|
Sports » rec.sport.baseball » clutch hitting - myth
| clutch hitting - myth [message #1056766] |
Mon, 10 July 2006 19:34 |
|
As a tangent to another thread, here is an interesting article that
addresses "clutch hitting". It has been my opinion, which is supported by
research, that "clutch hitting" is a myth.
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2656
Here is a pertinent excerpt from the above article:
* * * * *
All major-league players have a demonstrated ability to perform under
pressure. They've proven that by rising to the top of an enormous pyramid of
players, tens of thousands of them, all trying to be one of the top 0.1%
that gets to call themselves "major leaguers." Within this group of elite,
who have proven themselves to be the best in the world at their jobs, there
is no discernable change in their abilities when runners are on base, or
when the game is tied in extra innings, or when candy and costumes and
pumpkins decorate the local GigaMart. The guys who are good enough to be in
the majors are all capable of succeeding and failing in these situations,
and they're as likely to do one or the other in the clutch as they are at
any other time. Over the course of a game, a month, a season or a career,
there is virtually no evidence that any player or group of players possesses
an ability to outperform his established level of ability in clutch
situations, however defined.
The statistical studies of clutch have supported this point. David Grabiner
did the seminal work more than a decade ago, defining clutch as performance
in the late innings of close games. From the article:
"The correlation between past and current clutch performance is .01, with a
standard deviation of .07. In other words, there isn't a significant ability
in clutch hitting; if there were, the same players would be good clutch
hitters every year."
* * * * *
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
|
|
|
| Re: clutch hitting - myth [message #1056770 ] |
Mon, 10 July 2006 20:29 |
|
David Emerling <demerlinHATESPAM [at] midsouth.rr.com> trolled:
> As a tangent to another thread, here is an interesting article that
> addresses "clutch hitting". It has been my opinion, which is supported by
> research, that "clutch hitting" is a myth.
Virtually everyone in this newsgroup agrees with you. It's been a
non-issue around here for years.
The problem with this research is that the examples they use are not
examples of a clutch situation. Real "clutch" situations only
happen once or twice in a _career_ and all the batter has to do, to
prove he is a "clutch hitter", is hit just once, in the clutch.
Joe Carter, Bill Mazeroski, Candy Bar, Kirk Gibson, Bobby Thomson,
all of these guys are known for being clutch hitters because they
hit once in the cluth. Once is all it takes.
IOW, once or twice in a career, a player has a unique pressue
opportunity in which he can show that he is not a choke. If he
doesn't choke, then he is a clutch hitter.
Moreover, the clutch situation the player finds himself in, might be
clutch because of all kinds of factors that only the player and
those close to him are aware of. We often don't realize that a real
clutch hit, was a clutch hit, because we weren't close enough to the
player to understand the pressure he was under.
Claiming that the last two innings of a game, when down 1 or 2 runs,
etc., etc., has absolutely _NOTHING_ to do with clutch hitting. A
clutch hit may just as well happen in the first inning as the 10th.
cordially, especially to those who don't understand baseball,
rm
|
|
|
| Re: clutch hitting - myth [message #1056771 ] |
Mon, 10 July 2006 20:54 |
|
"Realto Margarino" <rm [at] youasked.org> wrote in message
news:r0xsg.119850$SQ6.31561 [at] fe09.news.easynews.com...
> David Emerling <demerlinHATESPAM [at] midsouth.rr.com> trolled:
>
>> As a tangent to another thread, here is an interesting article that
>> addresses "clutch hitting". It has been my opinion, which is supported by
>> research, that "clutch hitting" is a myth.
>
> Virtually everyone in this newsgroup agrees with you. It's been a
> non-issue around here for years.
>
> The problem with this research is that the examples they use are not
> examples of a clutch situation. Real "clutch" situations only
> happen once or twice in a _career_ and all the batter has to do, to
> prove he is a "clutch hitter", is hit just once, in the clutch.
>
> Joe Carter, Bill Mazeroski, Candy Bar, Kirk Gibson, Bobby Thomson,
> all of these guys are known for being clutch hitters because they
> hit once in the cluth. Once is all it takes.
>
> IOW, once or twice in a career, a player has a unique pressue
> opportunity in which he can show that he is not a choke. If he
> doesn't choke, then he is a clutch hitter.
>
> Moreover, the clutch situation the player finds himself in, might be
> clutch because of all kinds of factors that only the player and
> those close to him are aware of. We often don't realize that a real
> clutch hit, was a clutch hit, because we weren't close enough to the
> player to understand the pressure he was under.
>
> Claiming that the last two innings of a game, when down 1 or 2 runs,
> etc., etc., has absolutely _NOTHING_ to do with clutch hitting. A
> clutch hit may just as well happen in the first inning as the 10th.
>
> cordially, especially to those who don't understand baseball,
>
> rm
You're correct - which makes the definition of "clutch" even the more
arbitrary.
Which brings me back to my original point:
Players have varying levels of skill. Statistically speaking, a player is
not going to over or under perform his capabilities in any particular
situation. In other words, he is what he is. A career .270 hitter, if you
look at all his at-bats, in any particular situation, you will discover that
he is basically a .270 hitter ... whether there are runners in scoring
position, whether there are two outs, whether it is a night or day game,
whether the temperature is above 90-degrees or below, or whether it's
Tuesday, or whether it's October ...
Sure, any snapshot of his career may produce a season where he seemed like a
particularly good "clutch hitter", but if you take a step back you will
likely see that he had plenty of seasons where he failed to come through in
the clutch, thus evening out his clutch opportunities to about ... .270 ...
his career average.
rm,
You have made the point that baseball should only be viewed as a team
effort. You further made the point that the batter is INDEED "helped" by his
teammates being on base. I still challenge that contention. His teammates
*cannot* help him when he stands in the batter's box and he must rely solely
on his abilities. And this is why, when building a team, you must primarily
look at the individual success of the individual player and SEPARATE it from
the success of failure of the teams on which he played ... because that
interjects the success and failures of his TEAMMATES ... something we should
not be interested in when making a subjective evaluation of abilities.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
|
|
|
| Re: clutch hitting - myth [message #1056790 ] |
Tue, 11 July 2006 17:35 |
|
TheDave=A9 wrote:
> > David Emerling wrote:
> > > > As a tangent to another thread, here is an interesting article
> > > > that addresses "clutch hitting". It has been my opinion, which is
> > > > supported by research, that "clutch hitting" is a myth.
> > >
> > > Virtually everyone in this newsgroup agrees with you. It's been a
> > > non-issue around here for years.
> > >
> > > The problem with this research is that the examples they use are not
> > > examples of a clutch situation. Real "clutch" situations only
> > > happen once or twice in a career and all the batter has to do, to
> > > prove he is a "clutch hitter", is hit just once, in the clutch.
> > >
> > > Joe Carter, Bill Mazeroski, Candy Bar, Kirk Gibson, Bobby Thomson,
> > > all of these guys are known for being clutch hitters because they
> > > hit once in the cluth. Once is all it takes.
> > >
> > > IOW, once or twice in a career, a player has a unique pressue
> > > opportunity in which he can show that he is not a choke. If he
> > > doesn't choke, then he is a clutch hitter.
> > >
> > > Moreover, the clutch situation the player finds himself in, might be
> > > clutch because of all kinds of factors that only the player and
> > > those close to him are aware of. We often don't realize that a real
> > > clutch hit, was a clutch hit, because we weren't close enough to the
> > > player to understand the pressure he was under.
> > >
> > > Claiming that the last two innings of a game, when down 1 or 2 runs,
> > > etc., etc., has absolutely NOTHING to do with clutch hitting. A
> > > clutch hit may just as well happen in the first inning as the 10th.
> > >
> > > cordially, especially to those who don't understand baseball,
> >
> > You're correct - which makes the definition of "clutch" even the more
> > arbitrary.
> >
> > Which brings me back to my original point:
> >
> > Players have varying levels of skill. Statistically speaking, a
> > player is not going to over or under perform his capabilities in any
> > particular situation. In other words, he is what he is. A career .270
> > hitter, if you look at all his at-bats, in any particular situation,
> > you will discover that he is basically a .270 hitter ... whether
> > there are runners in scoring position, whether there are two outs,
> > whether it is a night or day game, whether the temperature is above
> > 90-degrees or below, or whether it's Tuesday, or whether it's October
> > ...
> >
> > Sure, any snapshot of his career may produce a season where he seemed
> > like a particularly good "clutch hitter", but if you take a step back
> > you will likely see that he had plenty of seasons where he failed to
> > come through in the clutch, thus evening out his clutch opportunities
> > to about ... .270 ... his career average.
