Register now to remove this ad

Page 5 of 35 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 519

Thread: Clutch vs non-clutch

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by cp176 View Post
    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.
    This.

    Unfortunately there are those who believe that if something can't be explained it can't be true.
    Any owners who sign previously suspended PED abusers to a big $$ contract are as guilty of perpetuating the PED problem as are the players.

  2. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by S5Dewey View Post
    This.

    Unfortunately there are those who believe that if something can't be explained it can't be true.
    I don't think this is quite what the argument is. As I understand it, those of us who don't believe in clutch players (but of course do believe in singular clutch performances) are saying "Go ahead and define it any way you want". You will then obviously find players who, say, perform better than others in those situations (they are more skilled generally), and players who over a year, say, perform better in those situations than they do in normal situations. What statisticians and historians have not found is a player who does that consistently, year after year. No one is saying we are going to give up talking about a 'clutch' hit because we don't agree on a definition.

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by S5Dewey View Post
    This.

    Unfortunately there are those who believe that if something can't be explained it can't be true.
    And there are people who insist something is true solely because they believe in it. That doesn't make anything true and many of these people have been proven wrong throughout history.

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by S5Dewey View Post
    I agree with your assessment of not being able to compare basketball with baseball in that basketball is much more of a reaction sport. However, in the context of someone being clutch IMO there are very few sports where "clutch" comes into play any more than the instance I mentioned - a player on the foul line with the game in the balance with no defense to contend with. It's you, the ball, and the rim. Pass or fail. That's pressure and people who can respond to it are "clutch". So IMO "clutch" does exist.

    As to the players who are clutch being the better hitters, is he a better hitter because he makes solid contact more often, or is it because his performance in clutch situations boosts his statistics? Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
    First if all, "chicken and egg" is a lousy metaphor. Everyone knows -or should know - the egg came first. There were eggs millions of years before there wete chickens.

    Second, the non-clutch sample size is always significantly larger for every player, and therefore guides the stats i in their direction. So if you want to make your "chicken and egg" argument, you're going toneed a ddefinition of clutch that is WAAAY more encompassing than many are anticipating...

  5. #65
    If you believe"choke" exists, you know the primary culprit is players getting inside their own heads. They think too much. So that means in order to be clutch, a player cannot think.

    If a player doesn't think, he doesn't exist. That's pure DesCartes, and how he disproved the "clutch hitter."

  6. #66
    Yogi Berra: "You can think and hit at the same time."
    The King of TalkSox has Spoken.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kimmi View Post
    This is true. Baseball is such a random sport.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dojji View Post
    [T]he conclusion to be drawn is that there is no practical value in seeking this ideal lineup, and in that case any way in which it might be meaningfully termed "best" is irrelevant, academic at best, pedantic at worst

  7. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by notin View Post
    If you believe"choke" exists, you know the primary culprit is players getting inside their own heads. They think too much. So that means in order to be clutch, a player cannot think.

    If a player doesn't think, he doesn't exist. That's pure DesCartes, and how he disproved the "clutch hitter."
    Des Cartes - really Notin - What is it going to be next some of that Alexander Dumais (as in dumb ass). I would really like to see some how much weight some of this reasoning would carry in the normal ml dugout. lol

  8. #68
    weird things happen to logic when you conflate zen theory with cognito ergo sum
    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.

  9. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by Bellhorn04 View Post
    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?
    Actually, I don't think that's the definition of clutch that many clutch believers think of.

    I think they are more or less equally clutch, considering that their clutchness is related to how good they are.

  10. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by Bellhorn04 View Post
    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?
    Yes, we're going around in circles.

    Within any of Bagwell's regular seasons, even his best ones, you can find several 3 or 4 game stretches where he had an OPS of .685 or lower. That's essentially what you're looking at when you look at a postseason series.

    You cannot make a definitive judgment off of a small number of series like that, especially if they are spread out over several seasons.

    Bagwell had 129 PAs and 106 ABs in the postseason. OBP does not stabilize until 460 PAs and SLG does not stabilize until 320 ABs. The fact that his PAs and ABs were spread over several postseasons makes them even more meaningless.

  11. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by S5Dewey View Post
    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?
    I do think that the mental aspect of a game can affect a player's performance in a positive way, just not in the way that you are defining clutch. The ability not to choke in a pressure situation would be the mental aspect affecting a player's performance positively.

    I don't know anything about this kid's free throw making ability. Is he normally an 80% free throw shooter? If so, then the chances that he'd make both free throws are pretty good. If he's normally a 40% free throw shooter, then I would have to call it luck.

  12. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by S5Dewey View Post
    This.

    Unfortunately there are those who believe that if something can't be explained it can't be true.
    That is simply not true. The reason that I don't believe clutch exists is not because it can't be explained, but because there is very strong evidence against it existing.

  13. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by notin View Post
    If you believe"choke" exists, you know the primary culprit is players getting inside their own heads. They think too much. So that means in order to be clutch, a player cannot think.

    If a player doesn't think, he doesn't exist. That's pure DesCartes, and how he disproved the "clutch hitter."
    Nice!

  14. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by notin View Post
    If you believe"choke" exists, you know the primary culprit is players getting inside their own heads. They think too much. So that means in order to be clutch, a player cannot think.

    If a player doesn't think, he doesn't exist. That's pure DesCartes, and how he disproved the "clutch hitter."
    No. If a player is clutch it means he knows enough to not let the situation get into his head... not at all that he cannot think.
    Any owners who sign previously suspended PED abusers to a big $$ contract are as guilty of perpetuating the PED problem as are the players.

  15. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by notin View Post
    And there are people who insist something is true solely because they believe in it. That doesn't make anything true and many of these people have been proven wrong throughout history.
    Seeing something happen is pretty good evidence that it's true.
    Any owners who sign previously suspended PED abusers to a big $$ contract are as guilty of perpetuating the PED problem as are the players.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •