Clutch vs non-clutch

[mvp 78]

It's like Communism. A great idea on paper that was never designed to actually be implemented in realtime, every time it's tried the people trying it wind up wishing they hadn't, and that never stops its proponents from objecting that it has never been "done right" or given a fair test.

Wrong!

[Dojji]

Socialism, then

[Bellhorn04]

I'm saying that Miller proves my point, not yours. He was not doing his job alone, Miller was the front man in a deep bullpen. And it was the depth of the bullpen, not Miller's performance specifically, that told the tale and made the difference in the playoffs for the Tribe.

Also, Miller wasn't the only good man in that bullpen, the rank and file of the Indians pen deserves more credit than it gets. Cleveland had one of the best bullpens in baseball from top to bottom. To call it the Miller show in any way is pure and absolute disrespect to the rest of that very deep and effective pen that virtually carried the team to within 1 run of a World Series win.

If he hadn't had a good rank and file pen around him, it wouldn't have mattered what role he played, the opposing teams, including our Sox, would have simply played around the innings he happened to work, as happens all to often in shallow bullpens.

The Indians got as far as they did because they had a deep bullpen, led by Miller and Allen. The decision of whether Miller or any one of 4 other relievers should have closed is utterly academic and pointless because either way you would have both a good closer and a good stable of middle innings .

So you look to Miller as a validation of the dead, buried, subsumed and rapidly turning into petroleum Relief Ace model, I see the truth -- a good, deep bullpen that made a large impact in the playoffs and sports media blatherskite notwithstanding, was NOT defined by any one member's performance.

Of course I never said Miller was the only good reliever in that pen.

Here are the actual numbers for the 2016 postseason:

Miller 19.1 IP 1.40 ERA
Allen 13.2 IP 0.00 ERA
Shaw 10.1 IP 4.35 ERA
Otero 6.2 IP 2.70 ERA
Clevenger 5.2 IP 4.76 ERA

If you look at the game logs, in every late and close situation it was Miller, Shaw and Allen.

Miller was indeed the relief ace, logging a huge number of innings. Allen was the lights-out closer. Those are the two guys that did it. The rest were okay.

[Kimmi]

I don't think there's any question that baseball is the hardest sport to identify clutch because randomness is such a factor.

But if it exists in other major sports it seems credible that it also exists in baseball. Maybe the discussion of clutch should also be looking at other sports. Why would baseball be different?

S5 was talking about the kid making the 2 free throws at the end of the game. I wonder if clutch free throw shooting stats in the NBA have ever been looked at.

Does clutch exist in other sports?

If you define clutch as the ability not to choke under pressure, than I can agree that clutch exists, even in baseball. In that case, however, I would consider pretty much all MLBers as being clutch, as I've said before.

If you define clutch as the ability to raise one's performance/ability to a level where it normally isn't, then I do not think it exists. Yes, one can have a clutch moment, but it is not a repeatable skill.

In terms of the young kid making the free throws, he absolutely gets credit for not choking under pressure. But did he raise his ability to a whole new level in that moment? I don't think so.

I honestly don't know what kind of research has been done on clutch in other sports, but it would be interesting to know what their findings are, if the research does indeed exist.

[Kimmi]

This whole discussion kinda-sorta goes to something I've wondered about and even asked at one point.

Aren't we tacitly acknowledging that "clutch" exists when we insist on having a lights-out closer for the 9th inning? Doesn't that imply that there's a real possibility that the hitters in the 9th inning can "turn it up a notch" when necessary?

No, I don't think that's the case at all. We bring in our lights out closer in the 9th inning because if the opposition scores in the 9th, the win probability of the game changes drastically.

I understand that relief pitchers like to have defined roles, and there is also a concern about getting a closer up in earlier innings then not using him, but IMO, the lights out closer should be used earlier in the game if the situation calls for it.

A good 7th inning reliever could get the job done in the 9th most of the time.

[Kimmi]

I've probably posted this before, but what you're saying goes back to what Bill James has said - that teams should use their best relief pitcher situationally. Games are often lost in the 6th, 7th, or 8th innings off the middle relievers while the closer sits on the bench. James says that teams shouldn't hesitate to use their best reliever in their highest pressure situations regardless of the inning.

The Cubs had the luxury of having both Miller and a "real closer" so they could use Miller in tight situations but Miller being as effective as he was may have lessened the need for that "real closer".

I agree with this.

