Aramis Ramirez' quest to prove the existence of clutch...

[Warren Brusstar]

 

This isn't complicated. If 25% of players have "anti-clutch" traits that result in poorer performance in high leverage situations, the other 75% will on whole show greater performance in those same situations.

 

well, that's just stupid. what law dictates you're either worse or better in "clutch" spots?

 

 

How about just worse or not worse?

 

right.

 

You're missing the point. For simplicity, let's take a pool of the 200 players that will be in the playoffs. Let's assume that the mean performance level for those 200 hitters and pitchers is a .750 OPS. If -- as you concede -- there are certain players who choke in high leverage situations, we know that those players will perform worse than their average performance (i.e. the "anti-clutch" hitters will be less than a .750 OPS, the "anti-clutch" pitchers will be higher than a .750 OPS). Hypothetically, let's say there are 20 players out of 200 (I make no assertion about the likely percentage of players that have "anti-clutch" tendencies; note that even if the number is 1, that's enough to demonstrate my point). If those 20 players perform WORSE than normal in high leverage situations, the other 180 players will perform BETTER as a matter of mathematical certainty.

 

I too am skeptical that any player has better focus or concentration during high leverage situations. But that doesn't have anything to do with the original point, which is that if "anti-clutch" performers exist (which you've conceded), then "clutch" performers must also exist simply becuase someone has to be performing better if others are performing worse; in other words, the "anti-clutch" performers are not playing in a vacuum. Nate Silver's chapter in Baseball Between the Numbers demonstrates this truth too. According to Silver's research, Mark Grace was the best clutch hitter of the last 30 years.

[Derwood]

where's Meph when we need him? this is an absolute mockery of mathematical statistical analysis

[Warren Brusstar]

 

This isn't complicated. If 25% of players have "anti-clutch" traits that result in poorer performance in high leverage situations, the other 75% will on whole show greater performance in those same situations.

 

well, that's just stupid. what law dictates you're either worse or better in "clutch" spots?

 

 

How about just worse or not worse?

 

right.

 

The anti-clutch group isn't playing in a vacuum. If a subset of players is worse in high leverage situations, someone (as a matter of mathematics) is performing better.

[Warren Brusstar]

where's Meph when we need him? this is an absolute mockery of mathematical statistical analysis

 

 

Go argue with Nate Silver.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

how can you assume if 20 are below average that 180 will be above average?

[abuck1220]

 

This isn't complicated. If 25% of players have "anti-clutch" traits that result in poorer performance in high leverage situations, the other 75% will on whole show greater performance in those same situations.

 

well, that's just stupid. what law dictates you're either worse or better in "clutch" spots?

 

 

How about just worse or not worse?

 

right.

 

The anti-clutch group isn't playing in a vacuum. If a subset of players is worse in high leverage situations, someone (as a matter of mathematics) is performing better.

 

so if arod goes 0-5 in a playoff game, someone else has to have an above average game as a mathematical certainty?

[fromthestretch]

Why do people have to be better or worse than their normal performance in clutch situations? Can't they be at or near it?

 

I mean, if a guy is normally an .800 OPS guy and in clutch situations he's at .802, can you really classify him as a clutch hitter? On the flip side, if he's at .792, is he a choker?

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Why do people have to be better or worse than their normal performance in clutch situations? Can't they be at or near it?

 

I mean, if a guy is normally an .800 OPS guy and in clutch situations he's at .802, can you really classify him as a clutch hitter? On the flip side, if he's at .792, is he a choker?

that's what I'm trying to figure out here. if 20 hypothetical players are worse, I would expect around 20 hypothetical players to be better and the other 160 hypothetical players to be pretty damn close to where they always are

[jersey cubs fan]

Why do people have to be better or worse than their normal performance in clutch situations? Can't they be at or near it?

