erik, you say this a lot, sarcastically, like it implies that there is a clutch. it would be nice if you would try to back this up with something other than your own worthless words. thanks. there is such a thing as clutch; however, it's generally a non-repeatable skill and to make future decisions based on it would be stupid. Hey, man. Back those words up otherwise they're worthless! I'll admit to not being the biggest stat guy around. However, logic simply dictates that if anti-clutch exists, then clutch exists as well. I'm not trying to prove or disprove the existence of either, but if one exists, so does the other. If nothing else, this particular stat proves that our favorite baseball team is indeed anti-clutch, but then if they are, then there is a way to be clutch as well. No. This is what I was talking about when I mentioned clutch situations. A guy comes to the plate in a clutch situation and he hits a home run. Looking at that at bat, the result was clutch. If he had grounded out, the result would have been anti-clutch. This doesn't mean that the player himself is anti-clutch or clutch, just that the result of the situation was. But, if a player peforms a positive result more often than most other players in clutch situations, couldn't that player be defined as "clutch?"