7
2012
Morning Grind: Look At These 2012 Mets And Tell Me That Clutch Doesn’t Exist
An article by 
If there was ever any merit to the concept that clutch hitting doesn’t exist, that “theory” has been completely disproven by these 2012 New York Mets by one lone number.
185.
After Thursday night’s incredible 6-5 walk-off victory over the Phillies, that number represents how many times the Mets have scored a run with two outs in the 2012 regular season. That number 185 is the best out of any team in the majors and accounts for 48% of the total runs scored by the Amazin’s this year. That the number is a huge reason why this team stands at eight games over .500 entering the second half.
For many however, this number seems to be a coincidence, a myth. To some this far-fetched idea of clutch hitting is just that, a far-fetched idea. Yet somehow, this team has done exceptionally better in high pressure situations; the very definition of clutch.
Thursday night, every one of Wright’s hits either tied the game or gave the Mets the lead, everytime with two outs; that’s clutch. Justin Turner batting over .400 with an OPS over 1.000 with two outs and RISP; That’s clutch. The entire Mets lineup scoring 185 of their 391 runs with two dead in the inning are batting .287/.391/.469 with two outs and runners in scoring position this year, you guessed it; that’s clutch. Their figures across the board are significantly better with two outs, going completely against convention wisdom in baseball. When it comes down to that last chance, late in the game, this team offense goes to work, grinding out every at bat to get on base somehow. This was best exemplified on Thursday and even last night when the Mets scored three runs and came just one knock shy of tying the ballgame. Despite the loss, that was clutch nonetheless.
Clutch isn’t just hitting though. Bobby Parnell coming in and slamming the door; that’s clutch. Kirk Nieuwenhuis leaping into walls or Wright barehanding one to prevent a crucial run from crossing home; that’s clutch. Johan Santana finishing off the first no-hitter in the Mets 50-year history with help by Mike Baxter giving no regard for his own body to make an incredible grab; I can’t think of a much better example for clutch than that.
Clutch does exist, and it is no more apparent than with these 2012 Mets. When the going gets tough and the chips are down, this group of 25 guys bare down and scrap for every blessed run no matter how hopeless or unprobable the outcome may seem; and there is no stat or calculation to prove that.
And if you disagree, maybe you should get out from under your charts and calculator and watch a baseball game for a change.
About the Author: Clayton Collier
Clayton, a Long Island native and die-hard Mets fan, started writing online about three years ago. He is currently a Journalism major with a minor in Broadcasting at Seton Hall University. Although very disappointed with the current state of the team, Clayton remains hopeful that the young prospects in the farm system will bring the Mets back to a respected franchise in baseball once again. Besides writing for MMO, Clayton is also a staff member at 89.5 WSOU, Seton Hall's modern active rock radio station. You can contact Clayton by following him on Twitter: @Clayton_Collier or E-mailing him at MaybeNextYearMets@yahoo.com
144 Comments + Add Comment
Recent Comments
- Alex68: on Team Source On Wheeler: “He’s Ready”: That's wher expectations should start. Not pegged...
- Alex68: on It’s Not The Approach That’s The Mets’ Problem, It’s The Execution: Hotstreak, I am not sure what he's...
- taskmaster4450: on Team Source On Wheeler: “He’s Ready”: This regime isnt really that concerned about...
- Major Mangu: on MMO Exclusive: A Look Inside The Mets Dominican Complex: Which totally explains why 2012 saw the...
- taskmaster4450: on Team Source On Wheeler: “He’s Ready”: If Wheeler tops Gee at this point,...
Need Tickets To The Mets Game?
Check Out These Great MLB Links!
Photographs From Gordon Donovan
5393 Fans Follow Us On Twitter!
1269 Fans Like Us On Facebook!
2341 Fans Read Our Feed!
1702 Fans Subscribe via Daily Email!
Uh, really. That some team leads the league in percentage of 2-out runs as to overall runs is proof to you. You realize that that happens every year. Some team leads it, and what you need to do is prove that it’s something other than the fact that every year some team will lead due to mere chance and ordinary variation from the mean. Maybe the fact that it’s the team you root for, rather than anything meaningful, is your proof.
So according to you this team hasn’t shown more fight, more resiliency and been more clutch than in 2009-2011? That it’s all in our minds or just happenstance? SMH
Up to 2010 maybe but they fought plenty in 2011!