> >
> > You have made the point that baseball should only be viewed as a team
> > effort. You further made the point that the batter is INDEED "helped"
> > by his teammates being on base. I still challenge that contention.
> > His teammates cannot help him when he stands in the batter's box and
> > he must rely solely on his abilities. And this is why, when building
> > a team, you must primarily look at the individual success of the
> > individual player and SEPARATE it from the success of failure of the
> > teams on which he played ... because that interjects the success and
> > failures of his TEAMMATES ... something we should not be interested
> > in when making a subjective evaluation of abilities.
>
> I disagree with whathisname's notion that clutch hitting situations
> occur only once or twice in a career. It happens way more often than
> that. But, I do agree with the idea that it is not necessarily
> score-based, nor even runners-in-scoring-position based. It's
> dependent on the game situation at the moment, and does have a degree
> of subjectivity. A clutch hit can extend a rally and hold off a third
> out, yet not score a run, for example.
>
> There was a long thread about a year ago where I brought up this
> question, and I used Marco Scutaro and Eric Chavez as examples. Chavez
> is considered the better of the two, and the statistics would seem to
> bear that out. But, true "clutch", I don't believe, can be measures in
> statistics. Some very good arguments were given for the other side,
> but if the game in in doubt, and it's the late innings, I'd still
> rather see Scutaro walk to the plate than Chavez.
The question of what is a clutch situation is the key. If we can't
agree on a defiition of "clutch" then the question "Is there any such
thing as a clutch hitter?" is meaningless. rlm has defined "clutch"
effectively out of existence. Or rather, he has failed to define it,
except indirectly by declaring it to be a very rare thing: so rare
that it would be impossible to quantify. If your ideology is that the
various aspects of baseball cannot be quantified this is a convenient
definition. Is it what is generally meant? Clearly not. Look at,
say, a batter coming to the plate with two outs in the bottom of the
ninth and the bases loaded and down by three runs. If he pops one out
of the park, most people would say that was a clutch hit. But clearly
this is insufficient for an rlm clutch situation, since this sort of
situation occurs far more often than once or twice in a career.
The legitimate criticism of studies such as the one in question is that
they might favor a definition of "clutch" which is easily amenable to
analysis with the data on hand. Just because a definition is
convenient doesn't mean it is also useful, whether the convenience is
for rlm's sake or a stat-head's. It is also clear that there is no
consensus on what "clutch" means. I tend to tune out any discussion of
this sort of thing that doesn't begin with a definition, since without
this the best you can hope for is people talking past one another.
Ricahrd R. Hershberger
|
|
|
| Re: clutch hitting - myth [message #1056795 ] |
Tue, 11 July 2006 19:02 |
|
|
I think there are clutch hits, but no such thing as clutch hitters.
|
|
|
| Re: clutch hitting - myth [message #1056814 ] |
Tue, 11 July 2006 22:29 |
|
Richard R. Hershberger <rrhersh [at] acme.com> trolled:
> The legitimate criticism of studies such as the one in question is
> that they might favor a definition of "clutch" which is easily
> amenable to analysis with the data on hand. Just because a
> definition is convenient doesn't mean it is also useful, whether
> the convenience is for rlm's sake or a stat-head's. It is also
> clear that there is no
The names are "rm" and "statfan."
> consensus on what "clutch" means. I tend to tune out any
> discussion of this sort of thing that doesn't begin with a
> definition, since without this the best you can hope for is people
> talking past one another.
Very good. Now the discussion of what constitutes clutch is
actually far more interesting than figuring out which players are
the most efficient in so-called clutch situations.
Let us just say, for a definition of "clutch", that the clutch hit
(or catch, or pitch, or whatever) leads to a result that is far
greater and more meaningful than simply winning the baseball game.
Players are paid to get hits in the early innings and the late
innings alike. Generally speaking, the players face inferior
pitchers late in the game. So it is ludicrous to call a late inning
hit a "clutch hit" when the players are expected to get his in late
innings just as they are in early innings.
cordially, as always,
rm
|
|
|
| Re: clutch hitting - myth [message #1056825 ] |
Wed, 12 July 2006 00:09 |
|
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Realto Margarino wrote:
> Richard R. Hershberger <rrhersh [at] acme.com> trolled:
>
> > The legitimate criticism of studies such as the one in question is
> > that they might favor a definition of "clutch" which is easily
> > amenable to analysis with the data on hand. Just because a
> > definition is convenient doesn't mean it is also useful, whether
> > the convenience is for rlm's sake or a stat-head's. It is also
> > clear that there is no
>
> The names are "rm" and "statfan."
The names are Maynard, and whatever well-understood term someone
wishes to use, respectively.
> Generally speaking, the players face inferior pitchers late in the game.
A generality that has little bearing on what is being discussed here.
No one is suggesting that the lateness of the inning defines a clutch
situation; the pitcher you'll face in the 9th inning of an 11-5 game
likely will be inferior, but we're not talking about that. In a
batting situation worth being called clutch, the opposing manager
won't be sitting there with his thumb up his realto, but will in the
majority of such cases have put in an adversary worthy of challenge to
the batter. Regardless of whether you agree with the modern/prevailing
relief strategy or not, they don't pick closers or even late inning
specialists at random, you know.
--
John Gregory ashbury at skypoint.com http://www.skypoint.com/ tilde ashbury
Thought for the moment:
I love being a writer. What I can't stand is the paperwork. -- Peter De Vries
|
|
|
| Re: clutch hitting - myth [message #1059458 ] |
Wed, 12 July 2006 19:42 |
|
John Gregory wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006, Realto Margarino wrote:
>
> > Richard R. Hershberger <rrhersh [at] acme.com> trolled:
> >
> > > The legitimate criticism of studies such as the one in question is
> > > that they might favor a definition of "clutch" which is easily
> > > amenable to analysis with the data on hand. Just because a
> > > definition is convenient doesn't mean it is also useful, whether
> > > the convenience is for rlm's sake or a stat-head's. It is also
> > > clear that there is no
> >
> > The names are "rm" and "statfan."
>
> The names are Maynard, and whatever well-understood term someone
> wishes to use, respectively.
>
> > Generally speaking, the players face inferior pitchers late in the game.
>
> A generality that has little bearing on what is being discussed here.
> No one is suggesting that the lateness of the inning defines a clutch
> situation; the pitcher you'll face in the 9th inning of an 11-5 game
> likely will be inferior, but we're not talking about that. In a
> batting situation worth being called clutch, the opposing manager
> won't be sitting there with his thumb up his realto, but will in the
> majority of such cases have put in an adversary worthy of challenge to
> the batter. Regardless of whether you agree with the modern/prevailing
> relief strategy or not, they don't pick closers or even late inning
> specialists at random, you know.
Even apart from this, the quality of pitching isn't the point of
"clutch". It is awareness by the players involved that this is a
critical point. Sure, that single by the leadoff guy in the first
inning may result in the only run of the game, but no one had any
reason at the time to believe that this would be the case. There's no
hero-or-goat quality to the first at-bat of the game, even if it is
game seven of the World Series.
The idea behind "clutch" is that a player can recognize that this is a
critical point of the game and ramp up his performance to meet the
situation (whether because he was a lazy SOB and dogging it previously,
or because he was wisely saving his strength for just such an occasion
doesn't matter for the this discussion).
The flip side to clutch hitting is choking: the player recognizes that
this is a critical situation, and doesn't come through. If the leadoff
guy in the first inning grounds out, and the two and three slot guys
each get singles, no one says therefore that the leadoff choked.
Here's a question: Has anyone done a sabermetic analysis of choking?
If a player with a reputation as a clutch hitter turns out merely to
maintain his average in clutch situations, this still means he doesn't
choke. It just means that clutch situations don't affect him. Has
anyone looked for hitters whose performace drops in clutch situations?
Richard R. Hershberger
|
|
|
| Re: clutch hitting - myth [message #1059460 ] |
Wed, 12 July 2006 21:11 |
|
Richard R. Hershberger <rrhersh [at] acme.com> trolled:
> Here's a question: Has anyone done a sabermetic analysis of choking?
> If a player with a reputation as a clutch hitter turns out merely to
> maintain his average in clutch situations, this still means he doesn't
> choke. It just means that clutch situations don't affect him. Has
> anyone looked for hitters whose performace drops in clutch situations?