 

I mean, if a guy is normally an .800 OPS guy and in clutch situations he's at .802, can you really classify him as a clutch hitter? On the flip side, if he's at .792, is he a choker?

that's what I'm trying to figure out here. if 20 hypothetical players are worse, I would expect around 20 hypothetical players to be better and the other 160 hypothetical players to be pretty damn close to where they always are

 

If 20 are worse, why even assume 20 are better? That makes absolutely no sense.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Why do people have to be better or worse than their normal performance in clutch situations? Can't they be at or near it?

 

I mean, if a guy is normally an .800 OPS guy and in clutch situations he's at .802, can you really classify him as a clutch hitter? On the flip side, if he's at .792, is he a choker?

that's what I'm trying to figure out here. if 20 hypothetical players are worse, I would expect around 20 hypothetical players to be better and the other 160 hypothetical players to be pretty damn close to where they always are

 

If 20 are worse, why even assume 20 are better? That makes absolutely no sense.

I'm going with his hypothetical player scenario from before, trying to get back to that hypothetical average number.

[SouthSideRyan]

Why do people have to be better or worse than their normal performance in clutch situations? Can't they be at or near it?

 

I mean, if a guy is normally an .800 OPS guy and in clutch situations he's at .802, can you really classify him as a clutch hitter? On the flip side, if he's at .792, is he a choker?

that's what I'm trying to figure out here. if 20 hypothetical players are worse, I would expect around 20 hypothetical players to be better and the other 160 hypothetical players to be pretty damn close to where they always are

 

If 20 are worse, why even assume 20 are better? That makes absolutely no sense.

 

Well they should be taking advantage of the 20 unclutch people when they face off against them.

[jersey cubs fan]

Why do people have to be better or worse than their normal performance in clutch situations? Can't they be at or near it?

 

I mean, if a guy is normally an .800 OPS guy and in clutch situations he's at .802, can you really classify him as a clutch hitter? On the flip side, if he's at .792, is he a choker?

that's what I'm trying to figure out here. if 20 hypothetical players are worse, I would expect around 20 hypothetical players to be better and the other 160 hypothetical players to be pretty damn close to where they always are

 

If 20 are worse, why even assume 20 are better? That makes absolutely no sense.

I'm going with his hypothetical player scenario from before, trying to get back to that hypothetical average number.

 

I could hypothetically stick my head up a cow's ass but I'd rather take the butcher's word.

[Warren Brusstar]

Why do people have to be better or worse than their normal performance in clutch situations? Can't they be at or near it?

 

I mean, if a guy is normally an .800 OPS guy and in clutch situations he's at .802, can you really classify him as a clutch hitter? On the flip side, if he's at .792, is he a choker?

that's what I'm trying to figure out here. if 20 hypothetical players are worse, I would expect around 20 hypothetical players to be better and the other 160 hypothetical players to be pretty damn close to where they always are

 

If 20 are worse, why even assume 20 are better? That makes absolutely no sense.

 

If a certain subset of players is performing worse, it is a mathematical certainty that someone is performing better. And yes, collectively, the 180 players would be performing better.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Why do people have to be better or worse than their normal performance in clutch situations? Can't they be at or near it?

 

I mean, if a guy is normally an .800 OPS guy and in clutch situations he's at .802, can you really classify him as a clutch hitter? On the flip side, if he's at .792, is he a choker?

that's what I'm trying to figure out here. if 20 hypothetical players are worse, I would expect around 20 hypothetical players to be better and the other 160 hypothetical players to be pretty damn close to where they always are

 

If 20 are worse, why even assume 20 are better? That makes absolutely no sense.

 

If a certain subset of players is performing worse, it is a mathematical certainty that someone is performing better. And yes, collectively, the 180 players would be performing better.

if you mean better than the 20 worst players, then I agree

[jersey cubs fan]

Why do people have to be better or worse than their normal performance in clutch situations? Can't they be at or near it?