Those are a lot of adjectives. What they’ve shown is a very good on-base percentage. Or, to say it another way, they’ve shown a very good ability to make outs less often than most teams. That, plus not-great power, means that the put mean on base and build innings. So it’s not all that suprising that they score a lot of their runs with two outs.
So you look at that and decide to assign it adjectives like fight, resiliency and clutch.
Frankly, these are many of the same guys we’ve seen before. Murphy, Wright, Thole, Tejada, Hairston, Duda, Davis . . . Do you think they suddenly had a heart transplant.
You’re thinking is circular. They score with two outs, they’re clutch and firey. How can you say that they’re not clutch and firey, they score with two outs.
While I agree with your sentiment, the issue I have is that many in the SABR world consider an AB in the 1st inning the same as an AB in the 9th inning which just isn’t true.
While every run is of equal importance, the margain for error late and close is so much greater and that is where the clutch stat comes from. Because there is no margain for error with 2 outs in the bottom of the ninth, both the pitcher and the batter are going to be more intense and essentially give their maximum effort.
To say that every AB is the same is ridiculous. There is more pressure on a player with 2 outs than there are if there are outs to spare…
Thats because the Sabers have yet to come up with a metric that accounts for emotional content!
When it does it will all of a sudden find the clutch metric as well!
It can’t find one now because it has no way of quantizing the extra pressure a batter faces in any given situation and the stats it uses has no situational awareness associated with them at all.
Until such time they take splits and add situational weight to each, they will continue to claim there is no such thing as clutch.
The other issue here is Some could even argue that runs scored early are more important than runs scored late, Early runs help the Pitcher who gets the lead and can economize his effort and go longer due to the ability to pound the zone more without fear of losing the lead.
So you can argue that early hits that result in early runs are just as important as runs in the 8th and 9th when your behind or tied!
This is why I say Clutch is any situation where you have a better then just hitting a HR chance of scoring a run.
Any situation with MOB is a clutch situation, The more MOB or the closer to scoring position the more clutch increases!
But everyone seems to want to define it as the 7th, 8th and 9th inning which may seem more improtant to the average fan as thier worry hairs go up higher later in the game,
But the ttruth is if they had gotten the job done in the 1st-6th the 7th-9th wouldn’t be as important in fact!
I am impressed with thier 2 Out focus but I wish they would have the same focus with 1 and no outs as well.
If our Starting Pitching is going to hold up we need to get them some more early leads so they can be a bit more efficient without having to worry about giving up a run.
Trust me. They have the same focus with 1 and 2 outs. That’s how men get on base to score with two outs. Separately do you really believe a player who hits .280 one year and .305 another had less focus the first year. Or could it be lots of other things.
We read too much into some of the stats and make conclusions based on our emotional investment.
Sorry but the splits do support what I’m saying here….
They hit .254 with a .317 OBP and a .397 SLG with no out
.247 BA, .316 OBP and a .367 SLG with 1 out
and hit .274, .355 OBP and a .430 SLG with 2 Out!
I see what you’re saying Metsie. The are not clutch with one out, but they’re even less clutch with zero out, and then they are clutch with 3 out.
You’re missing my point. Numbers vary. The same guys you want to attribute this ‘clutch’ hitting to now, have significant periods of time in the past when, under your type of analysis, you would say that they are chokers.
If you want to say anythng more than “the Mets have had a higher batting average with 2 outs than zero outs and maybe that’s helped them score more runs than they otherwise would because generaly there are more people on base with 2 outs than with no outs” you have to have support. In other words, if you want to start attributing that statistic to anything more than the ordinary variation that comes with life as things are done many, many times, you have to show why. The fact that these same games, at different times, have performed differently is a BIG fact against you.
So, unless you have something more to show, I suggest you just wait. You’ll probably get a different breakdown among 2-out, 1-out and 0-out hitting than you got in the first half. You may not like it, or you may, but it’ll be different. Of course, if the breakdown is not good, you may just decide to say that they lost their fire and clutchness.
is it possible that the new hitting coach has instilled a game plan where with 2 outs, the players should look to shorten their swing instead of trying to pull the ball?
Yes Sven, Numbers vary…And there is usually a good reason for it!
Especially when you see an acceleration of them depending on how many outs you have left!
They don’t hit all that well with No outs. and the truth is with 0 and 1 out they are basically the same.
It’s not until that second out is there that they hit above thier team average of .259!
That says there is a focus with 2 Outs that is not present when there are fewer outs.
The fact they can do it with 2 Outs means they could do it with 1 out and no outs.
But they are not!
If they did we would not be 13th in the league in BA we would be in the top 5!
I know full well what is happening as anyone who has a half a brain can see it.
With Two Outs they are more aggressive at protecting the plate with 2 Strikes where before that they are being more passive and taking pitches they shouldn’t take in the name of getting on base.
But what is happening is they get Ked on called strikes that with 2 outs they won’t let get by and instead foul off!
The difference is Plate Protection and if they protected the plate like that with no outs and 1 out they would be one of the best offenses in the league!
I have hammered home this point till the cows come home but everyone seems to want to hide behind this notion of plate discipline and drawing walks when the TRUE meaning of plate discipline means to swing at strikes, even if they aren’t good for hitting to foul them off in the attempt to get a strike you CAN hit!
It’s a matter of focus, With less than two outs they are more focused on getting on base and with two outs they have the more proper focus of not making an out!
“Metsie July 7, 2012 at 12:44 pm .
Yes Sven, Numbers vary…And there is usually a good reason for it!”
I don’t have the English in me to express how completely lost and repetitive the rest of this post is. You then just go on to state your same circular argument — they hit with two outs because they’re clutch, and they must be clutch because they hit with two outs — that you stated above. You just say it more slowly.
So I’ll try again, this time by taking you back to your first sentence, where you acknowledge “numbers vary.” But then you ingore my point. It’s not just that they vary from 1 out to 2 outs. But that they very from year to year (and more). And you have to address that in your “clutch” analysis and you keep avoiding it. Address the players who are suddenly now clutch with two outs and weren’t last year or the year before and with the same hitting coach. Has Justin Turner always been clutch as you see him now? Or did he just start choking up and shortening his swing with two outs this year? And if he did it in the past too and his numbers were worse why is he suddenly clutch now? He had the same hitting coach and manager. Maybe it’s the third base coach? — that’s got to be it.
If you’d step back and stop focusing on the thing that you really, really, really want to be true, you’ll see that you have really haven’t looked at this thoughtfully and have just accepted the circular argument you keep giving us because you soooo want it to be true.
The only problem is that confidence does alter results. Thus if players think they will be successful they have a better chance. The Mets doing well with 2 outs early by chance could carry over through confidence later.
As I said earlier though good players are good players and have been used to high pressure situations and usually they perform at their normal rate. I have a hard time believing a bad hitter can be “clutch “.
Ok Explain this…
Justin Turner is a Career .255 hitter but with RISP hits .341!
So tell me why that isn’t an example of clutch hitting…
Is it because RISP is not a clutch situation?
Is he the same because hitting .341 is about the same as hitting .255?
Sample size and splits. If he really is a player who can only focus in pressure situations then you worry about his maturity.
Metsie wrote: “Ok Explain this…
Justin Turner is a Career .255 hitter but with RISP hits .341!
So tell me why that isn’t an example of clutch hitting…”
This question is precisely what has been answered in comment after comment above. Please read everything that I’ve (and others) have already written. It may be that you just can’t grasp the point. I can’t say much more about it.
Yes dear.
You need to learn this is the only acceptable response to Metsie.
Shut up Bitch and go make my damn Breakfast!
My oh my with an attitude like that no wonder you pick 24 hour arguments with who ever you can find. What else would you have to do?
Oh realy this from the guy who came here today to pick an Argument with Pete?
Over the sources of a Rumor?
Get over yourself dude most of the arguments I have are with YOU and your friends who come here to argue with the regulars here over stupid crap you can’t support!
All because there is no one to argue on where you NORMALLY post because you ran them all off with your childish attempts at blaming them for doing what you yourself do!
Go Home ET! Go HOME!
Police your own damn site and leave this one to itself!
LOL, I have been gone for weeks due to life itself but I have been able to read a few comment sections and you are still the same ole Metsie regardless so don’t blame your ineptitude on me or anyone else. I said my piece to Petey and you need something to make your life worthwhile so you continued it.
Yep you were gone and funny how we managed to keep every thread civil and without insults as soon as you left!
Hard to grasp a point you have yet to make…
You haven’t yet defined Clutch, haven’t yet showed that Turner’s performance with MOB is in NON-CLUTCH situations or close to his normal average…
You want something for people to grasp onto better provide a lot more than the nothing you have so far!