As we pointed out earlier, it is impossible to quantify so-called
"clutch situations." Clutch situations occur when much more is at
stake than a single game.
cordially, as always,
rm
|
|
|
| Re: clutch hitting - myth [message #1059468 ] |
Wed, 12 July 2006 22:54 |
|
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Realto Margarino wrote:
> Clutch situations occur when much more is at stake than a single game.
Your definition would be laughed at by any player at a high enough
level that they talk among themselves about the effect nerves have
on the game. One ballgame, hanging in the balance, is high enough
stakes for them, and so it should be plenty high enough for you too.
The flip side of this would be pitching in a pinch, in Matty's old
phrase. He wasn't talking about anything larger than one game, either.
He knew when the game was on the line and he needed to get this guy
out; the batter knew too. Would either opponent's nerves get the
better of him? That's the kind of situation that gets a guy a
reputation for being clutch or not.
--
John Gregory ashbury at skypoint.com http://www.skypoint.com/ tilde ashbury
Thought for the moment:
People don't think I think, but I _do_ think. I think.
|
|
|
| Re: clutch hitting - myth [message #1059469 ] |
Wed, 12 July 2006 23:26 |
|
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Richard R. Hershberger wrote:
> Even apart from this, the quality of pitching isn't the point of
> "clutch".
I agree it's not the point. But in a lot of cases it can be a
pretty good indicator. It's harder to think up a case a player
would call clutch where the pitcher is some guy up recently from
AAA who the league is currently batting .310 against. I guess
I'm saying that if the other team has a muffin in there pitching,
you need to convince me a little harder in some other way why
this particular at-bat is a clutch situation.
> It is awareness by the players involved that this is a
> critical point.
Yes, that's key to me - that it's not just the batter who recognizes
it as clutch. I suppose you could think of a purely batter-centric
situation that *might* be called clutch - his child's got a fever
of 103 and someone smashed his car the night before and he's having
understandable trouble keeping focus, or perhaps he has reason to
believe if he makes an out he's headed for AAA himself. But in
most cases it's a game situation that we call clutch. And in that
case, not only do the batter and pitcher recognize it for what it
is, but also both managers. And, surely, most knowledgeable fans
too; people are leaning forward in their seats to watch this particular
at-bat keenly. It therefore should be possible to name some conditions
that the majority of baseball people would pretty much agree are clutch.
(And, indeed, I believe this has already been done to a reasonable
degree in the studies people have conducted on this topic.)
> The idea behind "clutch" is that a player can recognize that this is a
> critical point of the game and ramp up his performance to meet the
> situation
If, as I believe, most such situations are recognized on all sides,
then it may not even be necessary to ramp things up - he just needs
to stay in control of his own adrenaline, and leave it to the other
guy's jitters to give him some edge.
> (whether because he was a lazy SOB and dogging it previously,
> or because he was wisely saving his strength for just such an occasion
> doesn't matter for the this discussion).
For the reason I just mentioned, it needn't be any of these. He
may simply be better than most at keeping on an even keel.
Mind you, my opinion (which I think is the current mainstream here)
is that by the time a player reaches the majors, this effect has
been mostly weeded out on the negative side. Looking for clutch
effects might be most productively done in Rookie league and single-A
ball. But if it exists, the effect might still be seen in some few
players to a great enough degree to be measured.
> Has
> anyone looked for hitters whose performace drops in clutch situations?
I can't name any studies but I believe the ones I've seen have looked
at the question from both directions, yes. Guys whose performance in
clutch situations (however it is chosen to define them) is an outlier
in one direction in a given season, tends on average to revert to the
norm in the next season, and that is not true of other measures such
as seasonal stats like batting average and home runs.
--
John Gregory ashbury at skypoint.com http://www.skypoint.com/ tilde ashbury
Thought for the moment:
Alas, poor Yorick, he don't look so good.
|
|
|
| Re: clutch hitting - myth [message #1059492 ] |
Thu, 13 July 2006 10:50 |
|
John Gregory <ashbury [at] mirage.skypoint.com> trolled:
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Realto Margarino wrote:
> > Clutch situations occur when much more is at stake than a single
> > game.
> Your definition would be laughed at by any player at a high enough
> level that they talk among themselves about the effect nerves have
> on the game. One ballgame, hanging in the balance, is high enough
> stakes for them, and so it should be plenty high enough for you too.
And you would know this, how?
cordially, as always,
rm
|
|
|
| Re: clutch hitting - myth [message #1059497 ] |
Thu, 13 July 2006 16:13 |
|
John Gregory wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Richard R. Hershberger wrote:
>
> > Even apart from this, the quality of pitching isn't the point of
> > "clutch".
>
> I agree it's not the point. But in a lot of cases it can be a
> pretty good indicator. It's harder to think up a case a player
> would call clutch where the pitcher is some guy up recently from
> AAA who the league is currently batting .310 against. I guess
> I'm saying that if the other team has a muffin in there pitching,
> you need to convince me a little harder in some other way why
> this particular at-bat is a clutch situation.
Bottom of the 23rd inning, down by one run, two outs, a man on second.
Is this a clutch situation? It sure seems like one so far. But wait!
The teams ran through their bullpens long ago, and the guy on the mound
is usually the visiting team's utility outfielder. Is this still
clutch? You tell me.
> > It is awareness by the players involved that this is a
> > critical point.
>
> Yes, that's key to me - that it's not just the batter who recognizes
> it as clutch. I suppose you could think of a purely batter-centric
> situation that *might* be called clutch - his child's got a fever
> of 103 and someone smashed his car the night before and he's having
> understandable trouble keeping focus, or perhaps he has reason to
> believe if he makes an out he's headed for AAA himself. But in
> most cases it's a game situation that we call clutch. And in that
> case, not only do the batter and pitcher recognize it for what it
> is, but also both managers. And, surely, most knowledgeable fans
> too; people are leaning forward in their seats to watch this particular
> at-bat keenly. It therefore should be possible to name some conditions
> that the majority of baseball people would pretty much agree are clutch.
> (And, indeed, I believe this has already been done to a reasonable
> degree in the studies people have conducted on this topic.)
>
> > The idea behind "clutch" is that a player can recognize that this is a
> > critical point of the game and ramp up his performance to meet the
> > situation
>
> If, as I believe, most such situations are recognized on all sides,
> then it may not even be necessary to ramp things up - he just needs
> to stay in control of his own adrenaline, and leave it to the other
> guy's jitters to give him some edge.
>
> > (whether because he was a lazy SOB and dogging it previously,
> > or because he was wisely saving his strength for just such an occasion
> > doesn't matter for the this discussion).
>
> For the reason I just mentioned, it needn't be any of these. He
> may simply be better than most at keeping on an even keel.
I don't think this is your intent, but this is edging toward defining
"clutch" to include merely maintaining one's usual level of
performance. That is to say, merely the absence of choking. I don't
think this is how the idea is generally understood.
> Mind you, my opinion (which I think is the current mainstream here)
> is that by the time a player reaches the majors, this effect has
> been mostly weeded out on the negative side. Looking for clutch
> effects might be most productively done in Rookie league and single-A
> ball. But if it exists, the effect might still be seen in some few
> players to a great enough degree to be measured.
>
> > Has
> > anyone looked for hitters whose performace drops in clutch situations?
>
> I can't name any studies but I believe the ones I've seen have looked
> at the question from both directions, yes. Guys whose performance in
> clutch situations (however it is chosen to define them) is an outlier
> in one direction in a given season, tends on average to revert to the
> norm in the next season, and that is not true of other measures such
> as seasonal stats like batting average and home runs.
That is my (marginally informed) understanding.
Richard R. Hershberger
|
|
|
| Re: clutch hitting - myth [message #1059499 ] |
Thu, 13 July 2006 16:30 |
|
So, is there clutch pitching?
Are closers, by definition, clutch pitchers?
Bottom of the ninth, home team behind by a run with the 3-4-5 hitters
coming up, visiting team puts in their closer. The guy strikes out the
side. Clutch pitching?
|
|
|
| Re: clutch hitting - myth [message #1059501 ] |
Thu, 13 July 2006 16:49 |
|
powrwrap wrote:
> So, is there clutch pitching?
>
> Are closers, by definition, clutch pitchers?
>
> Bottom of the ninth, home team behind by a run with the 3-4-5 hitters
> coming up, visiting team puts in their closer. The guy strikes out the
> side. Clutch pitching?
I think that closers are by definition intended to be clutch pitchers,
and the definition of a save opportunity is intended to reflect clutch
situations. The quality of the definition is another matter, of
course. And since closers are specialists, there isn't much grist for
the statistical mill. How do you compare his performance in clutch vs.
non-clutch situations if he is only put in in clutch situations?
Richard R. Hershberger
|
|
|
| Re: clutch hitting - myth [message #1059502 ] |
Thu, 13 July 2006 17:53 |
|
Richard R. Hershberger <rrhersh [at] acme.com> trolled:
> Bottom of the 23rd inning, down by one run, two outs, a man on
> second. Is this a clutch situation? It sure seems like one so
> far. But wait! The teams ran through their bullpens long ago,
> and the guy on the mound is usually the visiting team's utility
> outfielder. Is this still clutch? You tell me.
It'll be called "clutch" if that utility infielder strikes out the
side (the heart of the order) and his team goes on to win.
> I don't think this is your intent, but this is edging toward
> defining "clutch" to include merely maintaining one's usual level
> of performance. That is to say, merely the absence of choking. I
> don't think this is how the idea is generally understood.
As far as we're concerned, a "clutch" performance is a performance
that goes well beyond the normal.
And since "clutch" is a purely subjective term, we are comfortable
with our definition.
Stat fans like to turn subjective terms into "objective" terms, but
only if it serves their purpose. So if the stat fan wants to prove
that there is no such thing as "clutch" he simply defines "clutch"
in such a way as to ensure that he is going to be "proven" correct.
This is an old story in this newsgroup.
cordially, as always,
rm
|
|
|
| Re: clutch hitting - myth [message #1059503 ] |
Thu, 13 July 2006 17:55 |
|
powrwrap <powrwrap [at] aol.com> trolled:
> So, is there clutch pitching?
> Are closers, by definition, clutch pitchers?
> Bottom of the ninth, home team behind by a run with the 3-4-5 hitters
> coming up, visiting team puts in their closer. The guy strikes out the
> side. Clutch pitching?
There is nothing clutch about the situation you describe, unless it
is the seventh game of the WS, or perhaps a playoff.
cordially, as always,
rm
|
|
|
| Re: clutch hitting - myth [message #1059504 ] |
Thu, 13 July 2006 19:25 |
|
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Richard R. Hershberger wrote:
>
> Bottom of the 23rd inning, down by one run, two outs, a man on second.
> Is this a clutch situation? It sure seems like one so far. But wait!
> The teams ran through their bullpens long ago, and the guy on the mound
> is usually the visiting team's utility outfielder. Is this still
> clutch? You tell me.
I don't know. I suspect this case might draw varied answers from players
themselves, so I'd be reluctant to put it into the "clearly clutch" or
the "clearly non-clutch" or even a "clearly anything" category for
purposes of study. Even though the players want to win, the news stories
I've read of lengthy major league games seem to include a sense of "let's
just get it over with" by the players as much as anyone else. That would
bring a different kind of tension to a batter's trip to the plate - though
his teammates would certainly cheer a home run and might welcome a walk
(which adds a runner without yet tying the game), a simple basehit for the
tie ("a new ballgame!" :) ) would earn a razzing that might not be 100%
good natured.
It (and others similar to it) is a case rare enough that the decision to
include it or exclude it would not affect anyone's study very much.
> I don't think this is your intent, but this is edging toward defining
> "clutch" to include merely maintaining one's usual level of
> performance. That is to say, merely the absence of choking. I don't
> think this is how the idea is generally understood.
Your comment prompts me to ask Mr. Dictionary. The Encarta online
one seems to favor "dependable" but offers two meanings:
Clutch (1)
adjective
Definition:
dependable: dependable, or accomplished at precisely the right moment
I think, in fact, you've put your finger on an important distinction,
one I don't know whether the published studies have tried to separate
into two notions. When one player says another is "clutch", I think
he often means that player remains capable even when the situation
is tight. Conversely, and often, he means that player actually has
a gift for stepping up his production when it's needed. It could be
that the former is important in lower leagues but is hardly a factor
at the major league level; it might be that the latter is exceedingly
rare but does exist at every level but in only a few people and thus
may be hard to detect. Conflating the two concepts could result in
detecting neither.
(Again, my own suspicions lead in a certain direction, but I'm keeping
an open mind here.)
--
John Gregory ashbury at skypoint.com http://www.skypoint.com/ tilde ashbury
Thought for the moment:
The task of an educator should be to irrigate the desert, not clear the forest.
|
|
|
| Re: clutch hitting - myth [message #1059505 ] |
Thu, 13 July 2006 19:36 |
|
John Gregory <ashbury [at] mirage.skypoint.com> trolled:
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Richard R. Hershberger wrote:
>
> > Bottom of the 23rd inning, down by one run, two outs, a man on
> > second. Is this a clutch situation? It sure seems like one so
> > far. But wait! The teams ran through their bullpens long ago,
> > and the guy on the mound is usually the visiting team's utility
> > outfielder. Is this still clutch? You tell me.
> I don't know. I suspect this case might draw varied answers from
> players themselves, so I'd be reluctant to put it into the
> "clearly clutch" or the "clearly non-clutch" or even a "clearly
> anything" category for purposes of study. Even though the players
> want to win, the news stories I've read of lengthy major league
> games seem to include a sense of "let's just get it over with" by
> the players as much as anyone else. That would
Listen up, monkey boy. You don't speak for the players. You don't
have a clue what is going through the players' heads, but for what
you've read, written by the "mediots" that you so despise.
Clutch is subjective. It has a different meaning to every fan and
every player. And that is because it is subjective. Since it is
subjective, it isn't objective, and it can't be determined,
objectively.
Now even a demonstrated moron like yourself ought to be able to
grasp this. Your definition of "clutch" has nothing to do with
anyone else's definition of "clutch."
Now go back to sleep.
cordially, even to small fry,
rm
|
|
|
| Re: clutch hitting - myth [message #1059506 ] |
Thu, 13 July 2006 19:39 |
|
John Gregory wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Richard R. Hershberger wrote:
> >
> > Bottom of the 23rd inning, down by one run, two outs, a man on second.
> > Is this a clutch situation? It sure seems like one so far. But wait!
> > The teams ran through their bullpens long ago, and the guy on the mound
> > is usually the visiting team's utility outfielder. Is this still
> > clutch? You tell me.
>
> I don't know. I suspect this case might draw varied answers from players
> themselves, so I'd be reluctant to put it into the "clearly clutch" or
> the "clearly non-clutch" or even a "clearly anything" category for
> purposes of study. Even though the players want to win, the news stories
> I've read of lengthy major league games seem to include a sense of "let's
> just get it over with" by the players as much as anyone else. That would
> bring a different kind of tension to a batter's trip to the plate - though
> his teammates would certainly cheer a home run and might welcome a walk
> (which adds a runner without yet tying the game), a simple basehit for the
> tie ("a new ballgame!" :) ) would earn a razzing that might not be 100%
> good natured.
>
> It (and others similar to it) is a case rare enough that the decision to
> include it or exclude it would not affect anyone's study very much.
I agree that this sort of thing would be too rare to really affect the
results. I just did it as an exercise in constructing a clutch
situation with weak pitching.
>
> > I don't think this is your intent, but this is edging toward defining
> > "clutch" to include merely maintaining one's usual level of
> > performance. That is to say, merely the absence of choking. I don't
> > think this is how the idea is generally understood.
>
> Your comment prompts me to ask Mr. Dictionary. The Encarta online
> one seems to favor "dependable" but offers two meanings:
>
> Clutch (1)
> adjective
> Definition:
> dependable: dependable, or accomplished at precisely the right moment
>
> I think, in fact, you've put your finger on an important distinction,
> one I don't know whether the published studies have tried to separate
> into two notions. When one player says another is "clutch", I think
> he often means that player remains capable even when the situation
> is tight. Conversely, and often, he means that player actually has
> a gift for stepping up his production when it's needed. It could be
> that the former is important in lower leagues but is hardly a factor
> at the major league level; it might be that the latter is exceedingly
> rare but does exist at every level but in only a few people and thus
> may be hard to detect. Conflating the two concepts could result in
> detecting neither.
>
> (Again, my own suspicions lead in a certain direction, but I'm keeping
> an open mind here.)
For whatever it is worth, my understanding of both common usage and of
statistical studies is that "clutch" is defined as stepping up one's
performance, not merely maintaining it. Do people consider a .260
hitter who is a .260 hitter regardless of the situation to be clutch?
I don't think so, but others may have a different take on it.
Richard R. Hershberger
|
|
|
| Re: clutch hitting - myth [message #1059507 ] |
Thu, 13 July 2006 20:10 |
|
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Realto Margarino wrote:
> As far as we're concerned, a "clutch" performance is a performance
> that goes well beyond the normal.
