Poll: Best Shortstop Evah Topic

Clutch hitting exists.  Anyone who overperforms his mean in "high pressure, high intensity, high scrutiny" situations can be considered "clutch".  Dusty Rhodes was "clutch" [no, not the flabby wrestler, the Giants pinch-hitting OF in 1954].  Ryan Howard is not [getting punched out two consecutive years in the NLCS with the winning runs on base after being near the league lead in RBIs is not "clutch"]

Matt Cain is clutch (giving up ZERO runs in the postseason for his career).  Joe Montana is clutch (11 TDs and zero INTs in his Super Bowl career). 

That kicker in Baltimore who missed the chippy in the playoffs is NOT clutch.  That kicker for Stanford who choked a chippy in the Orange Bowl is NOT clutch.  Yeah, Mike's right...  it's easier to pick out UNclutch... 
7/3/2012 7:06 PM
Look at a player's postseason stats vs. his regular season stats.  Theoretically, he's facing tougher opposition in the playoffs (as opposed to the Royals, Padres, Cubs)...  If his performance is markedly BETTER in the postseason, you can reasonably call him "clutch".

If his performance is markedly better in the 7th, 8th, or 9th innings, especially if the game is tied or the game is close, he can reasonably be considered "clutch".  You don't have to have a firm number or a clear stat, just compare the numbers established over a career to the smaller sample size culled from pressure situations.
7/3/2012 7:10 PM
There's a chapter in "Baseball Between the Numbers" from Baseball Prospectus that talks about clutch hitting.  The conclusion is that clutch hitting exists, but that it's very minor.  And basically the "best" clutch hitters are the one with the best plate discipline . . . higher than average walk rate and lower than average strikeout rate.

Everything else is pretty much bullshit.
7/3/2012 10:25 PM (edited)
Thanks for clearing that up and for having an original thought.
7/4/2012 8:04 AM
Posted by toddcommish on 7/3/2012 7:06:00 PM (view original):
Clutch hitting exists.  Anyone who overperforms his mean in "high pressure, high intensity, high scrutiny" situations can be considered "clutch".  Dusty Rhodes was "clutch" [no, not the flabby wrestler, the Giants pinch-hitting OF in 1954].  Ryan Howard is not [getting punched out two consecutive years in the NLCS with the winning runs on base after being near the league lead in RBIs is not "clutch"]

Matt Cain is clutch (giving up ZERO runs in the postseason for his career).  Joe Montana is clutch (11 TDs and zero INTs in his Super Bowl career). 

That kicker in Baltimore who missed the chippy in the playoffs is NOT clutch.  That kicker for Stanford who choked a chippy in the Orange Bowl is NOT clutch.  Yeah, Mike's right...  it's easier to pick out UNclutch... 
I think you can definitely say that the kicker or Howard did not come through in those situations while Cain and Montana did, I just wouldn't assign any predictive power to that.   Cain is an excellent pitcher and has pitched very well in 1400 or so ML innings.  He has 21 playoff innings, all in one postseason.  If Giants make the playoffs this year, are you going to expect Cain to pitch like he did in 2010 playoffs?  That seems unrealistic.  Guys who have failed in the clutch before have come back and redeemed themselves.  Is this a "clutch" or "unclutch" until you prove otherwise thing?  That makes for fun headlines and discussions but I'd think you'd want something you could use as a predictor of future performance.
7/4/2012 1:04 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 7/3/2012 10:25:00 PM (view original):
There's a chapter in "Baseball Between the Numbers" from Baseball Prospectus that talks about clutch hitting.  The conclusion is that clutch hitting exists, but that it's very minor.  And basically the "best" clutch hitters are the one with the best plate discipline . . . higher than average walk rate and lower than average strikeout rate.

Everything else is pretty much bullshit.

Do you remember what they measured?  Defining what a clutch situation and clutch perfmance is is important in all this.  It makes sense that good plate discipline guys are more successful but they should typically be more successful in every situation.  Did the study try to measure whether those players "elevated their game" in those situations are just performed better than other groups did?

