Does clutch exist?

[Stax]

Following Phil's request from the Bernie Williams thread.

Can we get the "Does Clutch exist?" part of this thread moved to its own thread? I think this is actually a pretty interesting (and polarizing) question and don't want to sully the discussion of Bernie's legacy (a great player who was feared by 87.462721% of opposing fans in big spots) with something so far off-topic.

With that requested, I'll reneg on my previous pledge to drop this (since nobody else will).

<--------------------------

I would ask the spreadsheet crew to look to their left, please, and tell me how that can be properly reflected by statistics alone-- how it does not require a qualitative narrative to be taken in context-- how it was so much bigger than 7IP, 2ER (I don't recall the exact line, I'm just guessing).

[Bloody sock avatar he's pointing at, for posterity if it changes] He pitched on a busted up ankle and gave a good performance (again, he's a masterful, Hall of Fame pitcher so it's not surprising he gets good performances). It probably gives you a trump card for anyone making a durability argument against him, but *shrug*. Had he pitched on a healthy ankle and pitched the exact same game (though, I imagine if it was at all 'clutch' anyways the injury would be serious enough that he'd pitch better without it). It didn't change run prevention in any way. It's a subjective description that makes for a nice story, but the very fact that it didn't change the game is shown by it not appearing in any stat. There is no "GSWH" (Games Started With Heart) because 7 IP, 4H, 1ER, 4K, 0BB, 1HR (Schill's line that night) is that line regardless of the heart it took to pitch it.

However, I won't ask you that. You'll trot out the same answer (plus a few snide, nerdy remarks) that you gave for the Jeter-flip-play question. You'll tell me that you have a formula that takes the magnitude of a situation into account.

No. Jeter's flip altered the course of an important game in an important way. The answer to why Jeter-flip or Boone03-HR isn't 'clutch' is that "Shit happens". If shit does not happen on any level of consistency, how can you attribute it to a skill? (and if it happened on a level of consistency it would be recordable)

The answer here is it had zero effect on the state of the game (runs scored by either side). It shows heart, determination, all that jazz, but it did not alter anything that makes a pitcher valuable in terms of run prevention.

So, you can disregard that. Instead, answer this: You say that 'clutch' doesn't exist. But does "choke" exist?

No. It's the same principle as clutch. If it happens consistently it can be recorded. If it's recorded, show it.

[Genius]

I don't believe in voodoo. And I don't believe in clutch, either.

[Fletch]

In baseball, I'd say no. In basketball, I'd say maybe. So I guess I vote no.

[Satan]

No. People should stick to using automatics.

[Stax]

In baseball, I'd say no. In basketball, I'd say maybe. So I guess I vote no.

The difficult thing, I'd think, about measuring clutchness in basketball is free throws. The game of basketball does fundamentally change in the last 2 minutes or so because fouling (and making subsequent foul shots) is just a different game than the rest of the time.

Outside of late-game 'smallball' which even basic measurements tell you is almost never worth it baseball remains a relatively constant game, so there are fewer things you can do late that would be 'clutch' that you somehow couldn't do the first 8 innings.

[Phil Theehor]

Following Phil's request from the Bernie Williams thread.



[Bloody sock avatar he's pointing at, for posterity if it changes] He pitched on a busted up ankle and gave a good performance (again, he's a masterful, Hall of Fame pitcher so it's not surprising he gets good performances). It probably gives you a trump card for anyone making a durability argument against him, but *shrug*. Had he pitched on a healthy ankle and pitched the exact same game (though, I imagine if it was at all 'clutch' anyways the injury would be serious enough that he'd pitch better without it). It didn't change run prevention in any way. It's a subjective description that makes for a nice story, but the very fact that it didn't change the game is shown by it not appearing in any stat. There is no "GSWH" (Games Started With Heart) because 7 IP, 4H, 1ER, 4K, 0BB, 1HR (Schill's line that night) is that line regardless of the heart it took to pitch it.



No. Jeter's flip altered the course of an important game in an important way. The answer to why Jeter-flip or Boone03-HR isn't 'clutch' is that "Shit happens". If shit does not happen on any level of consistency, how can you attribute it to a skill? (and if it happened on a level of consistency it would be recordable)

The answer here is it had zero effect on the state of the game (runs scored by either side). It shows heart, determination, all that jazz, but it did not alter anything that makes a pitcher valuable in terms of run prevention.



No. It's the same principle as clutch. If it happens consistently it can be recorded. If it's recorded, show it.



I am baffled. You strike me as a smart (albeit close-minded) guy. I understand that you said that choke does not exist because you would then be admitting (in a roundabout way, arguable by a better rhetoritician than me) that clutch does.

But do you really believe that?

Let me ask you this: Does mental toughness exist? And does it play a part in performance? And is it not tested more in a big spot than in a little spot?

[Stax]

I am baffled. You strike me as a smart (albeit close-minded) guy. I understand that you said that choke does not exist because you would then be admitting (in a roundabout way, arguable by a better rhetoritician than me) that clutch does.

But do you really believe that?

Yes. They are one in the same, merely positive and negatives of the same idea that a player can somehow gain or lose the ability to do something given the state of a baseball game.

Let me ask you this: Does mental toughness exist?

Yes

And does it play a part in performance?

Yes. But do you believe there are players who can handle:
-The pressure of 50000 people nightly yelling and screaming at you and being daily analyzed on national television for your job

but not

-Exactly the same thing, but in a tough spot

?? If you have such thin mental fortitude you won't make it to the majors to test your clutch/chokeness to begin with. Mental toughness plays a part in that I'm sure they are single-A players who beat themselves up so much mentally that they cannot perform on the field. For my first of three Moneyball references, look at A's GM Billy Beane. He was an incredibly highly touted prospect, at Daryl Strawberry's level, but never became anything. Why? Because as soon as he messed up once he let it eat at him and it destroyed any performance for the rest of the game. But this didn't happen in 'clutch' situations, it just HAPPENED, and he was a measurably bad baseball player because of it.

Read Moneyball, the chapter about Chad Bradford. It describes in detail this poor Christian kid who thought he was absolutely no good and constantly beat up on himself even while on the mound. But you know what? He was an incredibly effective pitcher. He was probably the most nervous guy you've ever heard of playing baseball and outside of one bad moment described (that had no real impact on the A's season, though I guess you could label it 'choking' as he was one of many pitchers that almost blew the A's record 20th win in a row) he was picture perfect.

And trust me, this guy would be labeled 'worse under pressure' given his mental makeup than a traditional target of choker accusations like pre-2002 Barry Bonds or current-day-ARod.

And is it not tested more in a big spot than in a little spot?

Yes. But if it was tested to the point where it had a negative impact repeatedly it would show up in the stat.

Take shifting to a new defensive position. I'm more than willing to attribute any bungles in the field (if, say, a catcher shifts to first base, another situation from Moneyball with Scott Hatteburg) to nerves. You're unsure at your new position, so you make silly mistakes. That's fine. But if someone is CONSISTENTLY making those errors for, say, a season, that stops being 'nerves' (even if that person is actually nervous) and starts simply being a 'bad fielder'. Reasons do not matter, measurable results do. To quote one of my 2 favorite FJM posts (http://www.firejoemorgan.com/2005/09/dumbest-man-of-last-fifty-years_26.html):

I don't care if a pitcher calmly walks off the mound or transforms into a giant hovercraft and levitates back to the dugout. I just want him to have a good WHIP. Yes, "WHIP."

Look at the face? Have you seen Julian Tavarez's face? Any face scout worth his salt wouldn't have let him within a hundred yards of a baseball diamond.

If a player chokes consistently, point to it, that person is a worse player for it. If they don't, and it is merely a couple high-profile moments people point to on an incredibly small sample size, it's just variance.

[Phil Theehor]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stax http://forum.gorillamask.net/images/solido/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forum.gorillamask.net/showthread.php?p=136583#post136583)

And trust me, this guy would be labeled 'worse under pressure' given his mental makeup than a traditional target of choker accusations like pre-2002 Barry Bonds or current-day-ARod.


Okay, I want to make sure that I'm not taking this out of context. You just admitted that there was such a phenomenon as 'worse under pressure', correct? <Edit-I did re-read your post. You seem to admit that it exists, although uncommon>

Isn't a "worse under pressure" player the same thing as a "choker"? And if there is such a thing as "worse under pressure", then by default, is there not such a thing as "better under pressure"? And is "better under pressure" not the same as "clutch"?

[Stax]

Okay, I want to make sure that I'm not taking this out of context. You just admitted that there was such a phenomenon as 'worse under pressure', correct?

I admitted that a player can through purely self-inflicted mental roadblocks, hamper their play, a la Billy Beane. But this would be a universal force, not something that would only crop up in this particular situations. I find it highly unlikely that there's this big block of people out there with JUST ENOUGH mental fortitude to survive the millions of people watching them daily, but if you shift the situation just slightly that is what pushes them over into this mythical choking zone. Mental roadblocks are something that would stand in the way of playing baseball publicly at all, so how could you get to that high-level needed to choke in the first place?

It's like saying you can lift 500 pounds easily, but if you put a feather on top of the weights you will collapse. It doesn't make sense.

Isn't a "worse under pressure" player the same thing as a "choker"?

No, because a choker in Major League Baseball has to be in Major League Baseball in the first place, and I don't see anyone who would have the mental fortitude to play MLB baseball at a high level, but slight shifts in game situations are enough pressure to screw them up consistently.

And if there is such a thing as "worse under pressure", then by default, is there not such a thing as "better under pressure"? And is "better under pressure" not the same as "clutch"?

Not to everyone. I hold to that school of thought (that clutch and choking are the same thing, and don't exist), but there's a reason I included a "No, but 'choking' exists" option in the poll. Some people will hold that you can perform WORSE in pressure-filled situations, but that you can't actively improve and become 'clutch'.

Not-worse in pressure situations is not the same thing as better in pressure situations.

[Genius]

I've always thought that extremely high-pressure environments can open up players to altogether new situations, and thus cause them to cave. Ala Mitch Williams in the 1993 World Series. I also think that this may only be the case for pitchers, as batters will always have a "shared responsibility" at the plate, and therefore be less susceptible, while pitchers, and especially relief pitchers, have a tendency to take on the "it's all on my shoulders" phenomenon. Brad Lidge is another, less extreme example. He was basically ruined for two years.

[Hawk the Slayer]

Does "clutch" exist? I voted no, but I can see the other side of the argument. Take Jeter's famous "flip" play, or Pujols' HR off Lidge in the '05 NLCS - a player is in a pressure situation, and makes a great play. So, yes - those are "clutch" plays. To say, "Wow, Jeter/Pujols was really clutch there!" - I'm fine with that. But to say that "clutch" is some kind of mysterious force that some players possess, and others don't? Bullshit. You have players ranging from fantastic to horrible - now, how many horrible players are considered "clutch"? I can't think of any - because in a pressure situation, they tend to repeat their standard expected behavior of crappy play. How many great players are considered "clutch"? Hundreds. When I was a kid, George Brett was as clutch as it got. Reggie was clutch, so were Goose, Nolan, Seaver... a bit later on, who were the "clutch" players? Doc Gooden, Sandberg, Gibson, Dave Stewart. Who's clutch today? Jeter, Pujols, Manny, Vlad, and a few others. What do they have in common? They're great players ALL THE TIME, so in a pressure situation they are... great. There are very few examples of average/bad players being considered clutch (Aaron Boone), and very few examples of good/great players being considered chokers (ARod), and they're almost always misplaced. Aaron Boone gets credit for one home run, which is a pretty fucking small sample size. ARod's playoff numbers are better than you'd think.
...
TL/DR version - players who are well above average tend to be well above average in all situations. To call them "clutch" makes about as much sense as rubbing a rabbit's foot for luck.

[AJ]

The only place clutch doesn't exist is in Alex Rodriguez's slot in the lineup.

[lce-man]

It definitely exists.

[Stax]

It definitely exists.

So you want to... Ya know... explain why you think this?

[iKnowJohnStamos]

The Answer is yes. Lebron James will never be Michael Jordan until he figures that out.

[Stax]

The Answer is yes. Lebron James will never be Michael Jordan until he figures that out.

That also doesn't make any sense.

A. This is a baseball thread, not a basketball thread, and it's already been discussed how clutchness is a different question in the 2.
B. LeBron rapes face in the playoffs. He's made a team of nothings a legitimate threat two years in a row. Hell, he averages more AST and TRB in the playoffs (and slightly more points, but slightly).

[JT]

What are you asking here? If there is a force known as clutch that some possess? Anytime a player makes a big play in a big moment then it will be called clutch. Great players make great plays and like Stax said sometimes it just happens. For the mediocre players that came up big ,well if you play enough games then sometimes the sun will shine on your ass.

I will agree 100% with mental toughness,heart, and all of that. That's just the make up of the person.

If this poll is about a force known as clutch then you might as well put one up asking if the Holy Spirit exists as well. This poll is stupid.

[Stax]

What are you asking here? If there is a force known as clutch that some possess? Anytime a player makes a big play in a big moment then it will be called clutch. Great players make great plays and like Stax said sometimes it just happens. For the mediocre players that came up big ,well if you play enough games then sometimes the sun will shine on your ass.

I will agree 100% with mental toughness,heart, and all of that. That's just the make up of the person.

If this poll is about a force known as clutch then you might as well put one up asking if the Holy Spirit exists as well. This poll is stupid.

No, it isn't. Coming up big in the clutch is one thing. Maybe the thread is imperfectly titled, whatever. But the question is whether some players are just consistently better in the big moment (clutch) or worse (chokers).

[JT]

Then it should be about mental toughness and being able to block everything else out. How many clutch players have you seen that were actually not very good? The great players make great plays. They are the better players it's simple. I think in some sports it's a little different, but in baseball there are too many variables to label just 1 guy as clutch.

[iKnowJohnStamos]

That also doesn't make any sense.

A. This is a baseball thread, not a basketball thread, and it's already been discussed how clutchness is a different question in the 2.
B. LeBron rapes face in the playoffs. He's made a team of nothings a legitimate threat two years in a row. Hell, he averages more AST and TRB in the playoffs (and slightly more points, but slightly).

He rapes face until he gets the possible game winning shot and then he blows it...time after time...I think Bron is the best player in the NBA, he's just not clutch yet.

My apologies for getting off topic.

[Phil Theehor]

I find it highly unlikely that there's this big block of people out there with JUST ENOUGH mental fortitude to survive the millions of people watching them daily, but if you shift the situation just slightly that is what pushes them over into this mythical choking zone. Mental roadblocks are something that would stand in the way of playing baseball publicly at all, so how could you get to that high-level needed to choke in the first place?

To this point, how do you explain the players (and I know you have seen them) who perform well below their previous level when they come to New York? And return to previous form once they leave?

Also, you say that there is not one player who performs better in big situations. I'll argue again that your proof is right there in Curt Schilling. You listed them yourself in the other thread-- his stats are significantly better in the post season, when, you would assume that he is generally facing better lineups. I know that you argued that the sample (~170 innings, if I recall) was too small. That's three-quarters an entire season. How much more of a sample do you need? How much more sample can a single player (that wasn't a '95-'07 Yankee) realistically provide?

A couple of numbnuts have inferred that believing that some players are clutch is akin to believing in The Force. I don't think I've said that.

What I would posit is this-- There are players that are good enough to contribute at a high level throughout a long, long major league season, which is a bit like running a marathon. Like the marathon runner who runs a strong race, but saves a little to "kick" at the end and win the race, is it not feasible that some players can save a little extra (focus, determination, whatever) for the really big situations?

Now, somebody argued that if someone were to do that, they would be cheating their teams during the non-clutch situations. I'll turn that around and ask the assembled crew here.

Have any of you held your job a long time? Are you really good at it by now or do have a peer who is really good at it? Do you (or they) have the stamina to perform at 100% every second that you are on the clock? Or have you noticed that you (or others) can dig deeper and find a little extra during crunch times? Have you not seen anybody who does a consistently good job, but is at his best when the shit hits the fan?

I know those people. They exist in business. Why can't they exist in sports?

[Stax]

Then it should be about mental toughness and being able to block everything else out. How many clutch players have you seen that were actually not very good? The great players make great plays. They are the better players it's simple. I think in some sports it's a little different, but in baseball there are too many variables to label just 1 guy as clutch.

Mental toughness like that suggests, which is what clutch is, that a player can somehow just do something extra special given the situation which doesn't make sense. You can do what you can do, regardless of situation.

[Stax]

To this point, how do you explain the players (and I know you have seen them) who perform well below their previous level when they come to New York? And return to previous form once they leave?

A. Lineup does help improve things to some degree.
B. Aging. If New York gets you in your prime, no shit you'll do better there.

This is really useless without specific examples, as everyone's situation is unique.

Also, you say that there is not one player who performs better in big situations. I'll argue again that your proof is right there in Curt Schilling. You listed them yourself in the other thread-- his stats are significantly better in the post season, when, you would assume that he is generally facing better lineups. I know that you argued that the sample (~170 innings, if I recall) was too small. That's three-quarters an entire season. How much more of a sample do you need? How much more sample can a single player (that wasn't a '95-'07 Yankee) realistically provide?

They can't. That's the point. Suggesting any meaning to postseason numbers is silly.

And Curt Schilling's numbers are fine, but one season is hardly more valuable than his career. Are you going to judge Brady Anderson by his 50 HR year, or his career? D-Train by his great year, or his career? More data = More accurate.

What I would posit is this-- There are players that are good enough to contribute at a high level throughout a long, long major league season, which is a bit like running a marathon. Like the marathon runner who runs a strong race, but saves a little to "kick" at the end and win the race, is it not feasible that some players can save a little extra (focus, determination, whatever) for the really big situations?

No. Outside of getting physically tired by the end of a season baseball skills are not ones you can 'save'. How do you 'save' focus or determination? If you aren't trying as hard as you can during the regular season then you aren't being CLUTCH in the postseason you're being SHITTY in the other 99% of situations.

Now, somebody argued that if someone were to do that, they would be cheating their teams during the non-clutch situations. I'll turn that around and ask the assembled crew here.

Precisely.

Have any of you held your job a long time? Are you really good at it by now or do have a peer who is really good at it? Do you (or they) have the stamina to perform at 100% every second that you are on the clock? Or have you noticed that you (or others) can dig deeper and find a little extra during crunch times? Have you not seen anybody who does a consistently good job, but is at his best when the shit hits the fan?

I know those people. They exist in business. Why can't they exist in sports?

Because you are given set goals to accomplish in business, so you can skate by at replacement level until so-called 'crunch' time. If you did that in baseball your career would be over.

Seriously, explain to me how you save 'focus' without simply actively being worse the other 99% of the time?

[mongo]

anybody who has read moneyball knows that the answer is no.

[Stax]

anybody who has read moneyball knows that the answer is no.

The section on closers is hilarious. Beane basically saw closers as printing money, put a pretty good reliever in as your closer on a good team, let him collect 25-30 saves a season, then as soon as he wants money given his position as a 'proven' closer you trade him for a mint's worth of value.

[Phil Theehor]

This is really useless without specific examples, as everyone's situation is unique.



Jose Contreras came to New York as a World Class pitcher. He would wet his pants any time he saw the Sox. He went on to contribute a great deal to a world-champion White Sox team.

There’s one. I assume that you watch the Yanks (and not just the box scores) and could come up with a dozen if you put some thought into it.




They can't. That's the point. Suggesting any meaning to postseason numbers is silly.

And Curt Schilling's numbers are fine, but one season is hardly more valuable than his career. Are you going to judge Brady Anderson by his 50 HR year, or his career? D-Train by his great year, or his career? More data = More accurate.



Probably your worst example to this point. Anderson’s great season was just that—a great season, a short period of time in his career. Schilling has demonstrated a season’s worth of results, spread throughout a ten year span, during the most important games he pitched.



No. Outside of getting physically tired by the end of a season baseball skills are not ones you can 'save'. How do you 'save' focus or determination?



I don’t understand how you can say this. From your experience, isn’t focusing 100% more fatiguing than focusing say 75%?


The section on closers is hilarious. Beane basically saw closers as printing money, put a pretty good reliever in as your closer on a good team, let him collect 25-30 saves a season, then as soon as he wants money given his position as a 'proven' closer you trade him for a mint's worth of value.

I’ve been meaning to bring up Moneyball & closers. First, about Moneyball: I’m not disputing the value of it. It revolutionized the way GM’s evaluate talent. Thank heavens for Moneyball. No Moneyball = No Theo. No Theo = No two fresh rings. I love me some Moneyball.

But for pissakes, guys, you treat it as though it was dictated by the burning bush. I can’t point to one single philosophy in any other aspect of life that supplies us with every answer. Do you so blindly ascribe to statistical analysis that you ignore your own eyes?

Why would a James disciple who runs the most successful franchise of the last few years use his best reliever as a closer? Why would he not tell Tito to use Papelbon in the 7th, if he thought that was the most important three outs? (aside: he has done this a few times, very rarely though)

The answer is that the last three outs are harder to get than outs 22-24. Why? The pucker factor, the finality of the situation, call it what you will. The bottom line is that it requires a level of mental toughness that pitching the seventh usually does not. It’s that (fill in the blank) that separates a gifted guy like Armando Benitez from the game’s front line closers.

[Stax]

Jose Contreras came to New York as a World Class pitcher. He would wet his pants any time he saw the Sox. He went on to contribute a great deal to a world-champion White Sox team.

There’s one. I assume that you watch the Yanks (and not just the box scores) and could come up with a dozen if you put some thought into it.

What the FUCK are you talking about? Jose Contreras came to the Yankees as a 31 year old pitcher. He gave 71 good innings his first year, was below league average through about 100 in 04 got traded to the White Sox and was essentially equally bad through another 75. Then in 05, like basically every pitcher on the White Sox that one year, he had another above average year. Then in 06 he slid down closer to league average, and then 07 and 08 he's league average or below.

How is that indicative of ANYTHING? He's an old pitcher who had one good, but short, year in NY then one good and well-timed year in Chicago.

I don’t understand how you can say this. From your experience, isn’t focusing 100% more fatiguing than focusing say 75%?

Simple question: In your example of crunch time office work, can you do office work in the crunch better than your maximum capacity? The answer is no, because no mystical force imbues you with anything. It's not like the mothers who gain the strength to lift cars off their kids, you simply perform at your maximum level. If you are not doing that in the regular season then you are hurting your team 162 games and only living up to your contract for like 8-12 games, hardly something to be applauded.


But for pissakes, guys, you treat it as though it was dictated by the burning bush. I can’t point to one single philosophy in any other aspect of life that supplies us with every answer. Do you so blindly ascribe to statistical analysis that you ignore your own eyes?

Yes, because eyes are horribly inaccurate. Going by your eyes is why Crossing Over with John Edwards stayed on the air for so long. It's not taking Moneyball as the be-all and end all because it isn't. But it presents the proper philosophy for running a baseball team, logic over guts.


Why would a James disciple who runs the most successful franchise of the last few years use his best reliever as a closer? Why would he not tell Tito to use Papelbon in the 7th, if he thought that was the most important three outs? (aside: he has done this a few times, very rarely though)

I'm sure he does. But Boston isn't Oakland, the GM isn't running the team behind closed doors. Also leverage pitching is a rather complex task, so you might as well start with simple things like OBP > AVG.


The answer is that the last three outs are harder to get than outs 22-24. Why? The pucker factor, the finality of the situation, call it what you will. The bottom line is that it requires a level of mental toughness that pitching the seventh usually does not. It’s that (fill in the blank) that separates a gifted guy like Armando Benitez from the game’s front line closers.

You are wrong. Period.

Nobody says just bring the guy in in the 7th. They say do it when there are men on base in a close game. And those outs are crazy harder than just arbitrary 3 outs in the 9th, because those are just 3 outs.

[Phil Theehor]

Related question: Can teams choke? Does a Jamesian look at the Mets the last two seasons and say "They won the appropriate number of games given their talent. The fact that their losses came down the stretch is coincidental"?

[Stax]

Related question: Can teams choke? Does a Jamesian look at the Mets the last two seasons and say "They won the appropriate number of games given their talent. The fact that their losses came down the stretch is coincidental"?

PECOTA, a system which makes preseason projections for every player then combines those projections into projected runs generated and runs allowed by each team, then that into preseason record projections is the ultimate computers-in-baseball thing that guys like Joe Morgan hate (absolutely zero idea of 'clutchness' and intangibles). It has an average error of about 4 games, but obviously that leaves room for flaws. It very clearly predicted the Rays would be successful, but not this successful. It completely fucked up the AL Central. But still, an average error of roughly 4 games is pretty good.

The Mets were projected to have 93 wins, they end with 89 (exactly 4 game error). The Phillies did better than expected, 92 wins to a projected 86 (Braves totally shit the bed projected for 87 wins, though I suppose trading Tex midseason and a pretty big 6.7 games under expected record by Pythag could amount for a tiny bit of that).

What does a team choking signify? Would the Mets season be any different now if they lost a couple more games in May or June and weren't playing for their season on the last day? The Yankees ended the season against the Sox clearly out of the Wild Card race. But what if they'd won a few more games and come into the final 3 game set 3 games back of the Sox (instead of the 7 back they did) and gotten the exact same result (winning the first 2 of 3, so losing the WC in the last game of the season)? Why would that be 'choking', or rather why does that need to be attributed to 'choking', when the exact same result now recieves no such name?

Mets season win %age: .549
Mets September win/loss: 12 wins, 12 losses, .500

If you want to attribute that 4.9% extra losing to 'choking', feel free.

[Phil Theehor]

That's interesting, thanks. I had no idea that such a thing existed. My question with the Mets was more focused on the past two years, however. We've all seen teams give away divisional and wild card leads late in the season-- that's not news. What the Mets did, though, is gag away leads two years in a row (last year's was certainly more dramatic, but it is the potential start of a pattern).

So, I'll ask you this about the Mets. Do you believe that team psycology plays any part in a team's performance? Or is there performance only the sum of its parts, pluse or minus a few points)?

I'm curious as to your thoughts on this. I live outside of New York and hear a lot of the press conferences. In the second half of the season, whenever they would claim a lead in either race, the team was bombarded with questions about last year's choke job (7 up with 17 to play) and whether or not it was on their minds this year. Naturally, people questioned whether or not the negative thinking ultimately got to the team and hurt their collective performance.

Now, I'm not putting forth an opinion on this particular question. Just curious to know if you put any credence in team psychology.

An aside: Does that fancy Pecota machine have a track record in the post season? Or are the sample sizes to small for it to be accurate?

[Stax]

That's interesting, thanks. I had no idea that such a thing existed. My question with the Mets was more focused on the past two years, however. We've all seen teams give away divisional and wild card leads late in the season-- that's not news. What the Mets did, though, is gag away leads two years in a row (last year's was certainly more dramatic, but it is the potential start of a pattern).

But that's a purposefully blinding point. For every 2007/2008 Mets that are seen as shitting the bed in the end (though as I note they only performed 4.9% worse this month than for the season) there are the 2008 Yankees that just lose too many games throughout the season to be serious contenders. Losing a game in September is the same as losing a game in April, one win or loss in the standing. It's just easier to say someone "blew it" in September because an elimination number going from 1 to 0 is clearer than from 150 to 149 or whatever.

So, I'll ask you this about the Mets. Do you believe that team psycology plays any part in a team's performance? Or is there performance only the sum of its parts, pluse or minus a few points)?

Performance is quite clearly a sum of its parts plus or minus variance. Now, as I said with Billy Beane as a player (defeating himself mentally), psychology may play a part and it would show up numerically. If it doesn't show itself in a measurable fashion, who cares? For this season (assuming you pretend variance doesn't exist, since somehow factoring that into playoff contention would be silly) the Phillies and Brewers were better teams than the Mets, that would be true if they lost that game to the Marlins in April or in September.

I'm curious as to your thoughts on this. I live outside of New York and hear a lot of the press conferences. In the second half of the season, whenever they would claim a lead in either race, the team was bombarded with questions about last year's choke job (7 up with 17 to play) and whether or not it was on their minds this year. Naturally, people questioned whether or not the negative thinking ultimately got to the team and hurt their collective performance.

Now, I'm not putting forth an opinion on this particular question. Just curious to know if you put any credence in team psychology.

Then why did the 2006 Mets make the playoffs, I mean the Braves had been winning for a decade surely that's a big psychological hurdle to overcome? Why were Carlos Delgado and David Wright so awesome down the stretch this year AND last if there was this huge crushing pressure burden on them? Why didn't the Yankees get a psychological boost from last year's 'clutch' run and make one this year? How did the Brewers make a 'clutch' run despite 25 years of playoff failure?

Pop psychology, clutchness, so many things that are messed up with baseball can be compared to Nostradamus. When something fits the model it gets remembered and praised as perfect (Mets failing down the stretch, Jeter/Big Papi/Bernie in the clutch, ARod choking, whatever) but whatever shows it to be false is forgotten.

An aside: Does that fancy Pecota machine have a track record in the post season? Or are the sample sizes to small for it to be accurate?

No, the sample size is way too small. If you flip a perfect coin (so without the engravings and such that change the weight from a perfect balance) 162 times it will probably come way closer to going 50-50 than if you flip a coin 5 or 7 times. Variance is way too huge a factor in such a tiny sample of games. That's the failure of the playoff system that leads to ideas of clutchness in the first place. You cannot predict that Aaron Boone will hit that home run at that moment, but that's ok in the regular season because there are 161 games to balance things out to show who is skilled (at hitting home runs or anything else) and who is not but in a 7 game series (and in the 7th game at that) there's no sample to balance out the variance.

[Hawk the Slayer]

Thought about this some more... and while I basically agree with Stax (on looking at baseball from a more analytical perspective), I think my take on it is this: professional baseball players are always under pressure to perform. However, the psychological pressure in an April 12 game is not the same as late in the regular season w/ playoff berth at stake, or in the playoffs/WS themselves. Yes, I know that the April 12 game counts every bit as much in the standings as a September 24 game - but I'll bet a good portion of the players don't think that way. If a closer blows a save in April, his teammates are liable to pat him on the back and say, "you'll get 'em next time, fella". The media are liable to say, "tough loss there for so-and-so, but he'll bounce back". The same thing happens in the last week of the regular season, and the consequences are different. I know it's not logical - but that doesn't mean that it's not the case. Baseball players and managers are not from the planet Vulcan.
...
I don't think that there are players who mystically "elevate their play in the moment" - but I do think there are some players who do a better job of concentrating on the task at hand - "mental toughness", if you will - and are able to perform up to their usual capabilities. I think there are some players who don't react well to that late-season/post-season pressure, and perform worse than would normally be expected. The problem is that it's almost impossible to verify this empirically, given that you're comparing a very small sample (late season pressure games) to a large sample, then asking if it's different. If 162 coin flips give you 83 heads and 79 tails, then the next 7 flips give you 2 heads and 5 tails, was the coin suddenly rigged for those last 7 flips?

[Stax]

Thought about this some more... and while I basically agree with Stax (on looking at baseball from a more analytical perspective), I think my take on it is this: professional baseball players are always under pressure to perform. However, the psychological pressure in an April 12 game is not the same as late in the regular season w/ playoff berth at stake, or in the playoffs/WS themselves. Yes, I know that the April 12 game counts every bit as much in the standings as a September 24 game - but I'll bet a good portion of the players don't think that way. If a closer blows a save in April, his teammates are liable to pat him on the back and say, "you'll get 'em next time, fella". The media are liable to say, "tough loss there for so-and-so, but he'll bounce back". The same thing happens in the last week of the regular season, and the consequences are different. I know it's not logical - but that doesn't mean that it's not the case. Baseball players and managers are not from the planet Vulcan.

But what I'm saying is that that suggests that a notable # of baseball players reside in this weird psychological threshold where they can endure people yelling at them and analyzing their every move but then adding just a bit more pressure makes them collapse. I'm willing to accept choking may be slightly more likely to exist than clutch for the reason you've outlined (it's not someone GAINING an ability, just doing worse because they're beating themselves up) but it gets assigned to basically any failure on any big stage.

[Phil Theehor]

Strong logic, all the way through. However, the trouble with going solely on the team's strength from a formula is that you end up attributing a lot of visible patterns to coincidence.

And yes, I get your point that believers in a theory will be selective in the examples they point to. Excellent observation-- agreed 100%. But I'll still never believe that Schilling's three-quarters of a season's worth of great playoff performance spread over an entire career is all coincidence. That's far too coincidental to write off.

Back on-topic: You bring up the 2006 Mets, who made the playoffs, but somehow lost to a mediocre Cards team (who somehow went on to beat a very good Tigers team). That's where the Mets choking story begins.

I'd be curious (not arguing, mind you, just curious), how that Cards team stacked up v. The Mets using the Pecota formula. Or the Tigers. Using the formula, did the Cards underachieve during the season, or overachieve in the playoffs?

[Hawk the Slayer]

As a Cards fan, let me assure you wholeheartedly - they vastly overachieved in the 2006 playoffs. They barely won a very weak NL Central division (83 wins IIRC), then steamrolled through the playoffs like a 110-win ballclub.

[BSM]

clutch 1 (klhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ubreve.gifch)v. clutched, clutch·ing, clutch·es
v.tr.1. To grasp and hold tightly.
2. To seize; snatch.

SEE ALSO: BRAUN, RYAN

[Hawk the Slayer]

But what I'm saying is that that suggests that a notable # of baseball players reside in this weird psychological threshold where they can endure people yelling at them and analyzing their every move but then adding just a bit more pressure makes them collapse.
I think it's more than "a bit" more pressure. I don't think the extra pressure comes from fans' expectations, or media coverage - I think the players put it on themselves, when it becomes clear that how they perform in THIS spot, in THIS game, RIGHT NOW - has a good chance of determining whether the team's championship hopes live or die. A slugger strikes out in the bottom of the 9th, with RISP - sure, he feels like crap, no matter what the calendar says. But, when it's April 12 and there are 154 more games to go, he knows he has a chance to make up for his failure - the whole "you'll get 'em next time" scenario I referred to earlier. When it's September 29, and a Chicago White Sox batter comes to the plate in the 9th, team losing 5-4, needing a hit to drive home the tying/winning runs in order to force a 1-game playoff with the Twins... it's a vastly different situation. The whole "yes, but if they hadn't gone on that 4-game losing streak back in May..." theory doesn't apply. The hitter HAS to come through - RIGHT NOW - or the season is over.
...
I think it's a LOT more psychological pressure. What I'm not sure of, is how you can say whether a player who fails in the clutch, did so because of pressure, or because of normal statistical variation.

