"Clutch Doesnt Exist"

[deeman11747]

Let me start off by saying that I think the new generation of baseball analysis with the sabermatricians is a fresh way of analyzing baseball. I dont think its the only way... as I think the old fashioned way of analyzing players ability (just be looking at their talent) is good too. I prefer a mix between the two with scouts and coaches taking equal account of talent and production.

Anyways the biggest gripe and where I think this new age of statistical analysis loses some crediblity is when they say "clutch doesnt exist."

Let me just say I've been playing baseball for 15 years. Ever since I was a little kid. And through the years I've played in tons of games on tons of teams with tons of teammates. And I have learned from all of this that people respond differently to pressure situations. I have seen teammates who could absolutely mash the ball on a consistent basis, who begin to feel sick when they come up in the last inning with the winning run on. I've also had teammates who have been able to shake off the pressure situation like its nothing, and get up to the plate and hit the same way theyd hit in the 1st innning.

For some people, pressure causes them to tense up and completely deviate from their standard mechanics, destroying any chance of success in that spot. Others are unphased, and have success.

So can someone who disagrees with this explain why I always see the sabermatricians claim that "clutch doesnt exist"??

[Blzer]

Re: "Clutch Doesnt Exist"

I completely agree, and I've once tried to say this before... don't think anyone really paid attention.

At the same time, I don't think there is any such thing as home field advantage outside of the playing field. What I mean by that is that to me, at least when I play... boos and cheers mean crap. Don't know if anyone agrees with me there too.

[dkgojackets]

Re: "Clutch Doesnt Exist"

I wouldnt agree with "Clutch doesn't exist," but it is HIGHLY overrated.

[Beantown]

Re: "Clutch Doesnt Exist"

Tell that to David Ortiz.

[Brandon13]

Re: "Clutch Doesnt Exist"

Here is the way I look at it. There are hitters and pitchers who can not handle pressure well and will not come through very often in the clutch. I think almost everyone will agree that this is true.

So if this true, wouldn't the opposite also have to be true? Wouldn't there have to be hitters and pitchers that can handle the pressure better in these types of situations, and in effect, will come through more often?

I understand that luck plays a big part in it, a ball can be crushed right to a fielder for an out and a little blooper can land in between two fielders for a base hit. That's the way baseball is. But the batter who more often than not makes solid contact with the ball will get more hits than the batter who hits the blooper.

If a batter does not handle pressure well he would be more likely to NOT make solid contact. A batter that does handle pressure well would be more likely to make solid contact.

It just seems like human nature to me, some people will fold when the pressure is on and some will come through.

Sorry if none of this makes any sense to anyone but me. I did the best I could.

[Blzer]

Re: "Clutch Doesnt Exist"

Tell that to David Ortiz.

There's a difference between being "clutch", and hitting the right pitch at the right time.

Every hit, home run, and at bat is independent. There's nothing that says a pro ball player can't hit .600 in a year, let alone hit a home run every game (or every at bat). Sometimes people will have a "hot bat", but it's because they've found their stroke for a few games. It has nothing to do with a real "hot bat", though.


At the same time... some players are clutch only because they don't CHOKE during pressure situations. It's not that they get "better" per se, but they don't choke unlike others. Also, if you have runners in scoring position, you have the advantage of a better average (or opportunity to do something) for several reasons anyway: 1) The pitcher is throwing from the stretch (less velocity, less movement); 2) You have a better chance to keep your average up because of the potential sacrifice fly... I know that sounds small, but this gives players an incentive to try and hit the ball in the air. This results in a few shots over the outfielders' head, including home runs; 3) Infield tight, hitter's delight. Runner on 3rd in a close game, they're pinched in. You have a nice shot for a poke there, also.




Most players SHOULD be "clutch"... where their chance to deliver with runners in scoring position is greater than their overall average. When you're not... well... just remember that in 10 at bats, you can get 10 more hits. ALL hits are independent.

There should be a formula (or very good reason) as to WHY players do not hit about .380 in a season, and it will have to do with the amount of players on the field, their spread, and their amount of ground cover.

[SPTO]

Re: "Clutch Doesnt Exist"

Clutch exists how else do you explain A-Rod who's the king of the hollow stats. Yeah by season's end the guy looks like one of the best hitters in all of baseball and he is but when the chips are down the guy folds up like a cheap suitcase!

Being "clutch" is not just about success as I personally think some of the greatest clutch hitters struck out/made an out almost as often as they came through but it's a feeling. The clutch ballplayer will go in there with guns a'blazin and ready to take on the world.

Then you have pitchers who can look like superman on the mound in big games but at other times become mortal. Just look at Mike Scott in '86, some say he cheated but he was the most feared pitcher in all of baseball that year. If the Astros had won Game 6 then the Astros would've been the NL representative in the World Series.

Sadly you have your disappointments like Ankiel who I thought may have been left out there too long as he completely lost it right in front of our eyes.

[Blzer]

Re: "Clutch Doesnt Exist"

Being "clutch" is not just about success...

This is the only part of your post that really caught my eye, and you're right. I was trying to say it in my other post, but I guess I'll say it here, and finish your sentence:


"It's not about succeeding, it's about not failing."


There are guys that are terrible in clutch situations because they choke under the pressure (at least... that's the train of thought, though like I said before... at bats are all independent from one another), and then there are guys that don't choke. It just looks better because they come through "in the clutch".

I hope that makes sense.

[SPTO]

Re: "Clutch Doesnt Exist"

Ok Blzer let me ask you this:

Was Kirk Gibson's HR in game 1 of the '88 World Series not clutch?

Here was a man who had NO legs. He couldn't drive with his legs he had to swing with his arms and torso and hope for the best. In a situation like that where it was a 1 in a million shot of him hitting a HR, he actually does it.

