Register now to remove this ad

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 35

Thread: Clutch vs Choke

  1. #16
    I continually find it interesting how some posters can try to make a case that Clutch doesn't exist and in the same breath say that the sample size is too small to be definitive.

    They're trying to say that the sample size is too small to prove that clutch exists but large enough to prove that it doesn't.
    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. #17
    I can't believe this thread got 15 posts.
    "Hating the Yankees like it's a religion since 94'" RIP Mike.


    "It's also a simple and indisputable fact that WAR isn't the be-all end-all in valuations, especially in real life. Wanna know why? Because an ace in run-prevention for 120 innings means more often than not, a sub-standard pitcher covering for the rest of the IP that pitcher fails to provide. You can't see value in a vacuum when a player does not provide full-time production."

  3. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by S5Dewey View Post
    I continually find it interesting how some posters can try to make a case that Clutch doesn't exist and in the same breath say that the sample size is too small to be definitive.

    They're trying to say that the sample size is too small to prove that clutch exists but large enough to prove that it doesn't.
    Clutch and choke do exist in small sample sizes. It is questionable if they are inherent qualities of athletes.

    We can't label anything clutch or choke without actual game results. A player sitting on the bench in a high pressure moment does not possess a quality of clutch or choke. The evidence of clutch and choke is not what we think is in a players heart, but what actually happens on the field.

    There is the argument about a player possessing clutch as a distinct skill. The numbers suggest that since it is not repeatable with any statistical significance, it is not a skill. Unlike say, hitting HR's, which can be repeated with statistical significance. So even though Jacoby Ellsbury hit 32 HR's in 2011, his career HR frequency of 1.9%, which is below the MLB avg. of 2.7%, would strongly suggest he is not a HR hitter as part of his skill set. David Ortiz, on the other hand, hit HR's 5.4% of the time, double the MLB avg. His skill set does include hitting HR's.

  4. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Bellhorn04 View Post
    We'll finally finish litigating this issue with this thread!
    Fire Farrell - fucking check mark!
    Trade Pedroia
    Sign JD Martinez to play 1B/DH
    Sign Alex Cora for MGR - check plus!

  5. #20
    I know one thing, Chris Taylor is making a strong bid for this year's Mr. Clutch award.

  6. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by S5Dewey View Post
    I continually find it interesting how some posters can try to make a case that Clutch doesn't exist and in the same breath say that the sample size is too small to be definitive.

    They're trying to say that the sample size is too small to prove that clutch exists but large enough to prove that it doesn't.
    That's a much better argument than you have ever made on the subject.

    Of course all it does is leave the entire debate in limbo...

  7. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Slasher9 View Post
    i'm not just basing it on this series. kershaw has given up 203 HR's this postseason. plus his stats blow chunks for any other postseason you want to pull up for him. Chocker.
    That still makes Jansen an awful choker. He's been crushed in save opportunities. Like that awful choke artist Aroldis Chapman last World Series.

    Unless it's just that these Astros hitters are clutch.

  8. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flap View Post
    I can well believe that some guys may be better able to handle pressure situations than others, but I also believe that fans are often too quick to slap a label on a player based on small and ultimately meaningless sample sizes. A handful of innings or plate appearances spread out over multiple seasons doesn't really tell me a whole lot.
    Perfectly stated....

  9. #24
    When a team is deemed to have choked, I always wonder how much that's true and how much it's just the other team playing better. Like when they always say a player or team "allowed" x number of runs or hits. The other team is always part of the equation too.
    Priorities:
    1. Yankees lose
    2. Red Sox win

    Hate will fuel your rage, drugs will get you high, money buys respect, love will get you by.

    Quote Originally Posted by joeycaps View Post
    So shut up because you have no idea on what you say on anything as evidence of some of your ridiculous posts.

  10. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Northern Star View Post
    When a team is deemed to have choked, I always wonder how much that's true and how much it's just the other team playing better. Like when they always say a player or team "allowed" x number of runs or hits. The other team is always part of the equation too.
    That's true. You can even break it down to each pitcher-hitter confrontation. What actually caused the hitter to get a hit on that at-bat? Was it a bad pitch or a good guess? If it was a bad pitch, was it because the pitcher's nervous or just normal human variance? And so on.

  11. #26
    Yu Darvish is a big time Chocker. bigly.
    congrats to the Astros.
    other names i have posted under: none

  12. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by S5Dewey View Post
    I continually find it interesting how some posters can try to make a case that Clutch doesn't exist and in the same breath say that the sample size is too small to be definitive.

    They're trying to say that the sample size is too small to prove that clutch exists but large enough to prove that it doesn't.
    Clutch exists to me as a fan. I got nervous as hell during that amazing Game 5 - and I did not even care who won!

    However - I do not know a view of clutch which is meaningfully separate from good. Ortiz has been an amazing clutch hitter for the Red Sox. The Red Sox have always largely been very good and given him a ton of chances to be clutch. Ortiz is also a very good hitter every second of every day.

    The pecking order of quality vs the pecking order of quality in big spots ... is - for all intents and purposes - identical.

  13. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Bellhorn04 View Post
    That's true. You can even break it down to each pitcher-hitter confrontation. What actually caused the hitter to get a hit on that at-bat? Was it a bad pitch or a good guess? If it was a bad pitch, was it because the pitcher's nervous or just normal human variance? And so on.
    Rivera blowing the 2001 World Series was a great example here. He threw a perfect pitch that Luiz Gonzalez fought off into a game winning dump.

  14. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by sk7326 View Post
    Clutch exists to me as a fan. I got nervous as hell during that amazing Game 5 - and I did not even care who won!

    However - I do not know a view of clutch which is meaningfully separate from good. Ortiz has been an amazing clutch hitter for the Red Sox. The Red Sox have always largely been very good and given him a ton of chances to be clutch. Ortiz is also a very good hitter every second of every day.

    The pecking order of quality vs the pecking order of quality in big spots ... is - for all intents and purposes - identical.
    But if you turn to the 'choke' side of it you have some of the best pitchers in the game, like Kershaw and Price, with very mediocre postseason numbers.

    And that's where the 'small scattered sample size' argument is invoked.

  15. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Bellhorn04 View Post
    But if you turn to the 'choke' side of it you have some of the best pitchers in the game, like Kershaw and Price, with very mediocre postseason numbers.

    And that's where the 'small scattered sample size' argument is invoked.
    I think there is some scattered - it also has to be noted that the quality of competition skyrockets, which might be a bigger factor than anything. And - this is relevant with Kershaw and Price - a lot of the time the issues have been 3rd time through the order and whatnot ... which are things which managers are increasingly vigilant about attacking. (see last night)

Posting Permissions

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