 

I mean, if a guy is normally an .800 OPS guy and in clutch situations he's at .802, can you really classify him as a clutch hitter? On the flip side, if he's at .792, is he a choker?

that's what I'm trying to figure out here. if 20 hypothetical players are worse, I would expect around 20 hypothetical players to be better and the other 160 hypothetical players to be pretty damn close to where they always are

 

If 20 are worse, why even assume 20 are better? That makes absolutely no sense.

 

If a certain subset of players is performing worse, it is a mathematical certainty that someone is performing better. And yes, collectively, the 180 players would be performing better.

 

If 20 players performance worse in clutch situations than they normally do in regular situations, how in the hell is there any certainty that 20 others perform better in the clutch than they do in normal situations?

[Warren Brusstar]

Why do people have to be better or worse than their normal performance in clutch situations? Can't they be at or near it?

 

I mean, if a guy is normally an .800 OPS guy and in clutch situations he's at .802, can you really classify him as a clutch hitter? On the flip side, if he's at .792, is he a choker?

that's what I'm trying to figure out here. if 20 hypothetical players are worse, I would expect around 20 hypothetical players to be better and the other 160 hypothetical players to be pretty damn close to where they always are

 

If 20 are worse, why even assume 20 are better? That makes absolutely no sense.

 

If a certain subset of players is performing worse, it is a mathematical certainty that someone is performing better. And yes, collectively, the 180 players would be performing better.

if you mean better than the 20 worst players, then I agree

 

I mean that if the 20 "anti-clutch" players are collectively performing worse in high leverage situations than their otherwise expected performance, the other 180 players collectively are performing better in high leverage sitatuions than their otherwise expected performance.

[Derwood]

Why do people have to be better or worse than their normal performance in clutch situations? Can't they be at or near it?

 

I mean, if a guy is normally an .800 OPS guy and in clutch situations he's at .802, can you really classify him as a clutch hitter? On the flip side, if he's at .792, is he a choker?

that's what I'm trying to figure out here. if 20 hypothetical players are worse, I would expect around 20 hypothetical players to be better and the other 160 hypothetical players to be pretty damn close to where they always are

 

If 20 are worse, why even assume 20 are better? That makes absolutely no sense.

 

If a certain subset of players is performing worse, it is a mathematical certainty that someone is performing better. And yes, collectively, the 180 players would be performing better.

if you mean better than the 20 worst players, then I agree

 

I mean that if the 20 "anti-clutch" players are collectively performing worse in high leverage situations than their otherwise expected performance, the other 180 players collectively are performing better in high leverage sitatuions than their otherwise expected performance.

 

 

or 160 are performing and 20 others are performing higher.

 

or 179 are performing the same and 1 is hitting 1.000

 

or whatever. baseball doesn't work this way

[jersey cubs fan]

I mean that if the 20 "anti-clutch" players are collectively performing worse in high leverage situations than their otherwise expected performance, the other 180 players collectively are performing better in high leverage sitatuions than their otherwise expected performance.

 

You are wrong.

[Warren Brusstar]

Why do people have to be better or worse than their normal performance in clutch situations? Can't they be at or near it?

 

I mean, if a guy is normally an .800 OPS guy and in clutch situations he's at .802, can you really classify him as a clutch hitter? On the flip side, if he's at .792, is he a choker?

that's what I'm trying to figure out here. if 20 hypothetical players are worse, I would expect around 20 hypothetical players to be better and the other 160 hypothetical players to be pretty damn close to where they always are

 

If 20 are worse, why even assume 20 are better? That makes absolutely no sense.

 

If a certain subset of players is performing worse, it is a mathematical certainty that someone is performing better. And yes, collectively, the 180 players would be performing better.

 

If 20 players performance worse in clutch situations than they normally do in regular situations, how in the hell is there any certainty that 20 others perform better in the clutch than they do in normal situations?

 

You must be confusing with me someone else. I've never argued that.