PROVE there is more pressure to drive in an RISP in the 9th than there is at some other time.
Then please quantify what the difference in innings amounts to.
Until you do you have nothing to prove that the 9th is any more pressure packed to a batter than any other and therefore all that crap you been spewing is unproven meaningless SUBJECTIVE OPINION not based on fact!
I gave an OBJECTIVE QUANTIFIABLE definition of Clutch situation…
When you get that far please let the rest of us know so we can show you examples of clutch players based on your own definition.
Whosaid it was clutch? You guys argued that it wqas clutch all I suggested was they focus more with 2 outs than they do with 1 out and the focus is all based on thier plate protection with two outs that is not present with one or no outs!
If you can’t understand that then time to get to english class!
Or is it that your just pissed because I blew your whole argument out of the water and now decided to malign me to hide your foolish statements.
If they hit and focused the way they do at 2 outs whewn they had 1 out and no outs they would be leading the league in hitting!
And scoring runs too!
They change from passive with 1 outs and no outs to aggressive with 2 outs!
They should be as aggressive protecting the plate regardless of the number of outs they have!
I know you don’t want to believe the splits show you anything b ut the splits show EVERYTHING you can see if you watch the game!
They do not protect the plate with less than two outs!
They SHOULD!
The relative superiority of the Mets two out SLG number is aided by the complete lack of use of two out attempted sacrifice bunts. Since SLG = TB / AB, two out SLG numbers would normally be higher.
“Not all at-bats are created equal.” That’s what Keith Hernandez said after Gary Cohen said, :and another base-hit for Turner with runners on base.” This was last night. Look at how he moves in closer to cover more of the plate. He brings his hands lower and chokes up a bit. Dont tell me that Turner approaches every at-bat the same way, anyone who watches knows that’s not true. I only wish he hit that way in every at-bat must players dont. The body pumps the adrenaline needed in tight moments naturally not just with baseball players but with everybody. Turner probably doesn’t even realize he does it. It’s pure instinct or in other words clutch.
Right. That’s not true. It just isn’t and it has been demonstrated many times with many mountains of data that it isn’t true. You say it because you are ignorant of the facts.
Unfortunatly when you leave out the most important piece of data, Emotional content of a situation you will find no emotion to exist!
They have yet to find Dinosaur stomachs or bladders and there is no statistical basis to prove they had them…
But they did!
Lack of data does not prove lack of existence!
No one can prove dark matter exists but they know it’s out there!
Clutch is out there you just haven’t figured out a math equation that could show it to you yet!
Cause number have no emotions and feelings!
Players do!
“Metsie July 7, 2012 at 1:05 pm .
. . .
They have yet to find Dinosaur stomachs or bladders and there is no statistical basis to prove they had them…
But they did!
Lack of data does not prove lack of existence!
No one can prove dark matter exists but they know it’s out there!
Clutch is out there you just haven’t figured out a math equation that could show it to you yet!”
Wow. I’m not sure what to do with this. It’s one of those statements that really has no meaning and kind of wants to be that way. It’s the emotional equivalent of this argument: “Because! Because! Because!”
If it were accepted for anything serious outside of baseball, it will obliteratre oodles of things that many of us now find hugely important. For instance, we can stop seeing medical doctors and following their evidence-based treatment decisions, and go consult the blood-letter or witch-doctor because it just feels right.
This from the uy who a few posts ago said Number vary!
NO SHIT SHERLOCK!
So what is it you like the stories statistics tell or not?
What I sd is the math geeks who have yused statistics to say clutch doesn’t exist came to that conclusion because they didn’t add a metric to define clutch when they did thier research!
Get a clue dude!
Again, I don’t quite know what you’re getting at here. But if you’re saying people have analyzed the issue but didn’t have an endpoint, that’s just silly.
What I’m getting at is that you can’t find something in a statistical model unless you acutally created a variable that represents the situation and weight of it in the mathematical model!
If normal BA is H/PA
What is the metric for Clutch BA?
What variable in your calculations represents clutch?
how did you weight the different “PRESSURES” that can be had in different clutch situations?
And How did you weight the results based on what was achieved in those situations.
If you claim to have done the reseacrh you shouldbe able to show your formula for determining they are the same…
Your Audience awaits but if it contains the same amount of nothing you have provided so far there will be nothing for anyone to grasp!
Tell us how you picked the PA’s and seperated the clutch then tell us how you wieghted the success based on the opportunity needed…
And please for the love of god show us how you assign a PRESSURE Escalator to your analysis…
Comon Stat boy you can do these things and if you don’t understand then obviously your not good enough at statistical analysis to even bother to listen to or take your word on any research you think you may have done!
Bob — I think the concept of ‘clutch’ is overblown. Its antithesis has been used on MMO to detract from the accomplishments of David Wright. When all they’ve got is a nasty ad hominem argument, non-clutch accusations are thought by them to be profound.
You seem to be equating instinct and clutch. If so, then reactions taught by coaches are by definition non-clutch. Interesting but invalid concept I think.
well, in that scenario, it is not clutch, as much as changing approach. Similar with guys that change approach with 2 strikes.
basically they are shortening up and trying to just get bat on ball, looking for a little single. As opposed to earlier in the count or with say 1 out no one on, where they are looking to take a normal swing and drive the ball.
so is shortening your swing and looking to punch the ball the other way with 2 outs clutch, or a conscious decision to change your approach, and not look to hit with any power?
Again clutch does not exist. Sometimes David wright hits with 2 out in the 9th, other times he doesn’t. Just like he does with no outs in the second. Batters hit at the same rates regardless of situations. Sometimes better or worse for a while but over time they are why they are regardless of if you think they are clutch or not.
What we are really discussin is that fans are bad at managing evidence and fall victim to many fallacies, and I particular they have a confirmation bias. But it should be noted that Bayonne played the game.
For the ten billionth time — no one says that there is no such thing as clutch performance. If a player hits a walk-off home run, that’s a clutch hit. If Bobby Parnell strikes out Matt Kemp with the bases loaded in the ninth inning, that’s a clutch strikeout. What they say is that, over the long haul, players generally don’t have a special ability to elevate their performance in clutch situations. The Mets’ roster is largely the same as in prior years. Why didn’t the players hit in the “clutch” then as you assert that they do now? This stuff fluctuates from year to year.
You’re either deliberately misrepresenting the “clutch” argument presented by the “charts and calculator” folk you talk about, or you’re just misinformed. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and go with the latter.
“no one says that there is no such thing as clutch performance”
Did you read that post two comments above yours?
Players sure can elevate thier focus in certain situations just a mother can lift a car to save her baby when it is in danger!
Just because you can’t find any statistical evidence that someone can do it doesn’t mean they do not!
The only problem with finding clutch hitters is you guy won’t even come together and define what is a CLUTH situation so that you could find the stats that fit that situation and see who does better when that situatuion exists!
Since you can’t define the situation you can’t define Plus or Minus actions to it!
The only thing that does not exist is an accepted definition of what is a clutch situation!
When you decide what is you will find players who do better in them than other situations!
I assume you don’t buy into any of the late and close or high leverage stats as meaning anything toward defining clutch? because other than those measures, it is just purely a subjective concept (like the old supreme court definition of Pornography, “I know it when I see it”)
NO I don’t buy thier definition of High Leverage myself.
Clutch is related to better than HR opportunity to score a run!
What inning, Out, Strike is on you, What score, behind or ahead, does not matter!
If you have a better than HR chance of driving in a run it is clutch and HOW clutch depends on how little is needed to score it and how many you actually do get!
Since clutch fits many situattions a clutch metric would have to be used as a weight.
But first you have to come to agreement on what exactgly is a clutch situation.
I believe any opportunity to score a run that is easier than hitting a HR is clutch.
And any HR is a clutch hit!
Cause the runs count just as much in the 1st as they do in the 9th! Are no more or less important!
Early runs do more to help you win the game than klate ones do as those runs help your pitcher and fielders by reducing pressure on them and making those later innings less important as a result.
Potter Stewart – Jacobellis v. Ohio
no you wont find that. you will find that players (even payers thought to be clutch like derek jeter) will hit at the same rates regardless of circumstance. when they hit, you will notice and say they are clutch, like jeter. or if they are pre-2012 wright, you will say the opposite when they dont hit. its not a real phenomenon. jeter or wright will hit at the same rate they normally hit in clutch situations. that means they will hit sometimes, and other times they wont.
there is nothing to argue, this has been proven many times with reams and reams of data. wright is not clutch, nor he is he non-clutch. he is david wright and he hits what he hits regardles of situation.