If that isn't clutch then I don't know what is.

[Blzer]

Re: "Clutch Doesnt Exist"

Ok Blzer let me ask you this:

Was Kirk Gibson's HR in game 1 of the '88 World Series not clutch?

Here was a man who had NO legs. He couldn't drive with his legs he had to swing with his arms and torso and hope for the best. In a situation like that where it was a 1 in a million shot of him hitting a HR, he actually does it.

If that isn't clutch then I don't know what is.

Okay, I think you're crossing up two different terms. There's clutch, and there's what you just defined... luck.



Luck - The chance happening of fortunate or adverse events

Clutch - A tense, critical situation


To BE clutch is tending to be successful in said tense or critical situation.




Luck and clutch are not synonyms of each other. He CAME THROUGH in the clutch, but I think what the thread starter means when he says that "clutch doesn't exist" is that there isn't really such thing as a "clutch player". Jeter is considered a "clutch player", but why? It's because he doesn't fail in a pressure situation (preferrably the playoffs) more often than he would normally fail in any other given situation, and there are normally factors that are called "nerves", whether you want to accept that or not.

Every athlete, at one time or another, gets butterflies in their stomach during a situation that calls for a tense moment. Some players fear that opportunity when it comes up on them. Normally, they do something out of their standard routine, and they will not get the job done (or they'll try to do too much, striving to not fail). They are normally the players that are not clutch. The others see it as an opportunity to get a job done, and they'll normally do what's expected out of pro ball players: Let the pitcher supply the power, and have good bat control to put the ball in play. 85% swing. That, or they normally stick with their normal routine, and will hit the ball like they normally do. Because of the greater opportunity to keep your average up or drive in a run, they appear to be more successful. Those players are considered clutch.






Of course Kirk Gibson's home run was clutch. He came through in a pressure situation. That's what clutch means. I think you really meant to ask me if it was a miracle, or if it was lucky. What I'm saying is that he may not necessarily be considered a "clutch" hitter... as in BEING BETTER than normal in those situations, as opposed to NOT BEING WORSE.




Does that make a little more sense?

[DrJones]

Re: "Clutch Doesnt Exist"

I wouldnt agree with "Clutch doesn't exist," but it is HIGHLY overrated.

I tend to agree -- it exists to some degree. Sabermatricians discount it because it's difficult to find evidence to back it up, (ie, stats that prove that this player has been "clutch" in the past and therefore will be "clutch" in the future).

Personally, I think nerves play a bigger role for pitchers than hitters.

Are there any "clutch" or "choke" players who play for teams outside of New York or Boston, BTW? I never hear about them.

[Blzer]

Re: "Clutch Doesnt Exist"

Are there any "clutch" or "choke" players who play for teams outside of New York or Boston, BTW? I never hear about them.

Bonds used to be (and still is) considered a choke-artist in the playoffs. His 2002 showing calmed down that talk a little bit, but his stats showed that he did not perform well in the playoffs.

Again, this DOES have to do with that "clutch" factor, in the sense where you DON'T perform well in these situations. I bet you that he tried to overperform. He probably dipped his shoulder more and rolled over more trying to hit balls out and be the hero. I bet that he swung at pitches that he normally wouldn't swing at, either.

Other hitters (yes, like Jeter) see that situation just like any other, and take advantage of it by changing nothing in his swing. Sometimes, that's what being clutch is... being persistent, and unchanged.

[DrJones]

Re: "Clutch Doesnt Exist"

Bonds used to be (and still is) considered a choke-artist in the playoffs. His 2002 showing calmed down that talk a little bit, but his stats showed that he did not perform well in the playoffs.

Again, this DOES have to do with that "clutch" factor, in the sense where you DON'T perform well in these situations. I bet you that he tried to overperform. He probably dipped his shoulder more and rolled over more trying to hit balls out and be the hero. I bet that he swung at pitches that he normally wouldn't swing at, either.

Other hitters (yes, like Jeter) see that situation just like any other, and take advantage of it by changing nothing in his swing. Sometimes, that's what being clutch is... being persistent, and unchanged.

I was jokingly referring to the media's Yankees/Red Sox obsession. As I recall, Bonds was little short of monstrous in the 2002 playoffs. Did he suddenly learn to be "clutch"?

[Brandon13]

Re: "Clutch Doesnt Exist"

I was jokingly referring to the media's Yankees/Red Sox obsession. As I recall, Bonds was little short of monstrous in the 2002 playoffs. Did he suddenly learn to be "clutch"?

He learned how to use a syringe. (Allegedly)

[Stu]

Re: "Clutch Doesnt Exist"

They're not saying clutch doesn't exist, just that it's not an attribute any player has shown consistently. Obviously there's such a thing as a clutch hit and some players have clutch seasons, but nobody has done it on a consistent enough basis to be considered a clutch hitter. Take David Ortiz for example. His 2005 season is ranked as one of the most clutch seasons ever but his 2004 season didn't rate as a clutch season. (not counting playoffs)

If you get a chance, read the chapter that deals with this in Baseball Between the Numbers. It gives a good, easy to read overview of the whole argument.

According to BP the top 10 career clutch hitters are:
1) Mark Grace
2) Toby Harrah
3) Jason kendall
4) Kent Hrbek
5) Matt Lawton
6) Darrell Evans
7) Scott Fletcher
8) Jeromy Burnitz
9) Kirby Puckett
10) Harold Baines

Not exactly the group of players that come to mind when you think about clutch hitting.

EDIT - Also to respond to the first post a little bit, players might handle clutch situations differently in the levels of baseball we've played at, but in MLB the gap between players who handle it well and don't handle it well is a lot narrower.