[Stax]

Strong logic, all the way through. However, the trouble with going solely on the team's strength from a formula is that you end up attributing a lot of visible patterns to coincidence.

...That's what you're doing... You're suggesting that a team's performance in some arbitrary period of time is somehow reflective of something rather than just variance and coincidence.

And yes, I get your point that believers in a theory will be selective in the examples they point to. Excellent observation-- agreed 100%. But I'll still never believe that Schilling's three-quarters of a season's worth of great playoff performance spread over an entire career is all coincidence. That's far too coincidental to write off.

Not to push this too much, because Schilling is one of the better test-cases for saying clutch does exist, but lets break down his numbers a bit more. First, in the 04 and 07 ALCS' he was overall bad (people remember Game 5 but forget Game 1 in 04, Game 6 but not Game 2 in 07). But, more importantly, what years did he go to the postseason?

1993: 4 games
2001: 6 games
2002: 1 game
2004: 4 games
2007: 4 games

Regular season?

1993: League average (99 ERA+ through a lot of innings)
2001: Crazy good
2002: Crazy good (only 1 postseason game of impact here, but still)
2004: Crazy good
2007: Still well above league average (122 ERA+)

3 of Curt Schilling's 5 postseason years (11 of his 19 games) came in years where he finished 2nd in CYA voting (01, 02, 04). Then last year for good measure he through in another 4 games where he was still a very high level pitcher. The slightly less general problem (rather than the sample size problem that EVERYONE has) is one of selection bias. If those early 90s Phillies teams made more playoffs he would not look like nearly as big a playoff god because there would be more early 90s years of Schilling to balance out those ungodly Arizona and Boston years he had.

Postseason Bob Gibson looks even better than the already great regular season Bob Gibson, but I bet a big chunk (if not all of that) is because he only PITCHED in 1964, 67, and 68 where he was very good, pretty good, and one of the best single-seasons of pitching ever.

Back on-topic: You bring up the 2006 Mets, who made the playoffs, but somehow lost to a mediocre Cards team (who somehow went on to beat a very good Tigers team). That's where the Mets choking story begins.

The 2006 Cardinals were one of the worst playoff teams in history, but like any team can went on a run in the playoffs. Not to overly push Moneyball, but from page 274 (when the Rays sucked):

The postseason partially explained why baseball was so uniquely resistant to the fruits of scientific research: to any purely rational idea about how to run a baseball team. It wasn't just that the game was run by old baseball men who insisted on doing things as they had always been done. It was that the season ended in a giant crapshoot. The play-offs frustrate rational management because, unlike the long regular season, they suffer from the sample size problem. Pete Palmer, the sabermetrician and author of The Hidden Game of Baseball, once calculated that the average difference in baseball due to skill is about one run a game, while the average difference due to luck is about four runs a game. Over a long season the luck evens out, and the skill shines through. But in a series of three out of five, or even four out of seven, anything can happen. In a five-game series, the worst team in baseball will beat the best about 15 percent of the time, the Devil Rays will have a prayer against the Yankees. Baseball science may still give a team a slight edge, but that edge is overwhelmed by chance. The baseball season is structured to mock reason.

Plus plenty of teams lose to worse teams in the playoffs, this group is really so psychologically unique that this particular thing destroyed not their ability to play baseball (they're still one of the best teams in the league) but just their ability to play these particular games that people say are more important?

I'd be curious (not arguing, mind you, just curious), how that Cards team stacked up v. The Mets using the Pecota formula. Or the Tigers. Using the formula, did the Cards underachieve during the season, or overachieve in the playoffs?

Again, it doesn't project for the playoffs. It's hard to find old PECOTA figures but this 2006 article (http://baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=4917) has them. It projected the Mets to be +69 runs on the year, the Cardinals +45. In actuality the Mets were +103, the Cardinals +19. Both reality and projection tells you the Mets were likely the better team in that series, just happening to be upset in 7 by a team on a hot streak.

[Stax]

clutch 1 (klhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ubreve.gifch)v. clutched, clutch·ing, clutch·es
v.tr.1. To grasp and hold tightly.
2. To seize; snatch.

SEE ALSO: BRAUN, RYAN

Ryan "I have my worst month of the season, a barely-above league average .636 OPS in the corner OF, in September" Braun? First off, what a crazy long middle name. Second, another example of how clutch is entirely variant person to person and less based on any real skill worth pointing to.

I think it's more than "a bit" more pressure. I don't think the extra pressure comes from fans' expectations, or media coverage - I think the players put it on themselves, when it becomes clear that how they perform in THIS spot, in THIS game, RIGHT NOW - has a good chance of determining whether the team's championship hopes live or die. A slugger strikes out in the bottom of the 9th, with RISP - sure, he feels like crap, no matter what the calendar says. But, when it's April 12 and there are 154 more games to go, he knows he has a chance to make up for his failure - the whole "you'll get 'em next time" scenario I referred to earlier. When it's September 29, and a Chicago White Sox batter comes to the plate in the 9th, team losing 5-4, needing a hit to drive home the tying/winning runs in order to force a 1-game playoff with the Twins... it's a vastly different situation. The whole "yes, but if they hadn't gone on that 4-game losing streak back in May..." theory doesn't apply. The hitter HAS to come through - RIGHT NOW - or the season is over.
...
I think it's a LOT more psychological pressure. What I'm not sure of, is how you can say whether a player who fails in the clutch, did so because of pressure, or because of normal statistical variation.

Yeah, but I also guarantee you that player in April isn't thinking "Hum dee dum, what I do doesn't matter." After the game they'll certainly feel better since there are 150+ left to play, but they still feel that same pressure of HOLY SHIT I HOPE I DON'T MESS UP. It goes to the same point from earlier that if you are focusing more in the crunch that means conversely you are focusing less in EVERY OTHER SITUATION which I'd be willing to bet actually hurts your team way more than it helps.

[Archangel]

bump

I know that this is about baseball, and I'm a bit late to this, but I've rarely found something I so disagree with.

Yes. But do you believe there are players who can handle:
-The pressure of 50000 people nightly yelling and screaming at you and being daily analyzed on national television for your job

but not

-Exactly the same thing, but in a tough spot

?? If you have such thin mental fortitude you won't make it to the majors to test your clutch/chokeness to begin with. Mental toughness plays a part in that I'm sure they are single-A players who beat themselves up so much mentally that they cannot perform on the field.

Let's take football (our kind) and basketball as examples.

In major football tournaments, this is most evident, especially in penalty shoot-outs. There is a monumental difference indeed between trying to score an in-game penalty to get ahead 2-1 in front of 70,000 screaming fans during a regular season match, and being put on the spot with your squad down 5-6 (or up 4-3, for that matter) in penalties at the end of the World Cup or Euro Finals. By the time the next one rolls around, you'll be four years older, and maybe even off the team, or your team will suck and never even sniff the Finals. This isn't basketball, where even an 8 point lead can be - and has been - erased in a matter of seconds. There is no chance to get back from a 2-3 deficit in game 6. There is no "next year". This, as they say, is it.

If you miss (in the first case), four years of preparation, one and a half years of qualifying, and a month-long tournament full of triumphs will have been for naught. If you hit (in the second case), you will be a national hero. In both cases, your name will be remembered for decades. Everybody in Germany knows that Rahn scored the winning goal in '54 (not in a shoot-out, but you know what I mean), and everybody in Italy knows what Baggio and Baresi did forty years later.

There are a billion people watching, including pretty much your entire country.

You know all this all too well. The referee blows the whistle; in about 3 or 4 seconds, tens of millions of voices of your countrymen, whom you represent here, on the most prestigious stage in world sports, will cry out either in total agony or utter joy.

Now tell me that there is no difference.

And 9 times out of 10, Franz Beckenbauer scores. 9 times out of 10, David Beckham sends the ball (and a fistful of soil and grass) into low earth orbit.


This does not mean that the latter - talking about his prime - is a bad player, or can't perform on big stages. It just means that when it comes to the absolute breaking point, some guys can tune it all out and do their job - because any competent player should make at least 4 out of 5 penalties under normal circumstances against a competent keeper - and some just, well, break.

No clutch, my arse.



As for basketball, two words:

Robert Horry.

[heelsguy]

clutch most definitely exists. it is the ability for some athletes to completely block out all distractions, focus with laser-beam intensity on what it is they are trying to do, and to calm their body so that they CAN do what they are trying to do.

Jordan, Tiger, Larry legend, and believe it or not, robert horry

[Stax]

Now tell me that there is no difference.

I did not say there was no difference. But if you hadn't proven the ability to handle similar pressures over and over and over again you wouldn't be standing on the stage in the first place. My problem is the suggestion sportswriters make that there is this massive psychological cliff, that somehow all these clutch/choker superstars can perform at a high level (since you need to perform at a high level to be considered for these discussions generally anyways) but pushing it a bit further makes some collapse and others massively greater.

And 9 times out of 10, Franz Beckenbauer scores. 9 times out of 10, David Beckham sends the ball (and a fistful of soil and grass) into low earth orbit.

In your mind. I'd be willing to bet that's not true. Like the people who say 9/10 when Jeter/Ortiz/etc comes up in a big spot they get the hit while 9/10 when ARod does he doesn't, when in fact they perform at basically identical levels to their career performance.

No clutch, my arse.

If a player can perform at a higher level in... Say 10 crucial minutes out of an entire game/tournament/season, why isn't he performing at that higher level all the time? Doesn't "clutch" actually mean he hurts his team by giving less effort than he can in 95+% of situations?

As for basketball, two words:

Robert Horry.

Robert Horry, career: 7.0 PPG, 4.8 RPG, 2.1 APG, 24.4 MPG
Robert Horry, postseason: 7.9 PPG, 5.6 RPG, 2.4 APG, 28.0 MPG

Slightly better in each category, but of course he's almost getting nearly 4 minutes more playing time. On a per minute basis?

Robert Horry, career: .2867 PPM, .1967 RPM, .0860 APM
Robert Horry, postseason: .2821 PPM, .2000 RPM, .0857 APG

Practically an identical player, huh, whaddya know (fractionally worse scoring but better rebounding). Shooting-wise?

Robert Horry, career: .425 FG%, .341 3P%, .726 FT%
Robert Horry, postseason: .426 FG%, .359 3P%, .722 FT%

Slightly better 3-point shooting in the playoffs but since his FG% stays the same that means his 2-point shooting %age is actually falling in the playoffs. Small FT-shooting drop as well.

Now I know Horry is more lauded for his defense, but as you posted a poll on there is an annoying lack of NBA defensive stats out there.

[Stax]

clutch most definitely exists. it is the ability for some athletes to completely block out all distractions, focus with laser-beam intensity on what it is they are trying to do, and to calm their body so that they CAN do what they are trying to do.

Jordan, Tiger, Larry legend, and believe it or not, robert horry

You know what Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, and Larry Bird all have in common? They're all fantastically amazingly good in general at the sport they play. I wouldn't say Michael Jordan was good at hitting shots in the clutch, I would say Michael Jordan was good at hitting shots.

EDIT - Yay, got my vBookie promotion.

[Archangel]

It's not about Horry's stats in the postseason, it's that he made every fucking three pointer for the win or tie. He could have done shit and put up bricks for the entire game, but if he had the ball outside the line with 2 down 2 seconds before the final buzzer, you might as well have run for the showers.

And as I said, comparing baseball players to the situation I described is retarded because there is no comparable stage in baseball, for the reasons mentioned above. As for not being true, check out England's record when it comes to elimination matches decided by penalties, and especially Beckham's.

[Stax]

It's not about Horry's stats in the postseason, it's that he made every fucking three pointer for the win or tie. He could have done shit and put up bricks for the entire game, but if he had the ball outside the line with 2 down 2 seconds before the final buzzer, you might as well have run for the showers.

And? Why is it better to win the game at the buzzer rather than sink a 3 earlier in the game and simply have the 1 point lead there?

And as I said, comparing baseball players to the situation above is retarded because there is no comparable stage in baseball, for the reasons mentioned above.

The World Series/late season games in 1 run situations don't count?

As for not being true, check out England's record when it comes to elimination matches decided by penalties, and especially Beckham's.

I'd be willing to bet the sample is so insanely small as to be almost impossible to draw anything particularly telling from it.

[freegood]

I forgot the name but Darryl Morey does have a factor for it. It's callled a late game event or something...

[Archangel]

The World Series/late season games in 1 run situations don't count?

Again, the World Series, Super Bowl etc come around every year. If you have a great team this season, the odds are pretty good that you will be at least realistically contending the next: Look at the NBA Playoffs this year - how many teams are returning, how many contending? Thought so. Plus, there is the fact that in baseball, pro basketball and hockey, playoffs are decided by series, not single games.

Furthermore, the interest level is, frankly, far lower. 90% of the people to whom a World Series win matters are the baseball fans of the town (and its surroundings) whose team bought your contract - even less if your city has two teams - and some glory supporters and bandwagoners if you're the Yankees, Red Sox, (Lakers, Cowboys) etc. I mean, out of 300-odd million Americans, how many are actually enthusiastic about a Spurs or Diamondbacks title?

In the World Cup, you represent your country, your entire country: When Brazil is in the Finals, you can bet that every Brazilian who can get near a TV screen will be raptly watching. It's the one occasion where everybody, including the players, is an unabashed patriot. You represent your country, not what is essentially a big corporation. For one month in '06, all of Germany was in a state of heightened alert, if you will.

And as already said, it's only every four years. If LeBron doesn't make it in '07, he has still at least 15 years in which to try for 15 titles; if Michael Ballack doesn't win in '10, that's it for him, he'll be 38 for World Cup '14, and rather less certain to still play.

The only vaguely comparable situation I can think of in American sports is a college senior who has never won a title shooting two free throws with his school's team down one point in the NCAA title game - but even there, it's a stretch, since he's not, technically, a pro athlete.

[jemeske]

When an athlete develops a reputation as clutch or unclutch, we only tend to remember the incidents that confirm that reputation and forget the others.

When the Bulls lost to the Magic AT HOME in game 6 to lose the series in 1995, they went without a score for the final three minutes of the game. 8 point lead to 6 point loss. No Jordan magic. The closing moments included an airball and a turnover from Jordan.

In 03 in the playoffs against the Spurs, Horry missed a potential game winning three. He was 0-18 overall for three and the Lakers lost the series 4-2.

To Arch: It may not matter on the world stage, but the World Series and NBA Finals do matter to sports fans here and they matter a hell of a lot to the players involved. To say the pressure isn't the same is kinda silly. You may not find it the exact same, but it's still a very high pressure situation. Also, I don't think you actually proved that clutch exists in soccer yet. You just made an offhand observation without any statistical reference. Plus, the fact that it's only a four year event means that the sample size is going to be very small. For example, if Horry's teams only made the playoffs in 03, he'd probably be seen as an unclutch player. One bad (or conversely good) game or series in that type of situation isn't really enough to judge whether a player is clutch or not.

[Stax]

When an athlete develops a reputation as clutch or unclutch, we only tend to remember the incidents that confirm that reputation and forget the others.

Precisely.

And I've said this before but... There are certainly clutch events, the question is whether a player can really have a unique propensity towards them beyond his basic skillset to be a clutch player.

[jemeske]

More on Horry: http://www.slate.com/id/2121018/

[Archangel]

To Arch: It may not matter on the world stage, but the World Series and NBA Finals do matter to sports fans here and they matter a hell of a lot to the players involved. To say the pressure isn't the same is kinda silly. You may not find it the exact same, but it's still a very high pressure situation. Also, I don't think you actually proved that clutch exists in soccer yet. You just made an offhand observation without any statistical reference.

It's pretty hard to come up with stats when an event happens once every four years (and very few matches are decided by shoot-outs), but Beckham, while scoring a penalty against Argentina in the group stage of WC '02 and many while with his respective club, totally shit the bed when it really mattered, in an elimination match shoot-out in '04.

And I never said that the players and the fans did not care about their teams winning. What I did say was that there were less people to whom the wins/championships mattered. This is not meant as a slight at all: Just compare the number of inhabitants of greater Pittsburgh with that of Brazil or Germany - by the same token, less people in Europe care about Juve winning the Scudetto or even the Champions League than about Italy winning the World Cup.

Also, this may be hard for Americans to understand, since international competitions generally matter less to you (and you call your national trophy winners "world champions" for some unfathomable reason anyway) but as far as football is concerned, international competition is a matter apart. Playing for your club is a great job; playing for your country's World Cup squad is an honour. A baseball or basketball fan cares rather more about his Phillies or Celtics winning the World Series or the Larry O'Brien than about the US winning the WBC or the Olympics, does he not? Here, a Bayern Munich championship is peanuts compared to Germany bringing home the World Cup trophy, both to the players and the fans (which is partly due to a large part of the élite players playing for foreign clubs).