> And since "clutch" is a purely subjective term, we are comfortable
> with our definition.
Subjective, and constantly changing. Last time I looked you were
limiting "clutch" to situations having impact beyond one game. It
was pointed out to you how asinine that was, and while you denied
that in another reply you seem to have taken it to heart anyway. So
now you broaden the term to many more situations - hitting a fourth homer
in an 11-2 game would be well beyond normal so I guess that's clutch
too in your world. Most players, if asked, would term the third and
fourth homer something like awesome, but not clutch.
I wouldn't mind except that you have a 10+ year track record of doing
this kind of thing to cloud discussion. Do you not understand why
people distrust you?
> Stat fans like to turn subjective terms into "objective" terms, but
> only if it serves their purpose. So if the stat fan wants to prove
> that there is no such thing as "clutch" he simply defines "clutch"
> in such a way as to ensure that he is going to be "proven" correct.
The only one in this thread seeking to be "correct" is you. The rest
of us in this discussion seem to be looking for answers to interesting
questions, such as (I'll synthesize my own take as) "does clutch ability
exist, and if so could one construct a team with the intent that it will
be clutch, in the way we mean that one can construct a team to have good
batting average or good homerun power?". And we start (though it's been
studied before) by first trying to say, such as by defining our terms in
advance, what is and what isn't being looked for. You, on the other hand,
seem to not seek anything but validation, for yourself and for your cockeyed
world view, so you attempt to move the yardsticks whenever it's convenient.
Not that I accept your characterization of stat fans (defined as people
who follow baseball solely for the stats, unless you moved those yardsticks
too) as applied to people here, but that's just more of your semantic games.
--
John Gregory ashbury at skypoint.com http://www.skypoint.com/ tilde ashbury
Thought for the moment:
Degas Vu, the sense that you've seen the same Impressionist painting before.
|
|
|
| Re: clutch hitting - myth [message #1059508 ] |
Thu, 13 July 2006 20:53 |
|
> Realto Margarino wrote:
> > powrwrap <powrwrap [at] aol.com> trolled:
>
> > So, is there clutch pitching?
>
> > Are closers, by definition, clutch pitchers?
>
> > Bottom of the ninth, home team behind by a run with the 3-4-5 hitters
> > coming up, visiting team puts in their closer. The guy strikes out the
> > side. Clutch pitching?
> There is nothing clutch about the situation you describe, unless it
> is the seventh game of the WS, or perhaps a playoff.
>
Listen up, monkey boy. You don't speak for the players. You don't
have a clue what is going through the players' heads, but for what
you've read, written by the "mediots" that you so despise.
Clutch is subjective. It has a different meaning to every fan and
every player. And that is because it is subjective. Since it is
subjective, it isn't objective, and it can't be determined,
objectively.
Now even a demonstrated moron like yourself ought to be able to
grasp this. Your definition of "clutch" has nothing to do with
anyone else's definition of "clutch."
|
|
|
| Re: clutch hitting - myth [message #1059509 ] |
Thu, 13 July 2006 20:58 |
|
John Gregory wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Realto Margarino wrote:
>
> > As far as we're concerned, a "clutch" performance is a performance
> > that goes well beyond the normal.
> > And since "clutch" is a purely subjective term, we are comfortable
> > with our definition.
>
> Subjective, and constantly changing. Last time I looked you were
> limiting "clutch" to situations having impact beyond one game. It
> was pointed out to you how asinine that was, and while you denied
> that in another reply you seem to have taken it to heart anyway. So
> now you broaden the term to many more situations - hitting a fourth homer
> in an 11-2 game would be well beyond normal so I guess that's clutch
> too in your world. Most players, if asked, would term the third and
> fourth homer something like awesome, but not clutch.
>
> I wouldn't mind except that you have a 10+ year track record of doing
> this kind of thing to cloud discussion. Do you not understand why
> people distrust you?
My insight into rlm came when it dawned on me that he isn't actually
interested in baseball, or at least not interested in discussing
baseball. This took me longer than it should have to realize, but it
finally sunk in on a thread where he outright rejected any discussion
of baseball and instead wanted to talk about people's occupations and
ethnicity. The second thing to realize is that, while he doesn't say
things that are actually interesting, he has a knack for saying things
that are provocative. Not provocative in the sense of introducing new
ways of thinking about things, but provocative in the sense of causing
people to react. Generally the best thing is to ignore him. Sometimes
responses to his posts can be interesting. This thread is a good
example. But the odds of this are not good. The more usual pattern is
threads where he flits around the edges of a conversation, like a child
running around while the adults are holding a conversation, until
someone takes the bait with the resulting sub-thread quickly devolving
into irrelevancies.
Richard R. Hershberger
|
|
|
| Re: clutch hitting - myth [message #1059510 ] |
Thu, 13 July 2006 21:15 |
|
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Realto Margarino wrote:
> John Gregory <ashbury [at] mirage.skypoint.com> trolled:
> > On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Realto Margarino wrote:
>
> > > Clutch situations occur when much more is at stake than a single
> > > game.
>
> > Your definition would be laughed at by any player at a high enough
> > level that they talk among themselves about the effect nerves have
> > on the game. One ballgame, hanging in the balance, is high enough
> > stakes for them, and so it should be plenty high enough for you too.
>
> And you would know this, how?
*shrug* Probably no one has been dumb enough to state it that way to
them, so the direct evidence of their laughter may never be available.
I did say "would".
Usually you trim away the parts you don't want to have to defend.
You're slipping.
You could do a web search as easily as I can, but OK, here's a player
at a reasonably high level, talking about the subject of clutch hitting,
specifically his reputation for lack of it:
"I don't take anything personally; I enjoy it, it motivates me and I
think it's comical. I think anyone that drives in over 130 runs numerous
times in his career, it's impossible not to be clutch." -- Alex Rodriguez
Instead of focusing on something "more... than a single game", he is
talking about RBI that may or may not even decide a given game. That
would place you on the wrong track in this discussion.
He says, on the same subject:
"I could care less; in my career, I've been hearing it for a long time.
It will never stop until you win five or six World Series in a row and
hit a Joe Carter home run. I've done a lot of special things in this
game, and for none of that to be considered clutch, it's an injustice."
He is specifically disagreeing with your definition. He's not saying
Joe Carter isn't clutch, he's saying being clutch is much broader.
Source: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=5130
Perhaps you believe these guys make up quotes. *shrug*
OK, I retract the part about players laughing; ARod is annoyed. He
might give you a sardonic laugh, but I can offer no guarantees.
Don't like ARod? Fine, how about Ryan Zimmerman:
"Being in so many of those (clutch situations) is nice because you can
get comfortable. The first couple of times, you feel a little amped up
and maybe do some things you wouldn't want to do. The more and more you
go through it, the more calm you are, and the more composed you are
throughout the whole at-bat."
http://cbs.sportsline.com/mlb/teams/report/WAS/9545618
So many? How often will a rookie have been in batting situations where
"much more is at stake than a single game" on a last place team?
--
John Gregory ashbury at skypoint.com http://www.skypoint.com/ tilde ashbury
Thought for the moment:
Don't just ride the crest, make the waves.
|
|
|
| Re: clutch hitting - myth [message #1059512 ] |
Thu, 13 July 2006 21:42 |
|
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Richard R. Hershberger wrote:
> I don't think this is your intent, but this is edging toward defining
> "clutch" to include merely maintaining one's usual level of
> performance. That is to say, merely the absence of choking. I don't
> think this is how the idea is generally understood.
It's really not my purpose to beat this topic into the ground ("oh?
coulda fooled us" :) ), but in the course of doing Maynard's homework
for him, looking up published quotes, I ran across an interesting
article by a college coach:
http://www.baseball-articles.com/pressure.html
The coach is Jack Stallings of Georgia Southern. I'm sorry to admit
I've never heard of the gentleman.
College ball is a good deal lower-level than the major leagues, where
all the studies I'm aware of have focused. Perhaps the issues of choking
and clutchness are different there. But this guy seems to equate clutch
with the absence of choking:
'A former coach used to say, "When the game is on the line, all I want
is for each player to just do his job." If each player will do his job
normally in a pressure situation, the team will perform well and will
be successful a good percentage ot [sic] the time.
Coming through under pressure is a percentage action. If a hitter is
averaging .333 and gets a hit one time in three clutch situations, he
is performing well in the clutch...normal performance under pressure
is the goal, not super performance.
All too often an athlete gets the reputation as a "great clutch player"
because of one or two performances that got a lot of media attention,
but the truth of the matter is most of the time a "great clutch
performer" is one who performs normally under pressure.'
