem to indicate that there's some sort of effect going on - clutch, unclutch, or any set of things you can look at with splits. But given the size of the population you're looking at, you would expect there to be some unlikely/unexplainable outcomes in the data set. One player's splits don't prove anything, not even about that player. It's not enough to know whether or not your sample is significant, but whether or not your measurement is significant.

 

When you look at major league players as a population, "clutch" tendencies don't seem to persist from season to season, the way that, say, platoon tendencies do.

 

haha, dextermorgan just got struck down out of nowhere, by a power greater than we could know. oh, the humanity.

 

"did you want to talk about the weather or were you just making chit-chat?"

 

No, not really. I understand what probability distribution is, but I don't buy the fact that Casey Blake sucking year after year after year after year after year in those situations is due to the fact that it had to eventually happen to somebody and he's just the unlucky one. Poor Casey Blake, he can't be blamed for him being a choke artist, he's just unlucky! Every year! Yeah, that's [deleted].

 

I really don't understand why people can't accept the fact that the mental aspect of the game sometime results in players reacting differently in important situations. Why is that so hard to believe? They aren"t robots, they're humans. Some people can handle the pressure, some people press and try to do too much. That's not probability distribution.

[Jon]

No, not really. I understand what probability distribution is, but I don't buy the fact that Casey Blake sucking year after year after year after year after year in those situations is due to the fact that it had to eventually happen to somebody and he's just the unlucky one. Poor Casey Blake, he can't be blamed for him being a choke artist, he's just unlucky! Every year! Yeah, that's [deleted].

 

I really don't understand why people can't accept the fact that the mental aspect of the game sometime results in players reacting differently in important situations. Why is that so hard to believe? They aren"t robots, they're humans. Some people can handle the pressure, some people press and try to do too much. That's not probability distribution.

Please watch the language.

[17 Seconds]

Sorry, I didn't even think about it.

[Vanilla Ice]

The more I think about it, it probably does exist. Anti-clutch definitely exists, and I tend to play better with added pressure, as do players like Manny and Ortiz.

 

but, its still not all its made out to be

[Magnetic Curses]

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.

 

"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?"

 

Um... because I know about probability distribution?

 

If you dig around long enough, you will find players with split stats that would seem to indicate that there's some sort of effect going on - clutch, unclutch, or any set of things you can look at with splits. But given the size of the population you're looking at, you would expect there to be some unlikely/unexplainable outcomes in the data set. One player's splits don't prove anything, not even about that player. It's not enough to know whether or not your sample is significant, but whether or not your measurement is significant.

 

When you look at major league players as a population, "clutch" tendencies don't seem to persist from season to season, the way that, say, platoon tendencies do.

 

haha, dextermorgan just got struck down out of nowhere, by a power greater than we could know. oh, the humanity.

 

"did you want to talk about the weather or were you just making chit-chat?"

 

No, not really. I understand what probability distribution is, but I don't buy the fact that Casey Blake sucking year after year after year after year after year in those situations is due to the fact that it had to eventually happen to somebody and he's just the unlucky one. Poor Casey Blake, he can't be blamed for him being a choke artist, he's just unlucky! Every year! Yeah, that's [deleted].

 

I really don't understand why people can't accept the fact that the mental aspect of the game sometime results in players reacting differently in important situations. Why is that so hard to believe? They aren"t robots, they're humans. Some people can handle the pressure, some people press and try to do too much. That's not probability distribution.

 

address your post to him, he was the one that pantsed you.

[Magnetic Curses]

The more I think about it, it probably does exist. Anti-clutch definitely exists, and I tend to play better with added pressure, as do players like Manny and Ortiz.

 

but, its still not all its made out to be

 

we aren't talking about you, though. we're talking about people who play baseball for a living.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

"No, not really. I understand what probability distribution is"

 

Apparently you don't, or you would have made the following statement.

 

"but I don't buy the fact that Casey Blake sucking year after year after year after year after year in those situations is due to the fact that it had to eventually happen to somebody and he's just the unlucky one. Poor Casey Blake, he can't be blamed for him being a choke artist, he's just unlucky! Every year!"

 

Except for that year where he absolutely rocked with RISP and 2 outs, as someone pointed out.

 

This is just the intellectual cousin of believing that a roulette wheel is due for black. It's a simple misunderstanding of how statistics works.

 

"I really don't understand why people can't accept the fact that the mental aspect of the game sometime results in players reacting differently in important situations. Why is that so hard to believe? They aren"t robots, they're humans. Some people can handle the pressure, some people press and try to do too much. That's not probability distribution."

 

Because there was no pressure in all those high school, college, and minor league games that they thrived in all the way up?

 

"If I don't hit .300 in AA, I have to go back home and work in a factory for the rest of my life. But if I do, I'm a millionaire."

 

That's no problem for these guys, but seeing a baserunner on second base makes them choke up?