[Stax]

It's pretty hard to come up with stats when an event happens once every four years (and very few matches are decided by shoot-outs), but Beckham, while scoring a penalty against Argentina in the group stage of WC '02 and many while with his respective club, shit the bed when it really mattered, in an elimination match shoot-out in '04.

One of my favorite Jordan ads:

45mMioJ5szc

The greatest player in the history of his game playing for one of the greatest teams throughout his career with the reputation as one of the most clutch players of any sport anywhere/anytime failed numerous numerous times. This is the problem of small samples, David Beckham misses LOTS of shots, the fact that he missed 1 or 2 key ones doesn't mean he lacks in bravado or something.

[Archangel]

Yeah, but under normal circumstances, any decent player can hit a penalty. Put simply, a penalty is an all but guaranteed goal. The penalty being saved by a lucky and quick keeper is one thing - but for a superstar to shank a ball from 36 feet OVER a goal 8 feet high, that takes something special. Imagine Kobe going up for an uncontested layup for the win, and hitting nothing but the shot clock.

Oh, and for all his misses, MJ made two career-enders.

[jemeske]

It's pretty hard to come up with stats when an event happens once every four yearsEXACTLY, making it harder for statistical anomalies to balance out.
(and very few matches are decided by shoot-outs), but Beckham, while scoring a penalty against Argentina in the group stage of WC '02 and many while with his respective club, totally shit the bed when it really mattered, in an elimination match shoot-out in '04.
Again, failing in one high pressure situation doesn't make a person unclutch in my book. Players have bad games and good games. When the WC is only held every four years, a player doesn't have many opportunities. You seem to be saying that means they should be all the more dialed in, while I'm saying clutch vs. unclutch in that situation may be more related to random chance.

I have little reference for soccer so bear with me, but was Zidane clutch for helping France get to the finals or unclutch for making a stupid decision and getting tossed from the game?
And I never said that the players and the fans did not care about their teams winning. What I did say was that there were less people to whom the wins/championships mattered. This is not meant as a slight at all: Just compare the number of inhabitants of greater Pittsburgh with that of Brazil or Germany - by the same token, less people in Europe care about Juve winning the Scudetto or even the Champions League than about Italy winning the World Cup.

Also, this may be hard for Americans to understand, since international competitions generally matter less to you (and you call your national trophy winners "world champions" for some unfathomable reason anyway) but as far as football is concerned, international competition is a matter apart. Playing for your club is a great job; playing for your country's World Cup squad is an honour. A baseball or basketball fan cares rather more about his Phillies or Celtics winning the World Series or the Larry O'Brien than about the US winning the WBC or the Olympics, does he not? Here, a Bayern Munich championship is peanuts compared to Germany bringing home the World Cup trophy, both to the players and the fans.
Sure, but I don't really see how this has any bearing on this debate.

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

Man Ram! Actually I dunno if he's clutch or not, but if I was gonna do some coke with any MLB player besides Clint Barmes (and that was a long time ago) it would be Man Ram.

[jemeske]

Yeah, but under normal circumstances, any decent player can hit a penalty. Put simply, a penalty is an all but guaranteed goal. The penalty being saved by a lucky and quick keeper is one thing - but for a superstar to shank a ball from 36 feet OVER a goal 8 feet high, that takes something special. Imagine Kobe going up for an uncontested layup for the win, and hitting nothing but the shot clock.

Oh, and for all his misses, MJ made two career-enders.
What if the goalie in those situations was just "clutchier". What happens when two really clutch players go up against each other? What if Beckham had made a goal to send a game to kicks (clutch?) but then totally blows his kick (unclutch?).

And two career enders? John Paxson made the final shot against Phoenix. Please don't tell me you're talking about his time in Washington that didn't really happen.

[Stax]

Yeah, but under normal circumstances, any decent player can hit a penalty. Put simply, a penalty is an all but guaranteed goal. The penalty being saved by a lucky and quick keeper is one thing - but for a superstar to shank a ball from 36 feet OVER a goal 8 feet high, that takes something special.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a908934349~db=all~jumptype=rss

Lists the success %age of the best in the world at 75-85ish%. So Horry was a choker for missing those 134 free throws, something he generally succeeds at a similar success %age in the 70s? Or maybe, just maybe, even when you succeed 75-85% of the time you still fail 15-25% of the time. If you flip a coin twice and it goes heads twice, which is more likely:

1. The coin is rigged/weighted/has two heads sides
2. It happened to land heads twice

?

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

Nick Swisher's mullet was pretty clutch.

[mongo]

aaron boone!@

[jemeske]

Nick Swisher's mullet was pretty clutch.
Swish vs. Lance, circa 2006.

http://i41.tinypic.com/504b9x.jpg

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

Nick Swisher's mullet was the destroyer of worlds.

Didn't he go yard twice yesterday?

[jemeske]

He's goes yard twice EVERY DAY.

[mongo]

and 3 times on sundays.

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

The correct answer is NO because George stole his mullet.

[jemeske]

He did the same thing to Giambi AND made him start taking steroids several years before joining the team. FUCK YOU, STEINBRENNER!!!!

[Archangel]

EXACTLY, making it harder for statistical anomalies to balance out.

Again, failing in one high pressure situation doesn't make a person unclutch in my book. Players have bad games and good games. When the WC is only held every four years, a player doesn't have many opportunities. You seem to be saying that means they should be all the more dialed in, while I'm saying clutch vs. unclutch in that situation may be more related to random chance.

This is getting repetitive - the distinctiveness of penalty kicks is that they are all but guaranteed scores. The spot is 36 feet away, the goal is 24 feet wide and 8 feet tall. An actual blind person, much less a pro footballer, could hit that goal. Saves are one thing - a game of chance and will in which the keeper happened to have the better hand - but missing the thing entirely in a high pressure situation, as a superstar, no less, will have you branded as a choker for all eternity.

Roberto Baggio won both European and World Footballer of the Year awards, won the Italian championship with two different teams and the UEFA Cup: However, you ask any football fan in Europe or S America about Baggio, and the first thing on their minds will be that ridiculous miss in the '94 WC Finals shoot-out.

It's the way it is, I didn't make the rules.

I have little reference for soccer so bear with me, but was Zidane clutch for helping France get to the finals or unclutch for making a stupid decision and getting tossed from the game?

Zidane was clutch for winning the World Cup in '98 (scoring twice in the Finals against a heavily favoured Brazil squad), the Euros in '00 (one of very few players to hold both titles concurrently), and the Champions League in '02 (in which he scored arguably the greatest goal ever), among his many other titles.

He was a fucking knucklehead (lulz) for what he did in '06. But then, temper was never his forté. Think of it as MJ getting picked by Nick Anderson in '95.


Sure, but I don't really see how this has any bearing on this debate.

My initial point was that the situation that I illustrated represented the highest pressure in sports as far as I am concerned, but the whole thing has gotten a bit tangential.

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

He did the same thing to Giambi AND made him start taking steroids several years before joining the team. FUCK YOU, STEINBRENNER!!!!


He also stole my heart, then shot it just to watch it die.

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

On a postive note though, the guy who played in the minors and now plays in the really good softball league at 3rd base got divorced and is moving, and they want me to move from 1st to 3rd and replace him. Yeah me!

That was a horrible sentence.

[mongo]

middle infield is where it's at.

[Archangel]

What if the goalie in those situations was just "clutchier". What happens when two really clutch players go up against each other? What if Beckham had made a goal to send a game to kicks (clutch?) but then totally blows his kick (unclutch?).


What does the goalie have to do with a kick that never even goes near the goal? Didn't I repeatedly say that there is a difference between saves and misses, only the latter of which are considered truly inexcusable? If Buffon, Casillas, Cech or Lehman save, then they're heroes; if Beckham hits the sausage stand, he's a chump.


And two career enders? John Paxson made the final shot against Phoenix. Please don't tell me you're talking about his time in Washington that didn't really happen.

My bad, for some reason I misplaced his game-winner v Georgetown by two years. I r dum.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a908934349~db=all~jumptype=rss

Lists the success %age of the best in the world at 75-85ish%. ?

I'm not reading all that - is it saves, misses, or both?

[jemeske]

Zidane was clutch for winning the World Cup in '98 (scoring twice in the Finals against a heavily favoured Brazil squad), the Euros in '00 (one of very few players to hold both titles concurrently), and the Champions League in '02(in which he scored arguably the greatest goal ever), among his many other titles.

He was a fucking idiot for what he did in '06. But then, temper was never his forté. Think of it as MJ getting picked by Nick Anderson in '95.
So this seems to make the point that good players are usually pretty good in any situation, but can occasionally throw out a head butt or turn the ball over in the closing minutes of an elimination game that may, if isolated, seem unclutch.

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

middle infield is where it's at.


Fuck that. I'd rather not play than play short or 2b. Last time I did I got a 300 watch busted into little pieces.

[Stax]

aaron boone!@

Aaron Boone, Ozzie Smith, and Bill Mazeroski are some of the greatest examples in baseball of the existence of clutch events without clutch players.

Aaron Boone is a wholly unimpressive player for the entirety of his career. In 2003 he at least played in 160/162 games on his way to posting a 105 OPS (5% above average, pretty meh), more specifically a 90 (10% below average) with New York. Admittedly he hit 24 HR that year, but at a rate (more than 27 plate appearances per home run) that he was hardly some godly slugger. Then what does he do?

Hit a bottom of the 11th, 7th game of the 7-game ALCS, walkoff home run to win the American League pennant on the first pitch he saw in the game (having entered as a pinch runner).

Ozzie Smith and Bill Mazeroski are Hall of Famers, but almost entirely for their defense (for Maz basically 100%, Ozzie has some baserunning value). Old Bill Mazeroski? Oh all he did was become the first (at the time, one of two men ever) to hit a walk-off, World Series-winning home run.

R-zjk7TeAf8

Ozzie Smith had TWENTY EIGHT career home runs. Think about that. Aaron Boone was silly enough, but he hit 24 IN A SEASON, Smith had only 4 more than that over 10000 more plate appearances. All he did was win Game 5 of the 1985 NLCS with a walkoff home run to keep the Cardinals in it so they could win the pennant in Game 6

[mongo]

Aaron Boone, Ozzie Smith, and Bill Mazeroski are some of the greatest examples in baseball of the existence of clutch events without clutch players.

Aaron Boone is a wholly unimpressive player for the entirety of his career. In 2003 he at least played in 160/162 games on his way to posting a 105 OPS (5% above average, pretty meh), more specifically a 90 (10% below average) with New York. Admittedly he hit 24 HR that year, but at a rate (more than 27 plate appearances per home run) that he was hardly some godly slugger. Then what does he do?

Hit a bottom of the 11th, 7th game of the 7-game ALCS, walkoff home run to win the American League pennant on the first pitch he saw in the game (having entered as a pinch runner).

Ozzie Smith and Bill Mazeroski are Hall of Famers, but almost entirely for their defense (for Maz basically 100%, Ozzie has some baserunning value). Old Bill Mazeroski? Oh all he did was become the first (at the time, one of two men ever) to hit a walk-off, World Series-winning home run.

Ozzie Smith had TWENTY EIGHT career home runs. Think about that. Aaron Boone was silly enough, but he hit 24 IN A SEASON, Smith had only 4 more than that over 10000 more plate appearances. All he did was win Game 5 of the 1985 NLCS with a walkoff home run to keep the Cardinals in it so they could win the pennant in Game 6

even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. amirite?

[Stax]

I'm not reading all that - is it saves, misses, or both?

I linked it just to show where I was getting the success %age at. Penalty shooters (at the highest level) succeed somewhere around 75-80% of the time. Just about what NBA free throw %ages are for good shooters. If someone went 1/2 or 0/2 on some free throw attempts would you decry them as not clutch, or say "That was two stinkin' attempts"?

[Phil Theehor]

I tried to warn you two about getting back into this. It is a circular argument. You wouldn't suspect it, but it "does clutch exist?" is just about as divisive and consensus-proof as "does god exist?"

[Stax]

even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. amirite?

Which is why judging a squirrel on the basis of one or two nut-finding-attempts is silly.

[jemeske]

It's not circular. It's about believing what you remember or take in small samples vs. what is shown by statistical evidence over time.

[Stax]

It's not circular. It's about believing what you remember or take in small samples vs. what is shown by statistical evidence over time.

I want to bronze that sentence and send it to ESPN as a gift.

[mongo]

i want to bronze a pipe-bomb and send it to espn.

[Archangel]

I linked it just to show where I was getting the success %age at. Penalty shooters (at the highest level) succeed somewhere around 75-80% of the time. Just about what NBA free throw %ages are for good shooters. If someone went 1/2 or 0/2 on some free throw attempts would you decry them as not clutch, or say "That was two stinkin' attempts"?

This is the, what, fifth time I'm illustrating the difference? Of those remaining 25-20%, the VAST majority will be saves. In the end, there are only five places the ball can go (both high and low corners, and centre), and even blind chance will dictate that the keeper will get about a fifth of them, with those going towards the top corners being both risky and all but impossible to stop.

I'm honestly getting the idea that you're fucking with me; I mean, you do see the difference in size between a basket and a goal, right? That thing is bloody huge if you're kicking from 36 feet away - it is, literally, impossible to miss. Imagine somebody missing free throws into a basket six feet wide, and you're more or less there.

[mongo]

somebody needs to write a soccer version of moneyball. stat.

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

People need to realize soccer is a game not a sport. The clock doesn't even count down!

[Archangel]

somebody needs to write a soccer version of moneyball. stat.

Even with all the thousands of books published about football, I doubt it'd make much sense, because there are hardly any stats to go by.

[Stax]

This is the, what, fifth time I'm illustrating the difference? Of those remaining 25-20%, the VAST majority will be saves. In the end, there are only five places the ball can go (both high and low corners, and centre), and even blind chance will dictate that the keeper will get about a fifth of them, with those going towards the top corners being both risky and all but impossible to stop.

I'm honestly getting the idea that you're fucking with me; I mean, you do see the difference in size between a basket and a goal, right? That thing is bloody huge if you're kicking from 36 feet away - it is, literally, impossible to miss. Imagine somebody missing free throws into a basket six feet wide, and you're more or less there.

That's if you're shooting directly for the middle. Somehow I'd guess that if you are shooting on a goal with a goalkeeper you are going for the edges more, which IS a difficult thing. Heck people miss wide/high during the course of a game, and then they have more of an edge because the goalie isn't SURE you're going to shoot.

You're saying you'd rather Beckham shoot right down the middle and just have the ball saved (but not look silly missing wide) rather than try for the edges where he can score but look silly when he misses?

[Swurgen]

It definitely exists although not to the extent that the media plays it up. I'm not MLB caliber by a long shot but I played baseball through college and competitive softball after that and I've seen both sides of it. When I first started playing, I was recruited to play with the best team in the area. I tried so hard to impress that I physically felt fucked up...both energized and yet weak at the same time. Really weird. End result is that even in slow pitch softball, I couldn't hit the ball solidly to save my life. Probably batted .200 in that league and .700 in all of my other leagues. I just couldn't get past it. Years later, I was able to get past it by convincing myself that I was better than those other guys and the team was better served by having me up than anybody else. It's just a stupid analogy in stupid recreational softball but it works. I hit far better in 'big spots' than in bullshit games because of this focus. I'm physically a wreck compared to what I was back in the day but the mental approach has made me less susceptible to choking.

The way this falls apart in baseball is that hitting in the MLB has such a huge failure rate that even the most confident hitter is going to fail better than half the time. Just because you don't 'step up and reach deep down and get it done' and all that other happy horseshit doesn't mean you're mentally weak. It could just be that the pitcher got you out in that spot because hitting is really really hard.

I also think that clutch vs choking in MLB has a lot to do with style of hitting. Most big swingers are more susceptible to the great pitching you're going to see in a big spot. Derek Jeter has a far more mellow swing than A-Rod and is usually looking to just flip a liner over the 4 hole. The compact mellow swing and aiming for the right side allows him to wait longer to see a pitch and he doesn't try to do too much against a guy throwing gas. A-Rod is up there with a big swing trying to knock the LF upper deck down and he doesn't have nearly as much time to decide to swing or not swing and then where the pitch is going to be when he does swing. The big swing also allows far less body control.

Guys like Manny and Pujols who can hit 30+ HR's and still be great hitters in tight spots against great pitchers are far far more rare than guys who have huge swings and can walk into the right pitch 30+ times in the regular season by picking on lesser pitchers and getting lucky (swing hard in case you hit it) once in a while. That's your classic huge swing power hitter like Ryan Howard. Ryan Howard can be beaten by good pitching a lot easier than Manny/Pujols can.

[Stax]

Even with all the thousands of books published about football, I doubt it'd make much sense, because there are hardly any stats to go by.

Eh. Baseball, with companies that watch/track/record every minute of games played have developed stats like +/- based on that more in depth watching. I bet you could develop probabilistic models based on distance from the goal, angle, maybe some factor for how defended you are (or only look at 'open' shots) to try and get a "Goal" stat that takes the situation into account (so you aren't rewarded as much for an easy goal as a hard one).

[Archangel]

That's if you're shooting directly for the middle. Somehow I'd guess that if you are shooting on a goal with a goalkeeper you are going for the edges more, which IS a difficult thing. Heck people miss wide/high during the course of a game, and then they have more of an edge because the goalie isn't SURE you're going to shoot.

You're saying you'd rather Beckham shoot right down the middle and just have the ball saved (but not look silly missing wide) rather than try for the edges where he can score but look silly when he misses?

This shows you know little about the game. During a match, you shoot from weird angles and distances, with defenders all over you, the ball bouncing around, and the keeper being able to come out of the box to snatch the ball away. Even in a match, if you miss from 36 feet straight on with the goalie not coming out, you're gonna get booed by the fans, and receive a stern talking to from your coach and captain.

With nobody in your way and the ball being dead, it's inexcusable.

And Beckham wasn't going for any edges (well, sorta). He tried to shoot down TAP Flight 253 to Rome (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/144201/beckham_penalty_kick/).

[heelsguy]

And? Why is it better to win the game at the buzzer rather than sink a 3 earlier in the game and simply have the 1 point lead there?



The World Series/late season games in 1 run situations don't count?



I'd be willing to bet the sample is so insanely small as to be almost impossible to draw anything particularly telling from it.

STax, I understand what you are saying, but Michael Jordan as a freshman at UNC was not scoring all that much and was just learning the ropes. Yet he hit that shot against Georgetown. That was not the Jordan of 1998 when he did the same dagger against Utah, but of course there are similarities.

every big shot jordan has ever taken he has paused--hung, actually--mid-air as he was "in the moment" as he would later refer to it.

I really do not see how anyone can say the concept of "being clutch" does not exist, but that is my opinion and feeling from having watched sports live and in person for well over 30 years. Some people are, some aren't. End of story

[Stax]

It definitely exists although not to the extent that the media plays it up. I'm not MLB caliber by a long shot but I played baseball through college and competitive softball after that and I've seen both sides of it. When I first started playing, I was recruited to play with the best team in the area. I tried so hard to impress that I physically felt fucked up...both energized and yet weak at the same time. Really weird. End result is that even in slow pitch softball, I couldn't hit the ball solidly to save my life. Probably batted .200 in that league and .700 in all of my other leagues. I just couldn't get past it. Years later, I was able to get past it by convincing myself that I was better than those other guys and the team was better served by having me up than anybody else. It's just a stupid analogy in stupid recreational softball but it works. I hit far better in 'big spots' than in bullshit games because of this focus. I'm physically a wreck compared to what I was back in the day but the mental approach has made me less susceptible to choking.

The bolded section is the important part of that sentence. I am talking about professional athletes for a reason. The things you mentioned obviously matter more the farther away from the pros you are. College kids, high schoolers, etc are all going to feel the heat of the moment more than a leathery, experienced pro.

YOU might have felt the pressure and had your game changed by it, but do you really think someone who has attained the highest level of competition does? How did they make it that far if the whims of the situation and crowd so heavily influenced them? How can they perform before thousands of screaming fans and millions in the television audience if pressure gets to them? I'll use the CC Sabathia example I use sometimes now. CC Sabathia was BRILLIANT last year, particularly after his first few starts. He is also labeled as a choker in the postseason, given his horrible ERA (in a small sample of innings). Here are CC's last regular season game and only postseason game in 2008:

http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/2008/B09280MIL2008.htm
http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/2008/B10020PHI2008.htm

September 28th CC throws a complete game, 1 run, 4 hit, 7 strikeout masterpiece against the best-team-in-the-NL division rival Cubs. He was playing before forty-five thousand (I'm sure screaming) fans at home. With this nationally-televised win (along with a Mets loss) the Brewers clinched a playoff spot on the last day of the season.

A couple days later in the 2nd game of the playoffs on October 2nd? CC gets blasted for 6 hits and 5 runs in 3 and two-thirds innings.

Did CC really feel more pressure in the 2nd game of a 5 game series than he did pitching on the last day of the season, needing to win to keep his team's hopes alive?

Ryan Howard can be beaten by good pitching a lot easier than Manny/Pujols can.

Ryan Howard is also a generally worse hitter than Manny/Pujols

[Archangel]

We should have left this thread to baseball, and baseball only. Next time, use tags, Stax.

[Stax]

I really do not see how anyone can say the concept of "being clutch" does not exist.

Because, as I asked Phil pre-bump in this thread:


Simple question: In your example of crunch time office work, can you do office work in the crunch better than your maximum capacity? The answer is no, because no mystical force imbues you with anything. It's not like the mothers who gain the strength to lift cars off their kids, you simply perform at your maximum level. If you are not doing that in the regular season then you are hurting your team 162 games and only living up to your contract for like 8-12 games, hardly something to be applauded.


Everyone, Michael Jordan included, has a maximum capacity for whatever their skillset is. They cannot get better because the situation demands it. The only way you can be better (relative to the rest of your performances) in key situations is if you are performing below your maximum capacity at other times. That definition of clutch would, as I said in the quote, actually mean you are only playing hard like 5% of the time and dogging it the rest of the time. I guess Manny really is the clutchest player of them all, by that definition at least.

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

We should get some DNA and create a Manny Pujols. Then we should get some DNA and create an Angelina Lima.

[Stax]

We should have left this thread to baseball, and baseball only. Next time, use tags, Stax.

I've responded to your soccer examples, but the suggestion that baseball/US football/basketball pressure isn't "enough" (in comparison to soccer) is just dumb.

EDIT - And I think I made this thread before there were tags. Maybe I'm wrong.

[Stax]

We should get some DNA and create a Manny Pujols. Then we should get some DNA and create an Angelina Lima.

Giada de Miller?

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

Reese Beckinsale?

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

Tom Favre?

[Stax]

This shows you know little about the game. During a match, you shoot from weird angles and distances, with defenders all over you, the ball bouncing around, and the keeper being able to come out of the box to snatch the ball away. Even in a match, if you miss from 36 feet straight on with the goalie not coming out, you're gonna get booed by the fans, and receive a stern talking to from your coach and captain.

With nobody in your way and the ball being dead, it's inexcusable.

And Beckham wasn't going for any edges (well, sorta). He tried to shoot down TAP Flight 253 to Rome (http://www.metacafe.com/watch/144201/beckham_penalty_kick/).

He's rather obviously shooting for the upper right corner... The kick certainly looks ugly, but I'd say the goalie "choked" as well, he guess 100% the wrong direction.

Again, sure Beckham could've kicked it right at the guy, but the result would've been the same (if not as ugly). He tried, and missed. But doing so once or twice doesn't really mean anything.

[Archangel]

I've responded to your soccer examples, but the suggestion that baseball/US football/basketball pressure isn't "enough" (in comparison to soccer) is just dumb.

EDIT - And I think I made this thread before there were tags. Maybe I'm wrong.

I used one extreme example, which I still think is the most pressure you can have in sports; but arguing with you does tend to get boring after a while.

[Archangel]

He's rather obviously shooting for the upper right corner... The kick certainly looks ugly, but I'd say the goalie "choked" as well, he guess 100% the wrong direction.

Again, sure Beckham could've kicked it right at the guy, but the result would've been the same (if not as ugly). He tried, and missed. But doing so once or twice doesn't really mean anything.

And you're wrong. I can't put it any clearer than that.

By your reasoning, kicks are either aimed at extreme angles, or right into the centre - that's just blatantly ridiculous, since, as you found out yourself, the vast majority go in. Honestly, if you want to be GMF's new expert on football, be my guest, because you'll never concede anything.

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

Arguing with me never gets boring because I refuse to use facts.

[Stax]

I used one extreme example, which I still think is the most pressure you can have in sports; but arguing with you does tend to get boring after a while.

How are you supposed to debate over the ability to hit penalty kicks in big games when one of the greatest players of a generation has only a couple examples you can cite? David Beckham could've laid down on the ground and fucked the ball while humming a Spice Girls song and it still wouldn't tell you much about his ability to kick penalties because you've only got a couple points of data.

[Stax]

And you're wrong. I can't put it any clearer than that.

By your reasoning, kicks are either aimed at extreme angles, or right into the centre - that's just blatantly ridiculous. Honestly, if you want to be GMF's new expert on football, be my guest, because you'll never concede anything.

That's NOT my argument. But your suggestion that hitting a goal close up "because it's so big" is easy is similarly ridiculous. When you are taking a shot like that you aren't shooting for THE GOAL, you are shooting for a SMALL AREA OF the goal. And, as the article you didn't want to read goes into, the conventional wisdom is the closer you aim to the keeper (ie, closer to the center and more likely to at least stay within the posts even if you mess up) the more likely it is to be saved.

[Archangel]

Yeah, the fact that you just called David Beckham "one of the greatest players of a generation" pretty much disqualifies you from trying to speak with authority on the subject of football ever again.

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

Your moms pussy is sideways.

[Stax]

Yeah, the fact that you just called David Beckham "one of the greatest players of a generation" pretty much disqualifies you from trying to speak with authority on the subject ever again.

I never once in my life claimed to be an authority on soccer. Not once. But David Beckham isn't a great? Really?

[Archangel]

I never once in my life claimed to be an authority on soccer. Not once. But David Beckham isn't a great? Really?

No. He's for tourists. He had his moments, is a very good crosser, but one the greatest players of his age? With Zidane, Henry, Ronaldo, Del Piero etc around?

Not a chance.

[mongo]

soccer is for fags. [/thread]

[Stax]

No. He's for tourists. He had his moments, is a very good crosser, but one the greatest players of his age? With Zidane, Henry, Ronaldo, Del Piero etc around?

Not a chance.

What the fuck do I know? But I think it's safe to say if he's being paid the millions he is and was (even before LA hired him to try and raise up the MLS) he's at least quite good.

[Archangel]

And I'm not even the resident football guy here. Rabbit or fuld would go apeshit over this.

[Archangel]

What the fuck do I know? But I think it's safe to say if he's being paid the millions he is and was (even before LA hired him to try and raise up the MLS) he's at least quite good.

He filled seats because people bought into the tabloid hype, and he sold merchandise to Japanese schoolgirls. Shit, the man was a fucking bench warmer for his entire time at Real.

[Swurgen]

The bolded section is the important part of that sentence. I am talking about professional athletes for a reason. The things you mentioned obviously matter more the farther away from the pros you are. College kids, high schoolers, etc are all going to feel the heat of the moment more than a leathery, experienced pro.

YOU might have felt the pressure and had your game changed by it, but do you really think someone who has attained the highest level of competition does? How did they make it that far if the whims of the situation and crowd so heavily influenced them? How can they perform before thousands of screaming fans and millions in the television audience if pressure gets to them? I'll use the CC Sabathia example I use sometimes now. CC Sabathia was BRILLIANT last year, particularly after his first few starts. He is also labeled as a choker in the postseason, given his horrible ERA (in a small sample of innings). Here are CC's last regular season game and only postseason game in 2008:

http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/2008/B09280MIL2008.htm
http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/2008/B10020PHI2008.htm

September 28th CC throws a complete game, 1 run, 4 hit, 7 strikeout masterpiece against the best-team-in-the-NL division rival Cubs. He was playing before forty-five thousand (I'm sure screaming) fans at home. With this nationally-televised win (along with a Mets loss) the Brewers clinched a playoff spot on the last day of the season.

A couple days later in the 2nd game of the playoffs on October 2nd? CC gets blasted for 6 hits and 5 runs in 3 and two-thirds innings.

Did CC really feel more pressure in the 2nd game of a 5 game series than he did pitching on the last day of the season, needing to win to keep his team's hopes alive?



Ryan Howard is also a generally worse hitter than Manny/Pujols


They can absolutely be affected by it. You don't think pro athletes have doubts? Of course they do. They're only human. Mental strength is just another attribute just like strength, speed, muscle memory, ...

They're promoted more and more these days by their athletic gifts and potential and what players they can eventually become if everything goes right and less about mental makeup and how well they currently play the game.

As for Howard, I was using him as an example to illustrate a style of hitter.

[Datači]

No. He's for tourists. He had his moments, is a very good crosser, but one the greatest players of his age? With Zidane, Henry, Ronaldo, Del Piero etc around?

Not a chance.


Well, set pieces kinda were his thing.

[Archangel]

Well, set pieces kinda were his thing.

Those and crosses, sure. But come on now. How many World/European Footballer of the Year awards does he have again?

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

He is very marketable. Lots of athletes are thought to be better than they are because they show their balls in underwear ads.

[mongo]

He is very marketable. Lots of athletes are thought to be better than they are because they show their balls in underwear ads.

i wish shawn johnson would show her balls in an underwear ad.

[Archangel]

He is very marketable. Lots of athletes are thought to be better than they are because they show their balls in underwear ads.

Then, the Squadra Azzurra should be the most overrated team in the world...

http://ilpranzodibabette.blog.deejay.it/files/photos/uncategorized/dg_3.jpg

[Datači]

Gattuso is soo hot.

[Archangel]

Those guys look like they're in pretty decent shape; makes you wonder how a 9 year old girl can throw them to the ground.

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

You can't really blame Stax for thinking Beckham is awesome. Your media tells our media he is soccer Jesus.

[mongo]

the bbc is full of lies!

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

filthy niggards

[Archangel]

Gattuso is soo hot.

If he'd stayed at Juve, I might have gone gay for Cannavaro.

[Archangel]

Also, The Logo thinks that Stax is a jackass.


http://www.nba.com/media/jerry_west_300_070308.jpg

[mongo]

in other news, arch also believes in pixies, santa, and time machines.

[Genius]

The people that voted any form of "yes" in this poll also are the people that will blame "bad luck" for their lot in life, all the way to their lonely death bed. The same people that will laugh in your face for believing in aliens, ghosts, or magic, but go after their special pet mythical forces and they'll fucking knife you.

[The GWD]

I can't find my rabbit's foot!

[Stax]

You can't really blame Stax for thinking Beckham is awesome. Your media tells our media he is soccer Jesus.

Troof.

Also, The Logo thinks that Stax is a jackass.


http://www.nba.com/media/jerry_west_300_070308.jpg

Being named "Mr. Clutch" doesn't mean anything more than Reggie being Mr. October, Jeter Mr. November, or anything else. Jerry West was an incredibly good basketball player, rated as one of the 50 greatest ever. Surprise surprise he was good in clutch moments.

[freegood]

http://www.82games.com/0809/CSORT11.HTM

[Stax]

http://www.82games.com/0809/CSORT11.HTM

Thanks, it was annoying me that basketball-reference didn't have the same level of clutch/other splits that baseball-reference does. Who tops that list? Kobe, LeBron, Melo, Wade, Chris Paul, basically the best players/scorers are also the best in the clutch. A couple of odd names (Nate Robinson) but by and large the best players are simply the best.

[Archangel]

Why do you start a thread if you have all the answers anyway? To make fun of those who disagree with you?


Also, I see a pattern here. The people who're mainly interested in baseball usually say no, while those interested in basketball and football go the opposite way. Maybe baseball skews your perspective?

[Jericho]

Why do you start a thread if you have all the answers anyway? To make fun of those who disagree with you?
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

hahaha


ahhhhh...thank you for that

[Stax]

Why do you start a thread if you have all the answers anyway? To make fun of those who disagree with you?

Arch, are you really asking this? You? Really?

You've never, maybe, just possibly, made a thread and acted like you had the absolute answer and anyone who thought otherwise was silly?

Also, I see a pattern here. The people who're mainly interested in baseball usually say no, while those interested in basketball and football go the opposite way. Maybe baseball skews your perspective?

Maybe. Baseball certainly has more isolatable, measurable events while basketball/football/futbol have that whole rhythm behind the game that is tougher to measure.

[heelsguy]

Why do you start a thread if you have all the answers anyway? To make fun of those who disagree with you?


Also, I see a pattern here. The people who're mainly interested in baseball usually say no, while those interested in basketball and football go the opposite way. Maybe baseball skews your perspective?


I agree with you Arch. I find it utterly amazing that there are people who do not agree that certain players are clutch and others aren't. example: scottie pippen was very very good and a HOF'r and top 50 all-time players, yet I would not call him clutch. Tony kucho was more clutch than pippen.

[Stax]

I agree with you Arch. I find it utterly amazing that there are people who do not agree that certain players are clutch and others aren't. example: scottie pippen was very very good and a HOF'r and top 50 all-time players, yet I would not call him clutch. Tony kucho was more clutch than pippen.

This is my issue with that. You are saying with the game on the line you would rather have the ball in Tony Kucho's hands than Scottie Pippen's?

[Archangel]

Arch, are you really asking this? You? Really?

You've never, maybe, just possibly, made a thread and acted like you had the absolute answer and anyone who thought otherwise was silly?


So you're admitting it, then?

[Stax]

So you're admitting it, then?

I think my position is correct. Yes. That is why I am advocating for it and voted as such in the poll. What exactly is your point?

[Archangel]

Nothing, just curious.

[heelsguy]

This is my issue with that. You are saying with the game on the line you would rather have the ball in Tony Kucho's hands than Scottie Pippen's?


yes. and phil jackson did too. With only seconds remaining when down vs the knicks in the 1994 EC semis.

