The stat geeks have admitted that one of the problems with 'proving' whether clutch exists or not is that clutch has not been clearly defined. What might be considered clutch to one person might not be clutch to another. Also, there are varying degrees of clutch moments.Originally Posted by cp176
It's not only plausible, but it is true that some hitters are better than average in the clutch. But is that because they are clutch or is it because they are lucky?
I would think that it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to define something like this. It might be why we hear (and I use) we know it when we see it. Sometimes you can even feel it. Once again, these types of things that are not clearly defined make the games special for me. I mentioned pycho-cybenetics to you a while ago. The great NBA scorer Bob McAdoo quite often used to go through his pre-practice shooting routine without a basketball. He believed that mentally he saw himself scoring which enabled him to actually score - he sure did!
There is something that goes on during big moments. I have experienced it myself. I just hesitate to call it clutch, or more accurately, I hesitate to say that some players have a clutch quality. It is not a repeatable skill and it has no predictive value.
It's similar to momentum.
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.
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?
It's a mere moment in a man's life between the All-Star game and the Old Timer's game.
-Vin Scully
That may be part of it. The other big factor, though, is that the 9th inning is considered the most important inning, the highest-leverage inning, the inning where the game is most on the line. The postseason does seem to raise the value of the closer, although this past postseason also showed that in today's game, a guy like Andrew Miller who doesn't pitch the 9th can also be a huge weapon.
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?
Maybe they are just important outs to get.
Whether it's true or not, there is definitely a perception that some pitchers who are good in the seventh or eighth inning aren't really built to handle the pressure of being the closer.
Yes -
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".
It's a mere moment in a man's life between the All-Star game and the Old Timer's game.
-Vin Scully
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.
If history tells us anything, the path to redeption for any bad baseball team is marked with a deep rotation of durable starters, a world class defense in both infield and outfield, a lineup that can generate runs in more than one way, a bullpen that won't steal defeat from the jaws of victory, and a top end catcher to hold the whole package together. These are the conditions by which victory is achieved, anything that does not accomplish these objectives is a waste of resources.
I've always maintained that this is a pointless conversation.
THere are three possibilities for a team -- they can either have zero, 1, or more than 1 good relievers.
If you have more than 1 good reliever the whole thing is moot because you have a guy for both jobs.
If you have only 1 good reliever, the whole thing is moot -- close with him, you're screwed in middle innings, use him in middle innings you're screwed at the end of the game.
If you have 0 good relievers, the whole thing is moot -- you have no good relievers so your bullpen sucks.
At no point in this conversation is the conversation in general actually worth having.
If history tells us anything, the path to redeption for any bad baseball team is marked with a deep rotation of durable starters, a world class defense in both infield and outfield, a lineup that can generate runs in more than one way, a bullpen that won't steal defeat from the jaws of victory, and a top end catcher to hold the whole package together. These are the conditions by which victory is achieved, anything that does not accomplish these objectives is a waste of resources.
Dojji, there is some merit in your point but you're oversimplifying.
Good teams now generally have at least 3 relievers that could be classified as good.
Let's look at the 2016 Indians.
Their top 3 relievers, the guys that Francona used as much as possible in the postseason, were Miller, Allen and Shaw.
You could call Miller Mr. Excellent - 1.45 ERA for the season
Call Allen Mr. Very Good - 2.51 ERA
Call Shaw Mr. Good - 3.24 ERA
The traditional way to employ these 3 guys would be to use Mr. Good, then Mr. Very Good, then Mr. Excellent.
But what Tito generally did was use Mr. Excellent, Mr. Good, then Mr. Very Good.
[QUOTE=Dojji;1048719]I've always maintained that this is a pointless conversation.
The point that I don't agree that it's pointless not withstanding, this conversation is at least as worth having as some we've had here in the past month!
It's a mere moment in a man's life between the All-Star game and the Old Timer's game.
-Vin Scully
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote