I understand your honest efforts to educate me but you have to understand that I love many things that can not be tracked and proven particularly when it comes to discussions dealing with athletes and athletics. This presents no problem for me. I absolutely love discussing things with people with respect to things like the existence of clutch and clutch players. That is fun for me perhaps because it is so subjective. I get to know people and the way they think this way. I might not agree with them but I listen and respect their feelings and their passion for the games. If things like this were definable in any way statistically, they would hold absolutely no interest for me at all.
Farrell' s aggressive base running philosophy did not help the Sox in game 1 of the ALDS. It actually may have hurt when Pedroia was thrown out at third. Even though the run scored, Pedroia could have remained safely at second and extended the inning with two runners on base. Every out is magnified in the postseason and every potential run lost could impact the final outcome. Yes, the Astros killed our pitching but if the Sox had scored more in the inning the dynamic of the game changes.
I am not saying it has to be defined only by statistics, but there should be some observable evidence and not simply a feeling. The two things are complementary, not in opposition. I don't define a player by numbers alone, but by observing how they play the game and exhibit their baseball smarts. One of my favorite players was Jason Varitek because he always kept his head in the game and did not give up on any play until the final call was made. That will not show up statistically, but it is a critical component of playing the game to the peak of potential.
Can you give me a percentage of success in the clutch that you feel is the minimum needed to be called clutch?
But the real issue here is more about defining a player as clutch, which requires more more definitive evidence. I think Ted Williams is a good test subject because he was such a good hitter I would not argue much against calling him clutch. If he is the measuring stick, how many hitters would qualify? I think Williams was so good that he exercised the most control a hitter possibly could in trying to hit safely. But he would also take a walk if the pitch wasn't there and I think that could be part of clutch as well.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/p...&year=0&post=1
Ted Williams sucked in the postseason. Not even one XBH.
In what situations? And 51% is ridiculously extreme. Basically, a player under that measure would need to have an OBP in high leverage situations that would be higher than Ted Williams lifetime OBP. That pretty much invalidates your position as your measure would be impossible to attain.