And pippen was 1st team all nba that year. so he was pissed the shot was not drawn up for him and therefore refused to go in the fucking game because HE was passed over for it (like the pussy he was). ..and kukoc hit the shot.

Toni Kukoc had a solid rookie season and gave the Bulls confidence in their future. The former European star found some aspects of the NBA difficult, but as a versatile sixth man he made the NBA All-Rookie Second Team and scored 10.9 points per game. He hit several game-winning buckets during the year, including a last-second three-pointer against the Knicks in Game 3 of the conference semifinals. Kukoc looked to be one of the team's focal points in 1994-95, especially after Grant left the team to sign with the Orlando Magic as a free agent

link (http://www.nba.com/bulls/history/Chicago_Bulls_History-24393-42.html?nav=ArticleList#16)

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

I see a bunch of peter puffers in here.

[Stax]

yes. and phil jackson did to with only seconds remaining when down vs the knicks in the 1994(?) playoffs.

and pippen refused to go in the fucking game because HE was passed over for it (like the pussy he was). ..and kukoc hit the shot.

That's nice. Scottie Pippen is insanely the better player. The only reason to put the ball in the hands of a lesser player is if the better player is double teamed or something.

[heelsguy]

That's nice. Scottie Pippen is insanely the better player. The only reason to put the ball in the hands of a lesser player is if the better player is double teamed or something.

funny, phil jackson had kukoc as the first option. we know that because if pippen was the first option, he would have gladly gone in the game!

maybe phil was remembering pippen not being able/willing to play against the pistons due to "migraines"...maybe a pattern of history?

[BIG PIZZLE]

Where is the Kobe Bryant option?

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

You mean the Kobe when he has Shaq option?

[mongo]

This is my issue with that. You are saying with the game on the line you would rather have the ball in Tony Kucho's hands than Scottie Pippen's?

i'd much rather have aaron boone up to bat in the bottom of the ninth in game 7 than a-rod.



lulz.

[Archangel]

in other news, arch also believes in pixies, santa, and time machines.

And you still believe in your own heterosexuality. Who's more delusional?

[Stax]

And you still believe in your own heterosexuality. Who's more delusional?

There's a question science cannot answer.

[Phil Theehor]

The people that voted any form of "yes" in this poll also are the people that will blame "bad luck" for their lot in life, all the way to their lonely death bed. The same people that will laugh in your face for believing in aliens, ghosts, or magic, but go after their special pet mythical forces and they'll fucking knife you.

I'd be curious to know the logic behind that assertion.

[heelsguy]

I'd be curious to know the logic behind that assertion.

if there IS any, it is flawed.


defining "clutch" is like when a Supreme Court Justice once said about defining pornography....

"I know it when I see it."

[hatepoppy]

kirk fucking gibson! david orteez!

[TheImpossibleMan]

I really fucking hate that I just missed five pages of this argument.

[Phil Theehor]

if there IS any, it is flawed.


defining "clutch" is like when a Supreme Court Justice once said about defining pornography....

"I know it when I see it."

Beyond that, someone who believes in 'clutch' ultimately believes that when the chips are down, the better man will be able to take control of the situation and do what he needs to do to come out on top. I don't see how that belief could exist in the of someone with a tendency to abdicate responsibility for his misfortune. Quite the contrary, I would think.

[hatepoppy]

O NOEZ I HAZ @ REED!

[Archangel]

I really fucking hate that I just missed five pages of this argument.

While everybody else is thanking their lucky stars.

[Phil Theehor]

O NOEZ I HAZ @ REED!

*searching for my poppy translator*

[hatepoppy]

'@' = 'capital 2'

[Phil Theehor]

'@' = 'capital 2'

Ah, yes. Thank you. Enjoy the reading, Poppy-san.

[Genius]

Beyond that, someone who believes in 'clutch' ultimately believes that when the chips are down, the better man will be able to take control of the situation and do what he needs to do to come out on top. I don't see how that belief could exist in the of someone with a tendency to abdicate responsibility for his misfortune. Quite the contrary, I would think.
Better players play better because they're better. Not because of some mythical Star Wars bullshit. If a home run gets more difficult to hit in the 9th inning of a playoff game, it's not by a measurable amount, and it certainly isn't measurable by Joe Morgan's eyeballs. I'll believe in clutch when someone comes along who never misses a pitch, jumper, or touchdown pass late in the game, EVER. Because as soon as they slip up once, the logic just doesn't cut the muster. Oh wait, they're clutch, but just not this time. Fuck that.

[jemeske]

No one arguing in favor of clutch has offered any evidence whatsoever. I guess, unless you count Heelsguy talking about Jordan being in the moment or Arch referencing one or two soccer plays out of an entire career.

[Phil Theehor]

Better players play better because they're better. Not because of some mythical Star Wars bullshit. If a home run gets more difficult to hit in the 9th inning of a playoff game, it's not by a measurable amount, and it certainly isn't measurable by Joe Morgan's eyeballs. I'll believe in clutch when someone comes along who never misses a pitch, jumper, or touchdown pass late in the game, EVER. Because as soon as they slip up once, the logic just doesn't cut the muster. Oh wait, they're clutch, but just not this time. Fuck that.


I comprehend that side of the argument. It's been stated roughly 14 times in this thread. Thanks for the contribution.

What I don't understand is how the 39 of us who voted yes would be less likely to take responsibility for our own failures, as you stated here:

The people that voted any form of "yes" in this poll also are the people that will blame "bad luck" for their lot in life, all the way to their lonely death bed. The same people that will laugh in your face for believing in aliens, ghosts, or magic, but go after their special pet mythical forces and they'll fucking knife you.

I stand by for enlightenment. And if you're feeling generous with your wisdom, I'd love to learn more about the correlation between believing in clutch and loneliness. Knife ownership, too, please.

[mongo]

No one arguing in favor of clutch has offered any evidence whatsoever. I guess, unless you count Heelsguy talking about Jordan being in the moment or Arch referencing one or two soccer plays out of an entire career.

agreed.

also, maybe the people who voted for clutch are just pussies. you know, the type who couldn't hit the mendoza line in little league. thus, they hold everyone to that same set of criteria. can't be because they are a better player, must be something that only some people are blessed with.

[jemeske]

I comprehend that side of the argument. It's been stated roughly 14 times in this thread. Thanks for the contribution.

What I don't understand is how the 39 of us who voted yes would be less likely to take responsibility for our own failures, as you stated here:He's saying you believe in luck, just like you believe in clutch--both are pretty silly as far as reality goes.

[Phil Theehor]

Quite the contrary, Jem. I believe that you make your own luck.

I don't think that any of the pro-clutch crew has ascribed supernatural powers to those who perform at their best during the most-crucial moments. There's been a little bit of projecting during the arugment.

And to your statement regarding 'no evidence', go back to the beginning of the discussion, when Stax and I started this pissing match last September. Stax breaks down Curt Schilling's regular and post-season numbers and the evidence is there.

Now, that then became an argument over sample size and other factors. And that's when I saw that regardless of the evidence, you'll believe it or you won't. Because right there, in black and white, was the ink blot. We all looked at the same thing. Some saw clutch, others chaos theory, some Elvis, some cocks. Yes, many of them saw cocks. Horse cocks, too.

[jemeske]

I just think we all have different definitions as to what clutch is, which is making this more difficult than it should be.

While one person may say Jordan's great focus made him clutch, I would say, sure he had great focus, but he had it almost all of the time and that is indeed what made him great regardless of the situation.

At the heart of the no clutch side seems to be the central point that over time, the good players are good no matter what the situation.

I think statistics bear this out across the sports spectrum, though I was not around for the Schilling part of this discussion.

[heelsguy]

No one arguing in favor of clutch has offered any evidence whatsoever. I guess, unless you count Heelsguy talking about Jordan being in the moment or Arch referencing one or two soccer plays out of an entire career.


I get the others' side of the argument: that great players are the ones usually taking the shots or being in the lineup, or dribbling the ball when the other team has to foul to stop the clock, etc etc,.

But I still believe there is a certain subset of this set which has the unique ability to concentrate, focus, blockout distractions, relax their muscles to allow for musclememory to do its thing etc BETTER than the other ones.

[jemeske]

I get the others' side of the argument: that great players are the ones usually taking the shots or being in the lineup, or dribbling the ball when the other team has to foul to stop the clock, etc etc,.

But I still believe there is a certain subset of this set which has the unique ability to concentrate, focus, blockout distractions, relax their muscles to allow for musclememory to do its thing etc BETTER than the other people.
See my previous post about definitions of clutch.

You call this clutch. I say Jordan was like this ALL of the time, not just in the clutch.

Also, I see a difference between confidence and clutch or streakiness and clutch.

[Menace2Sobriety]

Nick Anderson says Yes.

[Genius]

I comprehend that side of the argument. It's been stated roughly 14 times in this thread. Thanks for the contribution.

What I don't understand is how the 39 of us who voted yes would be less likely to take responsibility for our own failures, as you stated here:



I stand by for enlightenment. And if you're feeling generous with your wisdom, I'd love to learn more about the correlation between believing in clutch and loneliness. Knife ownership, too, please.
Take issue with my penchant for hyperbole all you want. My point was that when confronted with situations that seem to defy logic, people tend to resort to ascribing them to supernatural forces. And then they decry anyone who sees things differently.

[Phil Theehor]

I think statistics bear this out across the sports spectrum, though I was not around for the Schilling part of this discussion.

I present the inkblot. Stax supplied these in the original thread:


Curt Schilling regular season: 3.46 ERA, 1.137 WHIP, 4.38 K/BB .... 3261.0 IP.
Curt Schilling postseason: 2.23 ERA, .969 WHIP, 4.8 K/BB through 133.1 IP.

In fairness, I didn't carry over the part where Stax explains that these numbers don't mean that Curt Schilling is better in the post-season, that he didn't perform his best during the biggest moments and that he does not represent irrefutable evidence that at least one clutch player exists in this world. (And that 133.1 innings, two-thirds of a full season, are not a useful sample).

But the link's right there. You can go back and read it. To give the man his due, he can argue effectively (and tirelessly).

[jemeske]

Maybe I'll read it tomorrow, but one point that I would make is that you shouldn't compare Schilling's postseason straight up to his regular season numbers. It should be postseason vs. regular season in the years he made the postseason. Maybe I'll work on that too.

[Stax]

if there IS any, it is flawed.


defining "clutch" is like when a Supreme Court Justice once said about defining pornography....

"I know it when I see it."

Except then you get the wonders of the human eye that tell you Derek Jeter or Nate McClouth is good defensively.

[Stax]

Beyond that, someone who believes in 'clutch' ultimately believes that when the chips are down, the better man will be able to take control of the situation and do what he needs to do to come out on top. I don't see how that belief could exist in the of someone with a tendency to abdicate responsibility for his misfortune. Quite the contrary, I would think.

No, that is NOT what clutch is. Believing the better man will win is called LOGIC. The better person will perform better. The idea of clutch is that you somehow perform BEYOND yourself in big situations. If someone bats .330 for their career and bats .330 in "clutch" situations, that's not clutch, that's being a .330 batter.

[Stax]

Quite the contrary, Jem. I believe that you make your own luck.

I don't think that any of the pro-clutch crew has ascribed supernatural powers to those who perform at their best during the most-crucial moments. There's been a little bit of projecting during the arugment.

And to your statement regarding 'no evidence', go back to the beginning of the discussion, when Stax and I started this pissing match last September. Stax breaks down Curt Schilling's regular and post-season numbers and the evidence is there.

Now, that then became an argument over sample size and other factors. And that's when I saw that regardless of the evidence, you'll believe it or you won't. Because right there, in black and white, was the ink blot. We all looked at the same thing. Some saw clutch, others chaos theory, some Elvis, some cocks. Yes, many of them saw cocks. Horse cocks, too.

It simply isn't black and white. Curt Schilling went to the postseason far more often in his absolute best years. Surprise surprise he looks better in the postseason than for his entire career average.

This just in, if you only sample GM's 5 best earnings reports as opposed to what they posted last quarter they look way better! GM is so clutch!

[Swurgen]

You mean the Kobe when he has Shaq option?

You mean the Shaq only when he has one of the top 2 guards in the game and the refs on his side?

[Genius]

Because Kobe's never gotten a call. Or cried about it when he didn't.

[Stax]

Maybe I'll read it tomorrow, but one point that I would make is that you shouldn't compare Schilling's postseason straight up to his regular season numbers. It should be postseason vs. regular season in the years he made the postseason. Maybe I'll work on that too.

That is precisely right and explains why some, such as Schilling or Gibson, look better on a simple glance at their postseason line (as opposed to a Jeter or Whitey Ford who went to the postseason every year so better reflects their career performance).

What do 2001, 2002, and 2004 have in common? They comprise 3 of Schilling's 5 best years (along with 92, 97, and maybe 03 though far fewer innings). And he went to the postseason in every one of those 3 years, going all the way to the World Series in 01 and 04. What does that mean? 77.3/133.1 postseason innings for Schilling came in his peak. 58%. When you take a picture of someone's career that is 58% peak, yes, they are going to look better. Oh, and 07, when he again reached the series accounting for another 23.3 innings, he was roughly his career normal self that year.

Brady Anderson only went to the postseason twice, in 96 and 97, two of his best years. His postseason line (.300/.380/.575) looks far sexier than his career line (.256/.362/.425). Now was old Brady just the clutchest fella' in the world, picking up 50 points of average and 150 points of slugging, or did he maybe-just-maybe luck out in only coming to bat in the postseason in his absolute best period?

[Swurgen]

I think a lot of the problem here is the definition of clutch. It's not so much that the guy gets better in a tough spot as it is he doesn't get worse. Max Kellerman analyzed Jeter's clutchiness a while back and found that it's not so much that Jeter gets better in the post season as it is he stays just as good as he is in the regular season (whether you like him or not) while many others drop off against the added pressure and superior competition.

It's true that Jordan was clutch and that he was the best ever reg seaons and just continued that in the post season. Not everybody else was like that. Some scorers might have a shitty first game and instead of shaking it off or making an adjustment, they try too hard and try to go beyond their ability and make up for a shitty game 1 or they just have an ounce of doubt that starts snowballing when he misses his first 2 shots of game 2 as well.

Confidence is tough. Whether in sports or in life, most people can't just decide to be confident. If it were that easy, everybody would just do it. Some will always be confident and some will never be confident and the rest of us have it sometimes while we don't in others.

No one arguing in favor of clutch has offered any evidence whatsoever. I guess, unless you count Heelsguy talking about Jordan being in the moment or Arch referencing one or two soccer plays out of an entire career.

I missed the part where the guys against clutch had evidence.


Maybe I'll read it tomorrow, but one point that I would make is that you shouldn't compare Schilling's postseason straight up to his regular season numbers. It should be postseason vs. regular season in the years he was on the needle. Maybe I'll work on that too.

Fixed that for you.

[Stax]

I missed the part where the guys against clutch had evidence.


www.baseball-reference.com

Whitey Ford
Derek Jeter
David Ortiz
Manny Ramirez

All players beloved for their clutchness, all players who show nothing particularly different in those situations.

[mongo]

This thread makes me want to stab a bitch.

[Swurgen]

www.baseball-reference.com (http://www.baseball-reference.com)

Whitey Ford
Derek Jeter
David Ortiz
Manny Ramirez

All players beloved for their clutchness, all players who show nothing particularly different in those situations.

Mark Lemke

[mongo]

Hey look, I can do that too!

Jose Rijo!

[Stax]

Mark Lemke

Atrocious offensively for his career, very similarly atrocious in a select and small sample. Not sure what point he serves.

[mongo]

Ed sprague!

[Archangel]

I guess, unless you count Heelsguy talking about Jordan being in the moment or Arch referencing one or two soccer plays out of an entire career.

You'll never get it. You only play three or four World Cups or Euros in your entire career, and get to the elimination stage twice, if you're very lucky. This isn't American sports, where people play in 200 playoff games. You fuck up twice, you're a choker. Because you only have very few meaningful games on that stage, ever. Again, every four years. Not every year.

It's true that Jordan was clutch and that he was the best ever reg seaons and just continued that in the post season. Not everybody else was like that. Some scorers might have a shitty first game and instead of shaking it off or making an adjustment, they try too hard and try to go beyond their ability and make up for a shitty game 1 or they just have an ounce of doubt that starts snowballing when he misses his first 2 shots of game 2 as well.

Let's put it like this. Certain people have stronger nerves than others, and are able to tune shit out in situations when others think about the significance of what they're doing. If chokers exist, doesnt that by implication mean that those who don't choke have a certain something that others lack? Roger Federer, maybe? But no, according to the baseball gurus, serving for a US Open championship is the same as any serve at any tennis tournament with people in the stands.

Because if choke/clutch doesn't exist, then neither do hot streaks or being in the zone - because a good player is a robot, right? Apparently, he's always on the same level of play.

So let's do with sports altogether, because hey, having stats, we know before the season how everything ends, anyway.

I missed the part where the guys against clutch had evidence.


They do, silly.

"All people who believe in clutch are delusional unemployed emos who believe in Santa Claus and can't get girlfriends"

I, for, one am convinced.