 

7/4/2012 1:14 PM
"Clutch" is a reflection of past performance.  Remember, past performance is no guarantee of future returns. 

NO stat is directly or definitive predictive.  All stats are simply numerical representations of the past.  Didn't you take statistics in college?
7/4/2012 1:15 PM

Oh, come on.  "Predictive" and "guarantee" are entirely different things. 

7/4/2012 1:33 PM
By definition, a statistic is a numerical representation of the PAST. 

Use them for prediction at your own risk
7/4/2012 1:40 PM
Here's the Fan Graphs glossary page on clutch, with several links worth reading:

www.fangraphs.com/library/index.php/misc/clutch/

7/4/2012 1:43 PM
Posted by 1899_spiders on 7/3/2012 6:20:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 7/3/2012 4:01:00 PM (view original):
Well now you're trying to put numbers on it but I'm sure you can.    Can a player even get 100 "clutch" AB in a career?   If he does, he could hit 20 screamers right at someone and lose 200 points off his BA.   So he's hitting .150 instead of .350.   

Of course, this is why statnerds hate "clutch".
The numbers are hypothetical, of course, but what alternatives are there? Gut feeling is hardly appropriate for gauging its existence.

Clutch hitting exists. That is obvious. Every walk-off hit is clutch, and that's just one example. The question is whether there are true clutch hitters. Given enough players over time, some will overperform in clutch situations due to random chance. So a player who does well in such situations might be clutch, or he might just be a result of the effect of large numbers.

Proving whether it exists or not will probably never be accomplished, although more evidence will certainly help study of it. But there are statnerds who think clutch players exist, others who think they might exist, and others who don't think they exist, but are open to changing their mind with more evidence. The folks who think people have proven clutch players are a fictional idea are idiots masking themselves as statnerds. I fit into the "might" category, and lean "yes, they exist". Oh, and I prefer the term statgeek.
So one has to get a hit to be "clutch"?

Player A bats 10 times in the 9th inning of game 7 with two outs and a runner on 2nd down by 1.   He hits 10 BBs right at someone.   0-10.
Player B bats 10 times in the 9th inning of game 7 with two outs and a runner on 2nd down by 1,  He strikes out 8 times, hits a blooper for a single and seeing eye grounder for another single.   2-10.

Player B more clutch?
7/4/2012 4:44 PM
Player B is more clutch because he helped his team more. He Two singles and eight inning ending strikeouts are better than eight inning ending outs, no matter how weak player B's singles were or how hard player A's outs were hit. Clutch is about what happened. Given the difference in luck, one could logically justify taking his chances with player A in future clutch situations, but in that scenario, player B was more clutch.

Here's a handy device for determining clutch impact through Win Expectancy and Win Probability Added.

www.hardballtimes.com/thtstats/other/wpa_inquirer.php

The run environment is limited to steps of half a run (3.5 runs, 4, 4.5, 5), and when dealing with hypotheticals, you have to make your own judgement on how far someone on base advances. Nevertheless, it is very helpful in showing how different events change the odds of winning a game. Remember that it is set from the home team's perspective, so if we assumed both players are on the home team in each situation, you would want it set to bottom of the ninth, lead -1.

7/4/2012 5:36 PM
I'd disagree, obviously.

The end result doesn't necessarily explain how well a stressful situation was handled. 
7/4/2012 6:26 PM
According to true statnerds, neither player would be clutch as each player put the ball in play all 10 times, and balls in play have random outcomes that converge towards a .300 AVG based on the recent BABIP discussions.
7/4/2012 9:43 PM
Tsk, tsk.  You've already forgotten the difference between BABIP for pitchers and for hitters.
7/4/2012 11:38 PM
◂ Prev 1...22|23|24|25|26 Next ▸
Poll: Best Shortstop Evah Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.