 

If 20 players perform worst in high-leverage spots than their expected performane generally, the rest of the players collectively (All players minus the 20 "anti-clutch" players) must perform better in hig-leverage spots than their performance generally. Obviously, within that 180 players there is going to be a inevitable distribution of performance, some better, some worse, but the total collective performance will be better.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

I mean that if the 20 "anti-clutch" players are collectively performing worse in high leverage situations than their otherwise expected performance, the other 180 players collectively are performing better in high leverage sitatuions than their otherwise expected performance.

that makes absolutely no sense

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Obviously, within that 180 players there is going to be a inevitable distribution of performance, some better, some worse, but the total collective performance will be better.

why didn't you just say that in the first place? not only does it help make your stance clear, but it also does nothing to prove your clutch theory

[Warren Brusstar]

Why do people have to be better or worse than their normal performance in clutch situations? Can't they be at or near it?

 

I mean, if a guy is normally an .800 OPS guy and in clutch situations he's at .802, can you really classify him as a clutch hitter? On the flip side, if he's at .792, is he a choker?

that's what I'm trying to figure out here. if 20 hypothetical players are worse, I would expect around 20 hypothetical players to be better and the other 160 hypothetical players to be pretty damn close to where they always are

 

If 20 are worse, why even assume 20 are better? That makes absolutely no sense.

 

If a certain subset of players is performing worse, it is a mathematical certainty that someone is performing better. And yes, collectively, the 180 players would be performing better.

if you mean better than the 20 worst players, then I agree

 

I mean that if the 20 "anti-clutch" players are collectively performing worse in high leverage situations than their otherwise expected performance, the other 180 players collectively are performing better in high leverage sitatuions than their otherwise expected performance.

 

 

or 160 are performing and 20 others are performing higher.

 

or 179 are performing the same and 1 is hitting 1.000

 

or whatever. baseball doesn't work this way

 

Sure. I make no assertion about the distribution of better performance within the 180 remaining players. My claim is only that there is mathematical certainty that if certain players are anti-clutch and perform worse in high-leverage spots, the universe of remaining players is collectively (and necessarily) performing better.

[Derwood]

If a team has a team batting average of .300 for the year, that doesn't mean that if they are batting .200 through 7 innings in a give game that they'll make up for it in the 8th and 9th. There is no mathematical certainty in baseball. Please stop with this argument.

[Warren Brusstar]

I mean that if the 20 "anti-clutch" players are collectively performing worse in high leverage situations than their otherwise expected performance, the other 180 players collectively are performing better in high leverage sitatuions than their otherwise expected performance.

 

You are wrong.

 

No, I'm right.

 

Assume that leaguewide median expected performance is a .750 OPS. Assume that there are 20 hitters and pitchers that are anti-clutch performers who are worse in high-leverage spots -- the 10 pitchers in this group collectively have a .900 OPS against in high-leverage spots (but would otherwise expect to be at .750) and the 10 hitters in the group have a .600 OPS in high leverage spots (but would otherwise expect to be at .750).

 

As a matter of mathematical certainty, the remaining hitters will have a collective OPS in high leverage spots of greater than .750 and the remaining pitchers will have a collective OPS in high leverage spots of less than .750.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

I mean that if the 20 "anti-clutch" players are collectively performing worse in high leverage situations than their otherwise expected performance, the other 180 players collectively are performing better in high leverage sitatuions than their otherwise expected performance.

 

You are wrong.

 

No, I'm right.

 

Assume that leaguewide median expected performance is a .750 OPS. Assume that there are 20 hitters and pitchers that are anti-clutch performers who are worse in high-leverage spots -- the 10 pitchers in this group collectively have a .900 OPS against in high-leverage spots (but would otherwise expect to be at .750) and the 10 hitters in the group have a .600 OPS in high leverage spots (but would otherwise expect to be at .750).

 

As a matter of mathematical certainty, the remaining hitters will have a collective OPS in high leverage spots of greater than .750 and the remaining pitchers will have a collective OPS in high leverage spots of less than .750.

chances are, your 20 worst performers in high leverage situations are also your 20 worst performers in all situations. we can't look at the league median, it's as simple as comparing was hitter X does in different situations as compared to his overall performance.