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

[fromthestretch]

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.

 

If you were to take a season-long sample of every hitter with 500 plate appearances or more, it is certainly within the realm of possibility that every single one of them could hit worse in clutch or high-leverage situations than their overall numbers.

[SouthSideRyan]

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.

 

If you were to take a season-long sample of every hitter with 500 plate appearances or more, it is certainly within the realm of possibility that every single one of them could hit worse in clutch or high-leverage situations than their overall numbers.

 

Then every pitcher would be clutch.

[chuckywang]

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.

 

It is not a mathematical certainty. Your .750 OPS assumption is all-encompassing for both high and low leverage situations. You can't use an assumption built from all situations and apply it to just one situation (high leverage situations).

 

It's like saying: The median number of kids for families throughout the world is 1.7. Therefore in China, if there's a family with 1 kid, then there must be a family with 2 kids.

Edited August 29, 2008 by chuckywang

[Warren Brusstar]

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.

 

Huh? What the heck does that have to do with my argument?

[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.

 

Huh? What the heck does that have to do with my argument?

 

you're talking in absolutes and saying everything always balances out. it's not true

[fromthestretch]

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.

 

How does a median OPS come into play here when discussing clutch? Based on your example above, would Albert Pujols be considered a clutch hitter if he posted an .800 OPS in high-leverage situations? I would think that would make him decidedly un-clutch, considering his career OPS is 1.047. Your performance in pressure situations shouldn't be measured against the league but rather against your normal level of performance. Take Derek Jeter for example. Career OPS of .845. In high-leverage situations, he has a career OPS of .854, a whopping .009 difference. Does that make him clutch if the league averages a .750 OPS in those situations? No. It makes him everyday Derek Jeter since it's practically the same as his normal production.

[fromthestretch]

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.

 

If you were to take a season-long sample of every hitter with 500 plate appearances or more, it is certainly within the realm of possibility that every single one of them could hit worse in clutch or high-leverage situations than their overall numbers.

 

Then every pitcher would be clutch.

 

Not necessarily. In that situation, most pitchers probably would be, but certain pitchers could struggle (most likely a few relievers) and still have that happen.

[MSG T]

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.

 

If you were to take a season-long sample of every hitter with 500 plate appearances or more, it is certainly within the realm of possibility that every single one of them could hit worse in clutch or high-leverage situations than their overall numbers.

 

What he said.

 

Warren, maybe I'm completely confused by now, but it looks like you're figuring clutch based on an average of different players, and you can't do that. If you're looking at Derek Jeter's clutchiness, you can't use the Yankees at a whole to do that. He may be better in clutch situation than some of his teammates, but his overall numbers are going to be better as well.

 

Completely hypothetical, but who's more clutch( or less anti-clutch, whichever you prefer)

 

.750 OPS overall---> .800 in "clutch" situations

 

or

 

.900 overall---> .825 in "clutch" situations

 

The second players numbers fall in "clutch" situations, but I'd still rather have him at the plate with 2 on and down by one in the 9th. Your arguement doesn't address this, in fact it completely ignores that possibility.

 

In you're scenario, you're stating that those 25 have to worse, because their numbers fall, but that's not always going to be the case. Maybe they started on the high end and drifted towards the mean and the other 75 stayed at their positions, relative to the mean.

[SouthSideRyan]

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.

 

If you were to take a season-long sample of every hitter with 500 plate appearances or more, it is certainly within the realm of possibility that every single one of them could hit worse in clutch or high-leverage situations than their overall numbers.

 

Then every pitcher would be clutch.

 

Not necessarily. In that situation, most pitchers probably would be, but certain pitchers could struggle (most likely a few relievers) and still have that happen.

 

Yeah, nevermind.

[MSG T]

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.

 

How does a median OPS come into play here when discussing clutch? Based on your example above, would Albert Pujols be considered a clutch hitter if he posted an .800 OPS in high-leverage situations? I would think that would make him decidedly un-clutch, considering his career OPS is 1.047. Your performance in pressure situations shouldn't be measured against the league but rather against your normal level of performance. Take Derek Jeter for example. Career OPS of .845. In high-leverage situations, he has a career OPS of .854, a whopping .009 difference. Does that make him clutch if the league averages a .750 OPS in those situations? No. It makes him everyday Derek Jeter since it's practically the same as his normal production.

 

 

This is a better, easier to understand version of what I was trying to say.

[weis21]

now look what you've done truffle. I hope you're happy.

[chuckywang]

There seems to be some disagreement over the definition of a clutch player. Should it be defined absolutely or should it be defined relative to a player's average?

 

Really, I can see it both ways. MSG T makes a good argument for the relative version, but consider a hypothetical player that hits a HR in every AB during low-leverage situations, but only hits a HR half the time in high-leverage situations.

 

Is that player clutch or not?

[David]

IMO, anyone who doesn't crumble (perform significantly worse than norm) under pressure is clutch. That's my definition.

 

Taking that to be true, most players are clutch. Most players can perform to their normal abilities in higher leverage situations. There are some who will perform better than their norms in these situations, and whether that's a pure anomaly/coincidence or there's a real reason for it is up for debate. That said, I think it's quite a bit of a reach to say that players will step it up another notch in key spots. It's hard enough as it is to hit a baseball, I don't see how the gravity of a certain situation can increase a player's ability to perform.

 

But, anyway, most players are clutch. The only ones who aren't are the un-clutch gutless choking dogs.

 

 

Then again, there's stuff like adrenaline and stuff that kicks in for people and some people actually do rise to the occasion in important moments (just generally, in life), so who the hell knows. I think it's just easier to look at it my way.

[fromthestretch]

There seems to be some disagreement over the definition of a clutch player. Should it be defined absolutely or should it be defined relative to a player's average?

 

Really, I can see it both ways. MSG T makes a good argument for the relative version, but consider a hypothetical player that hits a HR in every AB during low-leverage situations, but only hits a HR half the time in high-leverage situations.

 

Is that player clutch or not?

 

Put me in the camp that thinks it should be defined relative to the player's typical performance. Chances are, if a guy is hitting better than league average in high-pressure situations, he's just simply better than the average hitter. But if a guy is a .900 OPS guy for his career but he turns into Randy Winn (career .771 OPS) in high-leverage situations, that's not clutch, even if it is better than league average in those situations.

[weis21]

IMO, anyone who doesn't crumble (perform significantly worse than norm) under pressure is clutch. That's my definition.

 

Taking that to be true, most players are clutch. Most players can perform to their normal abilities in higher leverage situations. There are some who will perform better than their norms in these situations, and whether that's a pure anomaly/coincidence or there's a real reason for it is up for debate. That said, I think it's quite a bit of a reach to say that players will step it up another notch in key spots. It's hard enough as it is to hit a baseball, I don't see how the gravity of a certain situation can increase a player's ability to perform.

 

But, anyway, most players are clutch. The only ones who aren't are the un-clutch gutless choking dogs.

 

 

Then again, there's stuff like adrenaline and stuff that kicks in for people and some people actually do rise to the occasion in important moments (just generally, in life), so who the hell knows. I think it's just easier to look at it my way.

 

This is more or less my feelings as well. Taking into account that these are the best players in the world, it would be a stretch to say that any of them are "anti-clutch". They have all been in high pressure situations countless times before they ever even reach the majors. The best players just succeed in those high leverage situations more times than the others.

[imb]

this is embarrassing

[third eye]

 

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

 

This was an unclutch delivery of a great line. Aren't we missing something about getting a good look at a t-bone? Or is there some other reason for sticking one's head up a cow's ass? ;)

[Fro]

I see no reason why clutch would exist in every other sport and not baseball.

 

Certainly the effect is less in baseball since there's a pitcher you have to hit, but it's obvious that some guys excel in high-pressure situations, both pitching and batting.

[Guest]

This thread makes my head hurt.

[mul21]

This thread makes my head hurt.

 

Yeah, mine too.

 

And put me in the camp that says you should be compared to your average perfomance, not some arbitrary number determined by the rest of the players. Comparing what Pujols should vs. the rest of the league and then using the same numbers to compare Ronny Cedeno to the rest of the league is just dumb. Pujols would always be clutch and it would be nearly impossible for Ronny to be, if such a thing does exist.

[TruffleShuffle]

the point i was trying to make is that ARam's numbers in "clutch" situations are significantly better than his numbers in "non-clutch" situations. and this doesn't consist of evidence compiled over half a season - it's more than 5000 PAs.

[Warpticon]

It's like saying: The median number of kids for families throughout the world is 1.7. Therefore in China, if there's a family with 1 kid, then there must be a family with 2 kids.

 

Uhhh...what?

 

WB seems to have his wires crossed or something. expected prodiction is not the same as calculated average. If he was talking about the latter, then his assertation would be absolutely correct. But, when we're talking about expected production, there is no mathematical certainty, because it's just that: expected.

[chopsx9]

Couldn't we just say that the guys who are clutch are the ones who *don't* crumble in the high pressure spots and do perform at least to their normal abilities and be done with it?

 

 

This has always been my assumption of what being a "clutch hitter" is I don't understand when people bring in "you can't improve your ability" - It is about performance not ability - if it were about ability Todd Van Poppel and Glen Brag would be in the Hall of Fame.