This thread makes me want to stab a bitch.

Yeah, baseball fans applying things relevant to their little game to all sports in general is the most idiotic things I've seen. If some hitter does something in some inning with some pitcher doing something else, it's the exact same thing as overtaking Alonso at 200mph, making a putt, or hitting a game winning free throw.

Wait, you meant something else?

[Stax]

Because if choke/clutch doesn't exist, then neither do hot streaks or being in the zone - because a good player is a robot, right? Apparently, he's always on the same level of play.

That's not true at all, but I'm glad to see you continue the pattern of assuming things and putting words in other people's mouths. Clutch has nothing to do with streakiness. In fact if you believe in... Math I suppose you understand that variance, a word I've continually used in this thread, exists. Sometimes, to continue with baseball, a .300 hitter will bat .280 or .320 through streaks. You CAN'T bat .300 every AB because there's no way to get 3/10ths of a hit. Psychology of Baseball has a great section where the guy creates 20 .300 hitting computer players and puts them through a season's worth of ABs. Not surprisingly he didn't get 20 .300 seasons, he got a wide range from seasons in the .260s to the .330s, some with long long hitting streaks and others with none.

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

Are we still talking about this?

GREAT PLAYERS MAKE GREAT PLAYS.

BUT EVEN THE GREATEST PLAYERS STILL MISS.

[mongo]

joe carter!

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

Kenny Powers arguably the greatest human being to walk the face of the Earth, let alone play baseball will tell you that if you don't succeed then maybe you just suck.

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

Also if a SF sniper shoots helicopter pilot in the face while under fire under from the mini gun, it doesn't mean he's a clutch shooter. It just means he did his fucking job.

[jemeske]

You'll never get it. You only play three or four World Cups or Euros in your entire career, and get to the elimination stage twice, if you're very lucky. This isn't American sports, where people play in 200 playoff games. You fuck up twice, you're a choker. Because you only have very few meaningful games on that stage, ever. Again, every four years. Not every year.
Wow. Thanks for enlightening me.

Maybe if you learn to read and understand math you'll actually understand my point next time. Or maybe you'll continue to pick and choose or make up arguments that we never actually made.

Also, we haven't just shown this for baseball. I think the basketball case is pretty solid as well.

[mongo]

Wow. Thanks for enlightening me.

Maybe if you learn to read and understand math you'll actually understand my point next time. Or maybe you'll continue to pick and choose or make up arguments that we never actually made.

Also, we haven't just shown this for baseball. I think the basketball case is pretty solid as well.

but arch is good at math!

http://archive.gorillamask.net/showthread.php?t=62531

lulz.

[Archangel]

Wow. Thanks for enlightening me.

Maybe if you learn to read and understand math you'll actually understand my point next time. Or maybe you'll continue to pick and choose or make up arguments that we never actually made.

Also, we haven't just shown this for baseball. I think the basketball case is pretty solid as well.

So mongo, an apparent native English speaker who made fun of me for using English he didn't understand ("what the fuck? you said 'wont to do sth', that's not English" - Lulz indeed, fuckhead) tries to score points by taking the piss out of my admittedly non existent maths skills. Doesn't change the fact that a guy who thinks that David Beckham is the Mickey Mantle of football tried to tell me how shoot-outs work. Three Euros, one not qualified, one early exit, one major choke. You certainly showed me how considering a player responsible for all three a choker is mathematically unsound. Wow.

You guys talk down and ridicule others because they have a valid opinion which isn't covered by Moneyball. I go on thinking that since I've never even held an opinion on baseball performances, yet Stax feels entitled to tell me how World Cup football works, you guys are a bunch of self absorbed arseholes.

I was warned by several people about getting into this discussion. Now I know why. Enjoy yourselves in the circle jerk.

[heelsguy]

So mongo, an apparent native English speaker who made fun of me for using English he didn't understand ("what the fuck? you said 'wont to do sth', that's not English" - Lulz indeed, fuckhead) tries to score points by taking the piss out of my admittedly non existent maths skills. Doesn't change the fact that a guy who thinks that David Beckham is the Mickey Mantle of football tried to tell me how shoot-outs work. Three Euros, one not qualified, one early exit, one major choke. You certainly showed me how considering a player responsible for all three a choker is mathematically unsound. Wow.

You guys talk down and ridicule others because they have a valid opinion which isn't covered by Moneyball. I go on thinking that since I've never even held an opinion on baseball performances, yet Stax feels entitled to tell me how World Cup football works, you guys are a bunch of self absorbed arseholes.

I was warned by several people about getting into this discussion. Now I know why. Enjoy yourselves in the circle jerk.


I will always believe certain individual sports (tennis, golf, swimming, etc) and basketball players (they actually have the ball in their hands) are more clutch than others. The less you have the ball in your hands, and as the number of teammates or variables grows, it is less of a fact. (Joe montana, to be "clutch", must have jerry rice or john taylor catch the ball, regardless of a perfect throw or not. But for MJ to be "clutch" he only needs the fucking rim to stay right where it is so that he can make Craig Ehlo cry at night even 'til this day).

Every baseball stat-nerd can crunch post-season numbers as much as they would like, but I will still believe that there are certain athletes who are more clutch than others.

[Archangel]

No wonder that Dubfuck and Dick both love baseball.

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

If I wanted to break down two batters stats against certain pitchers, or post season stats, where would I look?

This comes from a friend and I discussing Manny and Albert, with him saying no matter what the situation Albert is better than Manny at everything. Which the season stats agree, we just wanted to delve a little deeper into it.

[mongo]

albert belle?

[Rover]

Every baseball stat-nerd can crunch post-season numbers as much as they would like, but I will still believe that there are certain athletes who are more clutch than others.Because it makes sense. It can be observed. It is hard to break down with math and statistics, but it is observed phenomenon. Some players perform when there is pressure.

A baseball at bat in April is not the same psychologically as an at bat in October in the 8th inning of a tied game. A free throw at practice is not the same as a free throw in a game or at the end of a game. How many stories do you hear about "Player X can shoot free throws at practice."?

I'm more inclined to the thought that "clutch" means that you don't perform worse, instead of that you elevate your game to super human levels. Although, there is that possibility. Jordan's flu game. LeBron's game 5 in the ECF a couple years back where he scored the last 25 points or whatever.

Baseball is harder to show "clutchness" because it is a game of failure more than success. How do you prove that the one time out 10 at bats that you were supposed to fail but instead succeeded was a matter of skill, instead of luck or statistics? You can't prove or disprove "clutchness" in baseball, but it is only logical to assume that because "clutch" exists in other areas that it would exist in baseball.

To Arch's point about soccer. (Was that even his point. All I remember is something about soccer and then nobody could understand the types of external and internal pressure those athletes are under. I'm partially convinced that US Soccer doesn't perform well at the World Cup because nobody in this country is willing to kill them if they score an own goal, but I digress)

Of course, "clutch" exists in soccer, and probably manifests itself in PKs. You could stick Beckham in front of the goal to shoot PKs for an entire day and he wouldn't hit one 10 feet over the goal. Not only that, but you could probably get him to do it drunk and barely standing and he wouldn't miss the goal.

Stick him in a stadium with 70K people and the weight of a country on his shoulders and he'll miss every time.

That's the psychological aspect of "clutch" and where I think it is more about not performing worse than your average, instead of better than your average. You could computer simulate Beckham kicking penalties all day and the computer would never calculate a miss. Computers cannot simulate human brains and human emotions.

At least not until Judgement Day.

[moe_blunts]

Mariano Rivera

/thread

[Swurgen]

Because Kobe's never gotten a call. Or cried about it when he didn't.

They all complain but Kobe has skill and his entire game doesn't revolve around him knocking the defensive player over and fouling a guy every time he shoots the ball. Hack a shaq was a response to the NBA deciding to create new rules for Shaq so that's not a valid defense.

As for baseball...

Most starting baseball players that get 500 ab's develop a comfort zone during the season and that scenario is drastically different than the post season where he says "ok - now I have to really try hard on every AB" or "now I'm on the stage and I have to drive the ball to get my next contract" or whatever.

[heelsguy]

They all complain but Kobe has skill and his entire game doesn't revolve around him knocking the defensive player over and fouling a guy every time he shoots the ball. Hack a shaq was a response to the NBA deciding to create new rules for Shaq so that's not a valid defense.

As for baseball...

Most starting baseball players that get 500 ab's develop a comfort zone during the season and that scenario is drastically different than the post season where he says "ok - now I have to really try hard on every AB" or "now I'm on the stage and I have to drive the ball to get my next contract" or whatever.


agreed. plus, in baseball in the post season, you are facing ONLY the best teams and best pitchers every at bat...so even if your avg does not improve, just staying the SAME is in fact an improvement of sorts.

[Stax]

You guys talk down and ridicule others because they have a valid opinion which isn't covered by Moneyball. I go on thinking that since I've never even held an opinion on baseball performances, yet Stax feels entitled to tell me how World Cup football works, you guys are a bunch of self absorbed arseholes.


Once again, did not tell you how World Cup football works. You are the one who has at least three times put words into someone else's mouth, Arch.

[Stax]

That's the psychological aspect of "clutch" and where I think it is more about not performing worse than your average, instead of better than your average. You could computer simulate Beckham kicking penalties all day and the computer would never calculate a miss. Computers cannot simulate human brains and human emotions.

At least not until Judgement Day.

If David Beckham could not handle thousands of screaming fans and the weight of a nation he could not have made it to the premiere level of soccer in the first place. This is why the discussion is limited to pro athletes, I will readily say that pressure plays a greater role the farther you get from the pros. But a pro has, by definition, already overcome a great many obstacles and proven himself in the face of a great many pressures. The argument is self-fulfilling, how could someone make it to such a pressure-filled moment without having ALREADY SHOWN they can handle it?

Alex Rodriguez had to dominate his high school and minor league teams all the way, not to mention prove himself in the big leagues, for years and years and years before screaming fans as he was analyzed nightly on television for the millions he was paid. So did David Beckham, Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods in his own way, every pro athlete has fought pressures and obstacles for years, why do certain specific ones get to get picked out as pressures under which "clutchness" shows itself?

[Archangel]

Once again, did not tell you how World Cup football works. You are the one who has at least three times put words into someone else's mouth, Arch.

Shut. (http://forum.gorillamask.net/showpost.php?p=517612&postcount=42)

The (http://forum.gorillamask.net/showpost.php?p=517619&postcount=45).

Fuck. (http://forum.gorillamask.net/showpost.php?p=517651&postcount=52)

Up. (http://forum.gorillamask.net/showpost.php?p=517662&postcount=57)

You. (http://forum.gorillamask.net/showpost.php?p=517691&postcount=75)

Lying. (http://forum.gorillamask.net/showpost.php?p=517708&postcount=85)

Sack. (http://forum.gorillamask.net/showpost.php?p=517714&postcount=87)

Of. (http://forum.gorillamask.net/showpost.php?p=517754&postcount=98)

Shit. (http://forum.gorillamask.net/showpost.php?p=517765&postcount=102)

Seriously. (http://forum.gorillamask.net/showpost.php?p=517770&postcount=103)

Also, this is just sweet..

I never once in my life claimed to be an authority on soccer. Not once. But David Beckham isn't a great? Really?
No, you just told me ten fucking times how I was wrong about tournament penalty shooting because you googled some fucking STATS and had an opinion. Never seen one in your life, think that David Beckham is the shit, but you were "willing to bet" that I - having watched every WC and Euro since 1986 - was WRONG because my observations didn't conform to the perfect little model in your fucking baseball bible. Talk about religious fucking zealotry.
What the fuck do I know? But I think it's safe to say if he's being paid the millions he is and was (even before LA hired him to try and raise up the MLS) he's at least quite good.
Yeah, nice back-pedal there. The only intelligent thing you ever said in this entire discussion was the first sentence. Again, I never even once said anything about baseball, because I know exactly as much about baseball as you about football, namely zero. For all I know, everything you say applies 100% to baseball, and you are right about every single thing you said regarding that particular sport - the difference between you and me being that in 1,000 years, I'd never be so fucking stupid as to apply my observations about international tournament football to it.
The reverse, however, is manifestly not true. Because you read in some book that pro baseball players' stats are this and that, you try to fucking lecture me on how Beckham horribly shanking the most important kick of his life cannot possibly be a choke. What's next? You're gonna tell me about Formula 1 racing because you drove a red minivan once?

If David Beckham could not handle thousands of screaming fans and the weight of a nation he could not have made it to the premiere level of soccer in the first place.

He didn't. The premier level of football is international tournaments, and he never was able to handle the pressure there. Red cards, missed penalties - this is a well know fucking fact.

Oh, I guess this you again never talking about football?

David Beckham, Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods

Again with this shit. Maybe David Beckham, Chris Webber, some good but not top five all time golfer (see how I don't arbitrarily put some name here, because I know that I know little about golf?). Just because he's the ony footballer you've heard of, don't fucking put him next to MJ and Tiger.

Again: Shut the fuck up.

Here's my only, totally subjective comment about baseball, based exclusively on what has transpired in this thread: Is baseball so fucking boring that you care more about the box score than the game? Stats? Really? That's all there is?

Jesus, that's pathetic.

[mongo]

arch is pms'ing today. he already neg'd me for making fun of his shitty math skillz. lulz.

[Archangel]

arch is pms'ing today. he already neg'd me for making fun of his shitty math skillz. lulz.

Again, I'm not required to know maths (who is, after all?), and I don't give a shit. However, in my opinion, you getting owned trying to lecture me on an expression in your native tongue is far more precious. I'd be quiet and humble if I were you.

Also, there's a difference between "pms'ing" and having a constantly low tolerance for idiocy coupled with arrogance.

[mongo]

ladies and gents, i rest my case.

arch, have a drink already.

[Archangel]

At 11am. Sure.

[mongo]

atta girl!

[Archangel]

Some hair of the dog would be nice, though. Finishing Lent with double digit beers wasn't that smart a move, in retrospect.

I have no idea how I was even able to write that post last night, much less manage any semblance of coherence therein.

[mongo]

do a little vodka and bitters. best hair of the dog evar.

[Archangel]

Only thing I have around the house is seven weeks old beer.

[Stax]

Giving an opinion on soccer != Telling you how soccer works

[Swurgen]

If David Beckham could not handle thousands of screaming fans and the weight of a nation he could not have made it to the premiere level of soccer in the first place. This is why the discussion is limited to pro athletes, I will readily say that pressure plays a greater role the farther you get from the pros. But a pro has, by definition, already overcome a great many obstacles and proven himself in the face of a great many pressures. The argument is self-fulfilling, how could someone make it to such a pressure-filled moment without having ALREADY SHOWN they can handle it?

Alex Rodriguez had to dominate his high school and minor league teams all the way, not to mention prove himself in the big leagues, for years and years and years before screaming fans as he was analyzed nightly on television for the millions he was paid. So did David Beckham, Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods in his own way, every pro athlete has fought pressures and obstacles for years, why do certain specific ones get to get picked out as pressures under which "clutchness" shows itself?

Not necessarily true. If some 18 year old or some college kid has physical skills that are unparalleled even in the pros, they might be promoted just based on the physical while hoping they develop the brain to match. This college kid Strasburg throws a legit 100 mph and Boras is his agent. Boras could easily negotiate a contract that requires him to skip the minors (been done before by a pitcher with a similar arm and also with Dave Winfield and numerous basketball players and I assume soccer players although I don't know because I hate that shit). If you have the most dominant arm in college baseball history, you don't have any reason to develop the mental strength you're going to need when you face MLB hitters who can dial up to your speed. A similar example would be a guy with an NBA forward/center's body in HS doesn't bother learning jump shots or how to dribble the ball because he never had to. He just turns and dunks or drops it in over people's head.

[Stax]

Not necessarily true. If some 18 year old or some college kid has physical skills that are unparalleled even in the pros, they might be promoted just based on the physical while hoping they develop the brain to match. This college kid Strasburg throws a legit 100 mph and Boras is his agent. Boras could easily negotiate a contract that requires him to skip the minors (been done before by a pitcher with a similar arm and also with Dave Winfield and numerous basketball players and I assume soccer players although I don't know because I hate that shit). If you have the most dominant arm in college baseball history, you don't have any reason to develop the mental strength you're going to need when you face MLB hitters who can dial up to your speed. A similar example would be a guy with an NBA forward/center's body in HS doesn't bother learning jump shots or how to dribble the ball because he never had to. He just turns and dunks or drops it in over people's head.

Fair nuff. Maybe I should narrow that a bit saying "established" pro.

[Swurgen]

Fair nuff. Maybe I should narrow that a bit saying "established" pro.

Let's say strasburg goes to San Diego and starts off shaky as he gets rid of the butterflies but then is lights out for a few years and is established. Free agency and the Yanks make him a rich man. He might stuggle with that pressure even though he could have pitched for 5 MLB years in San Diego and made all star teams. Say the yanks don't make the post season for a few years but he eventually settles down into something similar to what he was in San Diego. Eventually the Yanks make the post season after he has a Cy Young season and the media is hammering us every day with how crucial it is for getting the team off to a big start in game 1 to set up the rest of the short series with Anaheim because the Yanks need to get the Angels monkey off of their back. He could easily choke under this new level of pressure. It's very plausible. Perhaps in time he could get used to it and his physical gifts could finally take over but given the nature of post season play, it could take years to get enough games in to not put inordinate pressure on yourself. Maybe it takes years of personal post season failures before you get shitty enough to bottom out and say "Fuck it...what's the worst that can happen? They all expect me to suck" and your brain finally gets out of the way of your body and you allow your gifts to take over again and you have a great post season but now you're an old man and it's your last.