That's just one guy; but whoever his players were, probably have
adopted his definition of clutch.
Also interesting:
"Pressure is created not by the game situation but by how we look at
it and how we handle it. It is not the situation or someone else making
us tense, it is us!"
He's getting at why it's hard to quantify clutch situations. And,
possibly, why studies so far have found it difficult to demonstrate
clutch performance.
I think, more and more, that applying to college ball or low-minor
ball the same techniques already applied to studying the question of
clutch performance in the majors could be illuminating.
--
John Gregory ashbury at skypoint.com http://www.skypoint.com/ tilde ashbury
Thought for the moment:
When I think of the past it brings back so many memories.
|
|
|
| Re: clutch hitting - myth [message #1059514 ] |
Fri, 14 July 2006 00:33 |
|
John Gregory <ashbury [at] mirage.skypoint.com> trolled:
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Realto Margarino wrote:
> > As far as we're concerned, a "clutch" performance is a performance
> > that goes well beyond the normal.
> > And since "clutch" is a purely subjective term, we are comfortable
> > with our definition.
> Subjective, and constantly changing. Last time I looked you were
> limiting "clutch" to situations having impact beyond one game. It
> was pointed out to you how asinine that was, and while you denied
> that in another reply you seem to have taken it to heart anyway.
> So
We did not deny it in another reply.
> now you broaden the term to many more situations - hitting a
> fourth homer in an 11-2 game would be well beyond normal so I
> guess that's clutch too in your world. Most players, if asked,
> would term the third and fourth homer something like awesome, but
> not clutch.
The point is, "clutch" is subjective. You know it, when you see it,
but it can't be narrowly determined, as you want to do, because
there is no objective definition possible.
So stop trying to define "clutch."
> I wouldn't mind except that you have a 10+ year track record of
> doing this kind of thing to cloud discussion. Do you not
> understand why people distrust you?
People don't distrust us. And far more people read our posts than
bother with yours. And that's because your posts are tedious,
boring, and poorly thought-out.
How many times do you have to be told that "clutch" is subjective?
Anyone with half a clue knows this. And yet you go on, trying to
define it. And your purpose in defining it? Well, you want to
prove clutch hitters do not exist.
Well you're right. There is no such thing as an objective
definition of "clutch" so nobody can prove that it does or does not
exist. Meanwhile, those of us who enjoy the sport know a clutch hit
or pitch or catch, when we see it. And whether you and the other
stooges agree that it is clutch does not matter.
You need a definition of "clutch" because you're a philistine and
you are totally at a loss to the subtlties of the game.
Now once again, g'nite Martha,
cordially, even to the small fry,
rm
|
|
|
| Re: clutch hitting - myth [message #1059515 ] |
Fri, 14 July 2006 00:36 |
|
powrwrap <powrwrap [at] aol.com> trolled:
> > Realto Margarino wrote:
> > > powrwrap <powrwrap [at] aol.com> trolled:
> > > Bottom of the ninth, home team behind by a run with the 3-4-5
> > > hitters coming up, visiting team puts in their closer. The guy
> > > strikes out the side. Clutch pitching?
> > There is nothing clutch about the situation you describe, unless
> > it is the seventh game of the WS, or perhaps a playoff.
[Non Sequitur, deleted]
Some of you guys are truly clueless. We can remember when the
average IQ of posters to this ng was considerably higher than
average. But now, it seems, the group is filled with clowns.
cordially, as always,
rm
|
|
|
| Re: clutch hitting - myth [message #1059516 ] |
Fri, 14 July 2006 00:44 |
|
Richard R. Hershberger <rrhersh [at] acme.com> trolled:
> My insight into rlm came when it dawned on me that he isn't actually
> interested in baseball, or at least not interested in discussing
> baseball.
Who is "rlm?" If you are referring to us, the initials are rm.
In any case, you're only interested in arguing. It doesn't matter
whether the conversation is about baseball because you just want to
argue. Unfortunately, the best that can be said about any of your
arguments is that some of them are specious.
> This took me longer than it should have to realize, but it finally
> sunk in on a thread where he outright rejected any discussion of
> baseball and instead wanted to talk about people's occupations and
> ethnicity.
We have been involved in far more baseball discussions than you,
pipsqueak. It may come as a shock to you but oldtimers will confirm
that _nothing_ you have ever said in this newsgroup is new in any
way. Everything you have said and will say has been said, many,
many, times before.
And that includes your silly attempts to anal-yze us.
> The second thing to realize is that, while he doesn't say things
> that are actually interesting, he has a knack for saying things
> that are provocative.
Things that are provocative, are interesting. By definition, you
dumb shit.
> Not provocative in the sense of introducing new ways of thinking
> about things, but provocative in the sense of causing people to
> react.
Can you cite us a single instance where you have added _anything_
new to this ng? Your opinions, such as they are, are all typical,
and hackneyed, pseudo statfan nonsense.
> Generally the best thing is to ignore him.
Gee, that's new and clever. It's only been said 1,000 times before.
And yet here we are, being provocative - and interesting - while you
spew out, proudly, the same cliches as every other idiot that buys
the Bill James package.
> Sometimes responses to his posts can be interesting. This thread
> is a good example. But the odds of this are not good. The more
> usual pattern is threads where he flits around the edges of a
> conversation, like a child running around while the adults are
> holding a conversation, until someone takes the bait with the
> resulting sub-thread quickly devolving into irrelevancies.
Oh, gee, you called us a child! That's only been said about 1500
times before. You bring nothing new to the conversation.
PLONKED for 28 days.
cordially, as always,
rm
|
|
|
| Re: clutch hitting - myth [message #1059517 ] |
Fri, 14 July 2006 00:54 |
|
John Gregory <ashbury [at] mirage.skypoint.com> trolled:
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Realto Margarino wrote:
> > John Gregory <ashbury [at] mirage.skypoint.com> trolled:
> > > On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Realto Margarino wrote:
> >
> > > > Clutch situations occur when much more is at stake than a single
> > > > game.
> >
> > > Your definition would be laughed at by any player at a high
> > > enough level that they talk among themselves about the effect
> > > nerves have on the game. One ballgame, hanging in the
> > > balance, is high enough stakes for them, and so it should be
> > > plenty high enough for you too.
> >
> > And you would know this, how?
> *shrug* Probably no one has been dumb enough to state it that way
> to them, so the direct evidence of their laughter may never be
> available. I did say "would".
And just how _would_ you know what players _would_ or _would not_
laugh at?
> Usually you trim away the parts you don't want to have to defend.
> You're slipping.
No, we didn't trim anything away. How _would_ you know what MLB
players _would_ laugh at?
We're not slipping at all. That's just a silly posturing device.
You're a poser.
Now, poser, how _would_ you know what major league players _would_
laugh at?
> You could do a web search as easily as I can, but OK, here's a
> player at a reasonably high level, talking about the subject of
> clutch hitting, specifically his reputation for lack of it:
> "I don't take anything personally; I enjoy it, it motivates me and
> I think it's comical. I think anyone that drives in over 130 runs
> numerous times in his career, it's impossible not to be clutch."
> -- Alex Rodriguez
Now this was told to a "mediot" by a player trying to come up with
something to say.
> Instead of focusing on something "more... than a single game", he is
> talking about RBI that may or may not even decide a given game. That
> would place you on the wrong track in this discussion.
You don't know what the fuck he is talking about, or if he even said
any of this.
> "I could care less; in my career, I've been hearing it for a long time.
> It will never stop until you win five or six World Series in a row and
> hit a Joe Carter home run. I've done a lot of special things in this
> game, and for none of that to be considered clutch, it's an injustice."
> He is specifically disagreeing with your definition. He's not saying
> Joe Carter isn't clutch, he's saying being clutch is much broader.
And we said that _everybody_ has their own definition of clutch, you
stupid, stupid, little man.
And because everybody has a different definition of clutch, no
objective determination of what "clutch" means can be established.
Do you understand this? Or are you going to tell us we're
"slipping" or some such?
Everybody, including you, us, ARod, and Hershheimer, all have
different definitions of what "clutch" is. And that is why no
objective determination can be made.
Now, please, bugger off. You're a poser with intermediate baseball
knowledge and novice arguing ability.
cordially, as always,
rm
|
|
|
| Re: clutch hitting - myth [message #1059520 ] |
Fri, 14 July 2006 02:33 |
|
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Realto Margarino wrote:
> Everybody, including you, us, ARod, and Hershheimer, all have
> different definitions of what "clutch" is.
That's like saying Toronto, Manahattan, Brooklyn, and Queens are all
part of New York City because no two are exactly in the same location
and so must be equally near to each other. Hint: you're the one in
Toronto, way out there in this discussion, and large differences do
matter more than small ones. Fuzzing things up, and then saying it's
all the same anyway, is one of your stocks in trade.
If you wish to discount what major leaguers choose to say about the
subject, and then claim you opinion is as good as theirs, as you have
done here, then there's not much point is listening to you.
> And that is why no objective determination can be made.
Plenty of quantifiable progress has been made dealing with the human
element, where no objective determination (by any standard you would
ever accept) can be made at the outset. Queueing theory isn't held
back by an inability to predict precisely when Joe Customer will walk
in to the bank. Targeted marketing campaigns succeed in making money
where precise data is elusive. Yet the standard of objective proof *you*
hold baseball discussion to is absolute. Either you are disingenuous,
or you really don't understand how statistics are used in the world.
Nobody waits for an objective determination.
Anyway, it's remarkable that you have such a problem with the idea of
looking for what most ballplayers agree they mean when they say "that
guy is [or isn't] clutch". They seem to understand each other well
enough.
You're so busy trying to read people's minds and tell us what we're
thinking (for instance why ARod said what he said in an interview),
that you haven't even noticed that this present discussion is poking
around at why clutch hitting might have been missed in studies done
so far. It pleases you for some reason to believe that someone wants
clutch hitting not to exist or to be important in the majors; it
confounds you that someone might not have a preference either way.
--
John Gregory ashbury at skypoint.com http://www.skypoint.com/ tilde ashbury
Thought for the moment:
There is so much sand in Northern Africa that if it were spread out
it would completely cover the Sahara Desert.
|
|
|
| Re: clutch hitting - myth [message #1059521 ] |
Fri, 14 July 2006 03:28 |
|
And you,little girl, are the chief clown.
Realto Margarino wrote:
>
> Some of you guys are truly clueless. We can remember when the
> average IQ of posters to this ng was considerably higher than
> average. But now, it seems, the group is filled with clowns.
>
> cordially, as always,
>
> rm
|
|
|
| Re: clutch hitting - myth [message #1059556 ] |
Sat, 15 July 2006 02:33 |
|
On Thu, 13 Jul 2006, Realto Margarino wrote:
> So stop trying to define "clutch."
This is great. You come full circle from saying it's a good topic
to it's a bad topic; from saying it's definable but rare to saying
it's definable but broader ("beyond the normal"?) to saying it's
not definable so don't try. Congratulations, you did manage to
stick to your guns for a couple of posts in a row:
+ Mon, Jul 10 2006 11:29 am
+ Real "clutch" situations only happen once or twice in a _career_ ...
+ IOW, once or twice in a career, a player has a unique pressue
+ opportunity in which he can show that he is not a choke. If he
+ doesn't choke, then he is a clutch hitter.
+
+ Tues, Jul 11 2006 1:29 pm
+ Very good. Now the discussion of what constitutes clutch is
+ actually far more interesting than figuring out which players are
+ the most efficient in so-called clutch situations.
+ Let us just say, for a definition of "clutch", that the clutch hit
+ (or catch, or pitch, or whatever) leads to a result that is far
+ greater and more meaningful than simply winning the baseball game.
+
+ Wed, Jul 12 2006 12:11 pm
+ As we pointed out earlier, it is impossible to quantify so-called
+ "clutch situations." Clutch situations occur when much more is at
+ stake than a single game.
+
+ Thurs, Jul 13 2006 8:53 am
+ As far as we're concerned, a "clutch" performance is a performance
+ that goes well beyond the normal.
+
+ Thurs, Jul 13 2006 3:54 pm
+ And because everybody has a different definition of clutch, no
+ objective determination of what "clutch" means can be established.
+ Everybody, including you, us, ARod, and Hershheimer, all have
+ different definitions of what "clutch" is.
+
+ Thurs, Jul 13 2006 3:33 pm
+ So stop trying to define "clutch."
You termed it an interesting topic only so long as you thought
you'd get to do the defining. Funny how you changed your tune
when confronted with what a couple of major leaguers had to say.
> > Do you not understand why people distrust you?
>
> People don't distrust us.
Perhaps you are right. "View you with contempt" is more like it.
My apologies.
And yes, you are slipping. You used to remember to post in a
fashion that Google didn't archive, making it harder to demonstrate
your weaseling when someone works at keeping you on topic.
--
John Gregory ashbury at skypoint.com http://www.skypoint.com/ tilde ashbury
Thought for the moment:
The harder I work, the more luck I seem to have. -- Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
| Re: clutch hitting - myth [message #1059604 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 18:18 |
|
"John Gregory" <ashbury [at] mirage.skypoint.com> wrote in message
news:20060712160159.Q44927 [at] mirage.skypoint.com...
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Richard R. Hershberger wrote:
>
>> Even apart from this, the quality of pitching isn't the point of
>> "clutch".
>
> I agree it's not the point. But in a lot of cases it can be a
> pretty good indicator. It's harder to think up a case a player
> would call clutch where the pitcher is some guy up recently from
> AAA who the league is currently batting .310 against. I guess
> I'm saying that if the other team has a muffin in there pitching,
> you need to convince me a little harder in some other way why
> this particular at-bat is a clutch situation.
>
>> It is awareness by the players involved that this is a
>> critical point.
>
> Yes, that's key to me - that it's not just the batter who recognizes
> it as clutch. I suppose you could think of a purely batter-centric
> situation that *might* be called clutch - his child's got a fever
> of 103 and someone smashed his car the night before and he's having
> understandable trouble keeping focus, or perhaps he has reason to
> believe if he makes an out he's headed for AAA himself. But in
> most cases it's a game situation that we call clutch. And in that
> case, not only do the batter and pitcher recognize it for what it
> is, but also both managers. And, surely, most knowledgeable fans
> too; people are leaning forward in their seats to watch this particular
> at-bat keenly. It therefore should be possible to name some conditions
> that the majority of baseball people would pretty much agree are clutch.
> (And, indeed, I believe this has already been done to a reasonable
> degree in the studies people have conducted on this topic.)
>
>> The idea behind "clutch" is that a player can recognize that this is a
>> critical point of the game and ramp up his performance to meet the
>> situation
>
> If, as I believe, most such situations are recognized on all sides,
> then it may not even be necessary to ramp things up - he just needs
> to stay in control of his own adrenaline, and leave it to the other
> guy's jitters to give him some edge.
>
>> (whether because he was a lazy SOB and dogging it previously,
>> or because he was wisely saving his strength for just such an occasion
>> doesn't matter for the this discussion).
>
> For the reason I just mentioned, it needn't be any of these. He
> may simply be better than most at keeping on an even keel.
>
> Mind you, my opinion (which I think is the current mainstream here)
> is that by the time a player reaches the majors, this effect has
> been mostly weeded out on the negative side. Looking for clutch
> effects might be most productively done in Rookie league and single-A
> ball. But if it exists, the effect might still be seen in some few
> players to a great enough degree to be measured.
>
>> Has
>> anyone looked for hitters whose performace drops in clutch situations?
>
> I can't name any studies but I believe the ones I've seen have looked
> at the question from both directions, yes. Guys whose performance in
> clutch situations (however it is chosen to define them) is an outlier
> in one direction in a given season, tends on average to revert to the
> norm in the next season, and that is not true of other measures such
> as seasonal stats like batting average and home runs.
>
> --
> John Gregory ashbury at skypoint.com http://www.skypoint.com/ tilde
> ashbury
> Thought for the moment:
> Alas, poor Yorick, he don't look so good.
I heartedly agree with how all athletes and intelligent fans have a sense of
a clutch situation even though an empirical definition might be elusive or
not satisfy every individual. I'm not so sure there is any need to have a
strict definition other than the need to quantify it with mathematical
analysis - which would require *some* kind of definition whereas. In such
case, one definition might be just as good as another.
1964 Justice Potter Stewart was trying to articulate a definition of
hardcore pornography. In frustration and a loss for word, he said, "I know
it when I see it."
I think the same can be said about clutch situations. Without the need to
form a strict definition, there is electricity in the air that everybody
feels; the batter, pitcher, managers, and fans. It is almost palatable.
Although the fans have been seated for the entire game, now, for some
inexplicable reason, they all standup in unison. Although most pitches have
been made with only token notice while people went about their business of
eating hotdogs, drinking beer, and taking a quick restroom break ... all of
a sudden, everything goes into suspended animation. Even the vendors freeze
and focus on the field. All casual conversations have ceased.
I have played chess for many years. When two good chessplayers exchange
moves, the opening moves go rather quickly and things are not too stressful.
And then there comes a point where there is this "sense of danger". The game
is going to jump off the tracks and something very good or very bad is about
to happen. Whether it is good or bad is uncertain, but one thing is for
sure, the complexion of the game is about to take a radical turn. And *both*
players share this moment.
I think the same can be said about sports. Baseball is not unique in this
regard.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
|
|
|
| Re: clutch hitting - myth [message #1059605 ] |
Sun, 16 July 2006 18:29 |
|
"Realto Margarino" <rm [at] youasked.org> wrote in message
news:Z%ttg.109687$az.66750 [at] fe04.news.easynews.com...
> Richard R. Hershberger <rrhersh [at] acme.com> trolled:
>
>> Bottom of the 23rd inning, down by one run, two outs, a man on
>> second. Is this a clutch situation? It sure seems like one so
>> far. But wait! The teams ran through their bullpens long ago,
>> and the guy on the mound is usually the visiting team's utility
>> outfielder. Is this still clutch? You tell me.
>
> It'll be called "clutch" if that utility infielder strikes out the
> side (the heart of the order) and his team goes on to win.
>
>> I don't think this is your intent, but this is edging toward
>> defining "clutch" to include merely maintaining one's usual level
>> of performance. That is to say, merely the absence of choking. I
>> don't think this is how the idea is generally understood.
>
> As far as we're concerned, a "clutch" performance is a performance
> that goes well beyond the normal.
I think you are confusing "clutch" with "great play." They are not
necessarily the same thing.
A clutch performance, out the clutch context, could actually be a rather
mundane achievement.
Emblazoned in my mind is Edgar Renteria's little 2-out, 11th inning, poke
out into centerfield to drive in the winning run in the 7th game of the 1997
World Series against the heavily favored Cleveland Indians. Such a hit is
actually rather routine and it certainly wouldn't be anything special OTHER
than the fact that it was the game winner ... in extra innings ... in the
7th game of the World Series.
When Renteria left the on-deck circle and entered the batter's box, I think
*everybody* understood that this was a clutch moment. And to this day,
almost no discussion of Reteria fails to mention this "routine" base hit he
got in 1997. It will probably be on his tombstone; sort of an inverse Bill
Buckner moment.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
|
|
|
| Re: clutch hitting - myth [message #1087102 ] |
Mon, 17 July 2006 06:40 |
|
In article <1152812378.854749.171020 [at] 35g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Richard R. Hershberger" <rrhersh [at] acme.com> wrote:
> Do people consider a .260
> hitter who is a .260 hitter regardless of the situation to be clutch?
The probably do the 26% of the time he gets a hit.
--
Hank Gillette
"A general rule of thumb when it comes to looking for love in the modern world
is to stop being so picky. If you include your nightmares, the person of your
dreams is within your reach." -- Carina Chocano
|
|
|
| Re: clutch hitting - myth [message #1087105 ] |
Mon, 17 July 2006 12:37 |
|
Hank Gillette <hankgillette [at] yahoo.com> trolled:
> "Richard R. Hershberger" <rrhersh [at] acme.com> wrote:
> > Do people consider a .260 hitter who is a .260 hitter regardless
> > of the situation to be clutch?
> The probably do the 26% of the time he gets a hit.
Since you're only a pseudo statfan, and not so sharp for a Gillette,
you wouldn't know that a .260 hitter may, or may not, get a hit 26%
of the time. If he goes 5-5 tomorrow, he may be a .270 hitter. Or
he may be a .255 hitter.
And so on.
cordially, as always,
rm
|
|
|
| Re: clutch hitting - myth [message #1087106 ] |
Mon, 17 July 2006 15:59 |
|
David Emerling wrote:
> "Realto Margarino" <rm [at] youasked.org> wrote in message
> news:Z%ttg.109687$az.66750 [at] fe04.news.easynews.com...
> > Richard R. Hershberger <rrhersh [at] acme.com> trolled:
> >
> >> Bottom of the 23rd inning, down by one run, two outs, a man on
> >> second. Is this a clutch situation? It sure seems like one so
> >> far. But wait! The teams ran through their bullpens long ago,
> >> and the guy on the mound is usually the visiting team's utility
> >> outfielder. Is this still clutch? You tell me.
> >
> > It'll be called "clutch" if that utility infielder strikes out the
> > side (the heart of the order) and his team goes on to win.
> >
> >> I don't think this is your intent, but this is edging toward
> >> defining "clutch" to include merely maintaining one's usual level
> >> of performance. That is to say, merely the absence of choking. I
> >> don't think this is how the idea is generally understood.
> >
> > As far as we're concerned, a "clutch" performance is a performance
> > that goes well beyond the normal.
>
> I think you are confusing "clutch" with "great play." They are not
> necessarily the same thing.
>
> A clutch performance, out the clutch context, could actually be a rather
> mundane achievement.
>
> Emblazoned in my mind is Edgar Renteria's little 2-out, 11th inning, poke
> out into centerfield to drive in the winning run in the 7th game of the 1997
> World Series against the heavily favored Cleveland Indians. Such a hit is
> actually rather routine and it certainly wouldn't be anything special OTHER
> than the fact that it was the game winner ... in extra innings ... in the
> 7th game of the World Series.
>
> When Renteria left the on-deck circle and entered the batter's box, I think
> *everybody* understood that this was a clutch moment. And to this day,
> almost no discussion of Reteria fails to mention this "routine" base hit he
> got in 1997. It will probably be on his tombstone; sort of an inverse Bill
> Buckner moment.
Taking this thought a bit further, working the plate appearance for a
walk can be clutch, if it is the bottom of the ninth, with a tie score
and the bases loaded. What matters is getting the job done in a clutch
situation, not getting it done in a flashy manner.
Richard R. Hershberger
|
|
|
| Re: clutch hitting - myth [message #1087107 ] |
Mon, 17 July 2006 16:42 |
|
Richard R. Hershberger <rrhersh [at] acme.com> trolled:
> Taking this thought a bit further, working the plate appearance
> for a walk can be clutch, if it is the bottom of the ninth, with a
> tie score and the bases loaded. What matters is getting the job
> done in a clutch situation, not getting it done in a flashy
> manner.
Nonsense. This would be a matter of the pitcher choking rather than
the batter coming through in the clutch.
cordially, as always,
rm
|
|
|
| Re: clutch hitting - myth [message #1087108 ] |
Mon, 17 July 2006 16:50 |
|
Realto Margarino wrote:
> Richard R. Hershberger <rrhersh [at] acme.com> trolled:
>
> > Taking this thought a bit further, working the plate appearance
> > for a walk can be clutch, if it is the bottom of the ninth, with a
> > tie score and the bases loaded. What matters is getting the job
> > done in a clutch situation, not getting it done in a flashy
> > manner.
>
> Nonsense. This would be a matter of the pitcher choking rather than
> the batter coming through in the clutch.
>
> cordially, as always,
>
> rm
I see that when, in this posting:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.baseball/msg/10f8bf 2de99cb15c?hl=en&
you claimed that you were plonking me you were lying about that, too.
This is just sad.
|
|
|
| Re: clutch hitting - myth [message #1087109 ] |
Mon, 17 July 2006 17:22 |
|
"Realto Margarino" <rm [at] youasked.org> wrote in message
news:qlNug.131612$RW2.65988 [at] fe05.news.easynews.com...
> Richard R. Hershberger <rrhersh [at] acme.com> trolled:
>
>> Taking this thought a bit further, working the plate appearance
>> for a walk can be clutch, if it is the bottom of the ninth, with a
>> tie score and the bases loaded. What matters is getting the job
>> done in a clutch situation, not getting it done in a flashy
>> manner.
>
> Nonsense. This would be a matter of the pitcher choking rather than
> the batter coming through in the clutch.
>
> cordially, as always,
>
> rm
You simply disagree with everything, don't you?
What if the count goes full, after missing with some close pitches and
trying to hit some corners, and then the batter fouls off 4 or 5 pitches? A
9-pitch at-bat, resulting in a walk, would cause almost NOBODY to say that
the pitcher choked, rather, that the batter EARNED that walk. Well - except
you. But then again, you take exception to just about everything ... which
should make you pause and wonder why all your views are expressed like a
person yelling at the top of his lungs, all alone, on a mountain top.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Wed Jan 7 19:25:18 CET 2009
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0.27076 Sekunden |