[Kimmi]

No. What we're saying is that we want one of our most consistent relievers in the 9th inning because a lead blown in the 9th is the hardest of all blown leads to recover from due to having the least time. So putting your stingiest run-allower in the position where giving up a run would go worst for you just makes sense statistically and logically.

That is the reason why it's done, but I'm not sure it makes the most sense either statistically or logically.

[Kimmi]

I would maintain that it makes sense to put your stingiest run-allower in the game when the chance of giving up the most runs is the greatest. What's going on now is CYA mode for the managers. This enables them to say, "Ya, we fell behind by two runs in the 7th but I wanted to hold off my closer to the 9th in case we came back". Wouldn't it make at least as much sense to keep the team from falling behind in the 7th?

Tito had done things in the past that defied past baseball logic and made them work. It's going to be interesting to see if other FO's and managers follow up on what the Indians did during the 2016 playoffs.

Agreed. Oftentimes the real 'save' situation occurs in the 7th or the 8th inning. It seems kind of illogical to save your closer for a save situation in the 9th that may never come. Use him when the game is really on the line.

[Kimmi]

I don't like comparisons to other sports, especially basketball. And especially free throws, where the game physically stops abd all eyes are on one player when the rest of the game is fast-paced action/reaction.. Potential clutch at bats in baseball go through the same process as all other at bats.

And while players are human, you can't argue successfully all hitters put less weightand less effort and feel less ppressure in "non-clutch" at bats. For a lot of them, hitting .300 or whatever, it doesn't matter where the hits come from.

Especially for hitters, baseball is a game of failures. The difference in batting averages is very little from top to bottom. Clutch could just as easily be an illusion creased by remembering big hits in big situations, because we expect even the best hitters top make outs 70% of the time anyway. So those can be discounted.

If you look at most of the hitters you think of as clutch, you will find for the most part, they are also the flat out better hitters.

That pretty much defines your 'clutch' hitters. They hit well in clutch situations because they are good hitters, period.

[mvp 78]

Socialism, then

Wrong!

[Bellhorn04]

If you define clutch as the ability not to choke under pressure, than I can agree that clutch exists, even in baseball. In that case, however, I would consider pretty much all MLBers as being clutch, as I've said before.

I think that's the definition us 'clutch' believers have pretty much reached a consensus on.

All MLBers may be clutch, to have gotten that far, but are they all equally clutch? And does reaching the big leagues prepare you for playing with your team's season on the line?

[Bellhorn04]

That pretty much defines your 'clutch' hitters. They hit well in clutch situations because they are good hitters, period.

We're going round in circles, but you're not addressing the question of why not all good hitters hit well in clutch situations.

Hall of Famer Jeff Bagwell had a .948 career OPS, but only .685 in the postseason. Because he's such a good hitter, shouldn't he have almost automatically hit well in clutch situations?

[Dojji]

If you look at the game logs, in every late and close situation it was Miller, Shaw and Allen.

Exactly. A deep bullpen. Miller was the ace of the bullpen, but "relief ace" and specifically tying it back to the long-since-dead rival to the closer model, are both real stretches.

Miller was indeed the relief ace, logging a huge number of innings. Allen was the lights-out closer. Those are the two guys that did it. The rest were okay.

In other words, exactly what I've been saying. The correct answer to the relief ace v closer model is "why are you asking such a stupid question? Of course you have both on an ideal roster."

Which guy you put where is mostly a matter of window dressing.

[cp176]

I think that's the definition us 'clutch' believers have pretty much reached a consensus on.

All MLBers may be clutch, to have gotten that far, but are they all equally clutch? And does reaching the big leagues prepare you for playing with your team's season on the line?

My opinion would be that most of us who believe in things like "clutch players" know that it is not really something you can not define. Not everything needs to be defined. It is just one of those things.

[S5Dewey]

Does clutch exist in other sports?

If you define clutch as the ability to raise one's performance/ability to a level where it normally isn't, then I do not think it exists. Yes, one can have a clutch moment, but it is not a repeatable skill.

In terms of the young kid making the free throws, he absolutely gets credit for not choking under pressure. But did he raise his ability to a whole new level in that moment? I don't think so.

I'm giving my head a good hard shake here. It sounds like you're saying that you can buy into the mental aspect of a game affecting a player's performance in a negative way but not in a positive way. Why would that be?

If he didn't raise his game to a whole new level, was his making two in a row the product of randomness?