Basically I just described A-Rod.

[Stax]

Except that ARod is roughly the same player, by his line, in the postseason as in the regular season. In fact he was actually successful in both 97 and 00 (not counting his 1 PA appearances in 95) with Seattle and his best postseason series in NY were the 04 ALDS and CS (his first).

What is so unique about postseason pressure as to raise it to this other level? I return to my CC level, why could he handle pitching at home needing to win to take an entire franchise to the postseason, but game 2 of the NLDS only a few days later makes his head explode (according to those who call him a choker)?

[Snatch]

My quick $.02.

Clutch shouldn't really exist. Everyone is usually trying at their absolute "highest level" at all times. It's not like they don't try in the first inning, but do in the ninth.

Choking could exist. You can be put in a sub-optimal situation that could adversely affect your approach, and make you do worse.

That's just my opinion.

[Swurgen]

Except that ARod is roughly the same player, by his line, in the postseason as in the regular season. In fact he was actually successful in both 97 and 00 (not counting his 1 PA appearances in 95) with Seattle and his best postseason series in NY were the 04 ALDS and CS (his first).

What is so unique about postseason pressure as to raise it to this other level? I return to my CC level, why could he handle pitching at home needing to win to take an entire franchise to the postseason, but game 2 of the NLDS only a few days later makes his head explode (according to those who call him a choker)?

I wasn't really researching A-Rod and honestly wasn't writing my little story about him but if you throw out the non-NY post season, my story stands up pretty good.

I think regarding CC, you can go with either the law of averages theory (eventually everybody is due for a stinker) or much more likely, carrying an entire city on your back singlehandedly has to eventually take its toll on you physically. How many high pressure innings did he pitch at the end last year in how many days? When was the last time a pitcher ever was called on to do what he did with that little rest and actually did it (most of it)? I don't remember the Brewer bats giving him too many laughers at the end there. He was pitching extremely deep into games on extremely short rest which is why I was nervous about the Yanks picking him up this year. Hopefully his huge size and full body pitching technique lessens any adverse affects on his arm much the way Randy Johnson does with his length.

[Stax]

My quick $.02.

Clutch shouldn't really exist. Everyone is usually trying at their absolute "highest level" at all times. It's not like they don't try in the first inning, but do in the ninth.

Choking could exist. You can be put in a sub-optimal situation that could adversely affect your approach, and make you do worse.

That's just my opinion.

About how I feel. I voted flat no, in the poll, but choking at least makes sense as a psychological phenomenon (even if I think it's way way way overassigned as a reason for things in pro sports).

[Hoser]

First off you probably should not be arguing if something that is intangible exists.

That being said, yes there are people who consistently come through and play better in big situations and under pressure. They may just be a better player, but they can handle the pressure and come through big when it counts.

That also means that there are people who will choke. Sure it could just be seen as a bad play, but it is pretty easy to say that many players do succumb to the pressure being put on them.

[Stax]

I think regarding CC, you can go with either the law of averages theory (eventually everybody is due for a stinker) or much more likely, carrying an entire city on your back singlehandedly has to eventually take its toll on you physically. How many high pressure innings did he pitch at the end last year in how many days? When was the last time a pitcher ever was called on to do what he did with that little rest and actually did it (most of it)? I don't remember the Brewer bats giving him too many laughers at the end there. He was pitching extremely deep into games on extremely short rest which is why I was nervous about the Yanks picking him up this year. Hopefully his huge size and full body pitching technique lessens any adverse affects on his arm much the way Randy Johnson does with his length.

Unless he spontaneously got an arm injury (that didn't show up on any of the extensive offseason examinations the Yankees did before they paid him millions) in the couple of days between a CG beauty and his postseason stinker, seems unlikely.

[Hoser]

Everyone is usually trying at their absolute "highest level" at all times.

I don't buy that. Hell just look at Vince Carter. Not all pros are giving their all at all times.

[Stax]

That being said, yes there are people who consistently come through and play better in big situations and under pressure. They may just be a better player, but they can handle the pressure and come through big when it counts.


Who though? Simply being a better player (so you perform better in all situations) doesn't mean you're clutch, it means you are better. Who shows any particular ability to perform at levels far beyond their generally observed talent level in "big" moments?

[Swurgen]

My quick $.02.

Clutch shouldn't really exist. Everyone is usually trying at their absolute "highest level" at all times. It's not like they don't try in the first inning, but do in the ninth.

Choking could exist. You can be put in a sub-optimal situation that could adversely affect your approach, and make you do worse.

That's just my opinion.

Trying hard doesn't ensure good performance. They're all trying hard and in the sports we're talking about (as opposed to golf or bowling), somebody on the other side is trying just as hard to stop you. Also everybody is not trying at their highest level at all times. You could own a business and think that you're trying your hardest all the time but if the bank sends you a notice that you need to come up with this or else you lose that, then you'll be surprised at what kind of other gear you're able to come up with. How many more hours you're suddenly able to work. Not much different in sports. You really think baseball teams play with the same urgency in May as they do in September?

[Stax]

Trying hard doesn't ensure good performance. They're all trying hard and in the sports we're talking about (as opposed to golf or bowling), somebody on the other side is trying just as hard to stop you. Also everybody is not trying at their highest level at all times. You could own a business and think that you're trying your hardest all the time but if the bank sends you a notice that you need to come up with this or else you lose that, then you'll be surprised at what kind of other gear you're able to come up with. How many more hours you're suddenly able to work. Not much different in sports. You really think baseball teams play with the same urgency in May as they do in September?

If they don't then they are hurting their team, and as I've said numerous times if that's what clutch is then it's not a good thing. If the Mets in 07 or 08 won one more game in April or May when everyone just waves off losses and goes "it's only April/May" they would've made the postseason, "choking down the stretch" or not.

[Snatch]

Also:

ARod has a .967 OPS in the Regular Season.
Arod has a .844 OPS in the post season.

ARod is psychologically fragile, obviously, he seems like someone who would be a bit of an overpresser. Maybe that's why his walkrate suffers so much.

[Hoser]

Who though? Simply being a better player (so you perform better in all situations) doesn't mean you're clutch, it means you are better. Who shows any particular ability to perform at levels far beyond their generally observed talent level in "big" moments?

Your right it may just be being a better player. But to be able to do it under big pressure over and over again is also known as being a clutch player. Hell closers could be considered clutch as they have proven they can come in and win a game for a team.

I know you don't want to go cross sport, but Woods has proven time and time again he is a clutch player. Just look at Torrie Pines in 08.

[Swurgen]

Unless he spontaneously got an arm injury (that didn't show up on any of the extensive offseason examinations the Yankees did before they paid him millions) in the couple of days between a CG beauty and his postseason stinker, seems unlikely.

Really? You don't think there's any room between feeling 100% vs injury? There's no getting worn down at the end of a season never mind a run like that? No physical or mental fatigue? Dead arm periods? You don't think there are days when you wake up and your body feels more worn down than it did a few days ago? Yes these are pro athletes but they are still human beings. Some days the ball just flies effortlessly out of your hands and some days you have to work harder just to achieve less velocity.

[Snatch]

Your right it may just be being a better player. But to be able to do it under big pressure over and over again is also known as being a clutch player. Hell closers could be considered clutch as they have proven they can come in and win a game for a team.

They can come in and not let up 3 runs in one inning and get a save.

[Snatch]

I also think, going with Swurgen said, there's some NBA players that coast 90% of the time, and then when they turn it on, they can be unstoppable:

Dwyane Wade.

[Hoser]

For you baseball guys the name Kirk Gibson should tell you all you need to know about clutch players.

[Hoser]

I also think, going with Swurgen said, there's some NBA players that coast 90% of the time, and then when they turn it on, they can be unstoppable:

Dwyane Wade.

There are some that coast along at 25%...



Vince Carter. Toronto will never forgive you.

[Swurgen]

If they don't then they are hurting their team, and as I've said numerous times if that's what clutch is then it's not a good thing. If the Mets in 07 or 08 won one more game in April or May when everyone just waves off losses and goes "it's only April/May" they would've made the postseason, "choking down the stretch" or not.

Just because it's hurting your team doesn't mean it's not human nature and doesn't happen every year. On the other end, Torre managing every game in May as if it was in November rather than letting the other guys see if they can get some outs here and there burned out his bullpen in the year that the Sox came back in the post season. Some times you have to concede a battle to win the war.


Also:

ARod has a .967 OPS in the Regular Season.
Arod has a .844 OPS in the post season.

ARod is psychologically fragile, obviously, he seems like someone who would be a bit of an overpresser. Maybe that's why his walkrate suffers so much.

He's constantly trying to hit 7 run homers in big spots to erase all the doubters in a big way rather than letting the game come to him naturally.

[Snatch]

Just because it's hurting your team doesn't mean it's not human nature and doesn't happen every year. On the other end, Torre managing every game in May as if it was in November rather than letting the other guys see if they can get some outs here and there burned out his bullpen in the year that the Sox came back in the post season. Some times you have to concede a battle to win the war.




He's constantly trying to hit 7 run homers in big spots to erase all the doubters in a big way rather than letting the game come to him naturally.

Agreed. Basketball allows for more "clutchness," because if you're angry/trying hard, you just draw fouls left and right.

[Stax]

Really? You don't think there's any room between feeling 100% vs injury? There's no getting worn down at the end of a season never mind a run like that? No physical or mental fatigue? Dead arm periods? You don't think there are days when you wake up and your body feels more worn down than it did a few days ago? Yes these are pro athletes but they are still human beings. Some days the ball just flies effortlessly out of your hands and some days you have to work harder just to achieve less velocity.

Ok, then not CC (but it does go to his performance not being "choking"). Return to ARod again. In 2005 the Yankees tied the Red Sox and won the East due to the season series. Both were only 2 games ahead of the Indians, so had they fallen at all they would not have even gotten the wild card. What did ARod do down the stretch? Have a better 2nd half than first, and August and September were 2 of his best 3 months. Then in the playoffs? Batted .133. Again, did something that monumental in pressure change between carrying a franchise as the MVP best player to a playoff berth and then just playing in said postseason series to do that? Or is it just variance?

[Snatch]

Ok, then not CC (but it does go to his performance not being "choking"). Return to ARod again. In 2005 the Yankees tied the Red Sox and won the East due to the season series. Both were only 2 games ahead of the Indians, so had they fallen at all they would not have even gotten the wild card. What did ARod do down the stretch? Have a better 2nd half than first, and August and September were 2 of his best 3 months. Then in the playoffs? Batted .133. Again, did something that monumental in pressure change between carrying a franchise as the MVP best player to a playoff berth and then just playing in said postseason series to do that? Or is it just variance?

How many times did he play the Orioles in that August and September?

[Stax]

For you baseball guys the name Kirk Gibson should tell you all you need to know about clutch players.

Hitting one ball makes you clutch?

[Hoser]

xHFiYyatM7s

[Hoser]

Hitting one ball makes you clutch?

Is that not stepping up to the plate in a high pressure situation.

No one is saying that being clutch means it happens time and time again. You can do it once, you can be clutch just once in your carrier, but it is still clutch.

Hell the guy was sick, had leg injuries, had 2 out, 3 and 2 count and won the game for his team. If that is not a clutch play I don;t know what is.

[Stax]

How many times did he play the Orioles in that August and September?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?n1=rodrial01&t=b&year=2005

8 times, and the then-crappy Rays 6 times.

[Stax]

Is that not stepping up to the plate in a high pressure situation.

No one is saying that being clutch means it happens time and time again. You can do it once, you can be clutch just once in your carrier, but it is still clutch.

I am. There is no such thing as a clutch player, only clutch events.

Obviously individual events can come with greater situational weight, but unless you perform greater consistently it's not you who is clutch but just that moment.

It's like the WFAN Yankees fans who say they want Scott Brosius over ARod. Yes, Brosius had clutch moments but that doesn't mean that going forward that's a repeatable skill.

[Swurgen]

Ok, then not CC (but it does go to his performance not being "choking"). Return to ARod again. In 2005 the Yankees tied the Red Sox and won the East due to the season series. Both were only 2 games ahead of the Indians, so had they fallen at all they would not have even gotten the wild card. What did ARod do down the stretch? Have a better 2nd half than first, and August and September were 2 of his best 3 months. Then in the playoffs? Batted .133. Again, did something that monumental in pressure change between carrying a franchise as the MVP best player to a playoff berth and then just playing in said postseason series to do that? Or is it just variance?

The regular season even as it heats up is still just the regular season. With baseball you're playing every day and there's not enough time to sit and dwell on tomorrow's game. You just play, go out to dinner, sleep, wake up, go to the park for bp, play again. There's a routine there. Everybody knows what playoff series represent. They're a resetting of the season. Sometimes you might even have a few days to dwell on what you're about to embark on. Helps some guys...kills others. Alex has to be The Man. He just tries too hard. I think the guys who do well really are able to just pretend it's just another game and go back to that cycle I mentioned above. Pitchers might even be less susceptible because they're used to waiting days between performances and looking forward to the next game and what it means because they've done it their whole lives as opposed to position players who are used to the routine.

[Stax]

I just don't see how someone could thrive under one set of huge pressure but changed slightly it would crush them.

[Swurgen]

I just don't see how someone could thrive under one set of huge pressure but changed slightly it would crush them.

That's just it. Its not just a slight change for some guys. They can't/won't see it that way.

[Snatch]

I think people that have played sports view this differently than people that haven't.

[Stax]

I think people that have played sports view this differently than people that haven't.

But that's the fatal flaw. Every sportswriter who played a couple softball game starts talking about the pressure, but it's not the same. How can you survive fighting tooth and nail through the minors to finally make it to the majors and then play 150+ games before millions at a high level without an ability to handle pressure?

[Snatch]

But that's the fatal flaw. Every sportswriter who played a couple softball game starts talking about the pressure, but it's not the same. How can you survive fighting tooth and nail through the minors to finally make it to the majors and then play 150+ games before millions at a high level without an ability to handle pressure?

Different levels of pressure, different margins of error, different confidence levels.

Like, if I played you one on one in basketball to 11, and spotted you 9 points, in front of 10,000 people, that would be a ton of pressure, and a difficult situation, right?

But, our talent levels would have such a humongous difference, that I could easily believe in my ability to do it, and therefore play more calmly and at a higher level.

So, a guy that can throw his fastball by guys in AA is going to react a lot differently than the pressure of striking out Bernie Williams in Yankee Stadium in a tie game.

I mean, when I was in high school, I played JV as a sophomore in soccer, but I got some games on the Varsity (as a goalie). I made a few saves, in a few big situations in JV games where in Varsity games there would've been far less of a chance of success. You can downplay it if you want, but ask athletes anywhere.

[Stax]

Different levels of pressure, different margins of error, different confidence levels.

Like, if I played you one on one in basketball to 11, and spotted you 9 points, in front of 10,000 people, that would be a ton of pressure, and a difficult situation, right?

But, our talent levels would have such a humongous difference, that I could easily believe in my ability to do it, and therefore play more calmly and at a higher level.

So, a guy that can throw his fastball by guys in AA is going to react a lot differently than the pressure of striking out Bernie Williams in Yankee Stadium in a tie game.

Right, but he wouldn't be put on the stage to strike out Bernie in a big game unless he could strike out guys in high school, college, A, AA, AAA, and likely some major league games at a consistent level. And you certainly wouldn't call it choking unless he had already proven the ability to be good at the ML level.

[Snatch]

Right, but he wouldn't be put on the stage to strike out Bernie in a big game unless he could strike out guys in high school, college, A, AA, AAA, and likely some major league games at a consistent level. And you certainly wouldn't call it choking unless he had already proven the ability to be good at the ML level.

No, in High School he had a .90 ERA. In College, he had a 2.10 ERA. In A he had a 2.45 ERA. In AA, he had a 2.80 ERA. In AAA he had a 3.10 ERA. In the Bigs, he has a 3.50 ERA.

Think he has the same mindset at High School?

Why do certain teams own guys? Why can't Armando Benitez pitch to the Yankees? You don't think there's a psychological aspect?

[Snatch]

Also, Stax, you're mostly a baseball fan right?

In other sports, this kind of shit is totally different. You don't think that playing with Larry Bird helped the confidence, decision-making, and poise of his teammates vs. playing with Chris Webber?

Using your soccer example, Landon Donovan from the US. Any time he plays a high level of competition, he completely disappears. He's basically the ARod of American Soccer.

Infamous UConn story, because I know you're a "fan." 1994, Elite 8, Florida vs. Uconn. Donyell Marshall has two free-throws to win the game, 77% free throw shooter in college. Misses both. Choking? Idk, but I KNOW people who saw him out partying the night before the game. Would Ray Allen do that?