Sure you will! You haven’t found them because you refuse to define the situations that math could show you the difference!
Justin Turner is a Career .255 hitter but with RISP hits .341!
Thats just ONE clutch situation.
The problem isn’t that there is no data to show clutch hitting it is your stubborn refusal to say any AB is a clutch or not and when you refuse to define what is clutch then clutch can’t be found because of your insistence on it’s lack of existence in the firstb place!
Classic case of a BIAS towards something influencing the math to come to a conclusion that was predetermined by the guy who is making the equations!
1. Maybe go easy with the exclamation points.
2. Your consistent horrible comments on this site are the main reason I do not comment more often, if ever. A few others as well, but you especially.
3. There is no room for reason with you. Opinion without evidence is worthless.
And what do you base opinion without evidence as worthless? Is there a formula that proves it? If Keith Hernandez gives a different opinion than you than who do i believe? I need mathematics to decide for me?
Go back to not commenting here or better yet why don’t you and martin go to a dark room together and talk about how much about life you can figure out on paper while not trying to actually experience it.
what bayonne is trying to say here is that he played the game.
Yeah I wonder since you didn’t use your real nick if you stopped commenting because you didn’t like me or got your old Nick Banned!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Eat that!
I agree that the biggest issue I have with the idea that some guys elevate their game to come through in big spots (aka clutch) is that why don’t they do this every AB? do they not care in non-clutch situations enough to get a hit?
rather, what certainly does happen is some guys tighten up in a huge spot, an don’t do their normal thing. Get over anxious or whatever, but they essentially can be said to choke.
so really, in a huge spot some guys might have more of a propensity to choke under pressure, and other guys stay the same, so it seems that the 2nd bunch are some big clutch players. Is not tightening up and staying the same clutch, or does it imply that they somehow elevate in big spots (which seems to be the definition bandied about here most often)
do pitchers amp up in the same situations? a few extra MPH? or maybe they tighten up and their breaking balls dont break. its so complex! oh lord!
it isnt complex. nothing happens. the same things happen during clutch at bats that happen during normal at bats.
Yes they do!
Watch the radar gun when the pitcher finds himself in a hitters count!
Watch them make a pitchers pitch when they have to!
Pitchers do that all the time!
You just refuse to recognize it as a clutch performance because you refuse to define anything as being clutch at all!
Because your numbers fail you and mostly because you have refused to make a metric that would weight events that are clutch!
How do batters perform in clutch situations of the pitchers are amped up as well? Are clutch batters so hugely clutch that they overwhelm the clutch pitchers.
Perhaps the dual clutch experiences cancel out and this explains the overwhelming evidence that performance is the same in clutch situations. Eh?
The pitcher vs a Batter is a constant in any situation.
SO it really doesn’t matter if the Pitcher gets amped up cause they Both amp up if the situation is clutch, And the guy who handles the situation better will win the event!
i wish bayonne would weigh in on this, he played the game.
Playing the game does kind of help in understanding the difference in leading off the first inning with a hit and then coming to bat in the bottom of the last inning with the tying runs on, the crowd hollering and the game on you shoulders. I delivered in those spots much more than when my team was winning 16-0 – in case i probably went 0 for 5.
Yes there are people that do produce better than others in when the stakes are higher in sports AND life
But that can happen in any circumstance in life itself and there are people who rise in the most importance of spots and there are others (like yourself) that would probably wilt like a weed in the dessert in the most important moments in sports and life.
This debate is SO stupid it is beyond belief how these sabermetric MORONS try to diminish the human aspect of the game – for which there is NO measurement.
Your biggest talent is probably the ability to type. That’s it.
Guys pay attention Bayonne played the game
He’s got a bigger advantage…
He also WATCHES the game and sees the situational performance where you only see what the numbers tell you and numbers have no emotional content within them!
Define what would be a clutch situation for us Martin
My guess is you will not come up with one which is why you can’t find performance in anything you can’t even admit exists!
Metsie, losers in life like a ‘martin’ spend their days laying around watching TV and doing nothing.
They don’t live a life but they have a lot to say about it.
what you talkin bout bro, i played the game as well. and my batting average was 200 lower in non clutch situations. just like you i really cannot be bothered to try at all unless i think it matters. i could play hard for my team at all times but nope, too lazy, i perform when the spotlight is on, never when it isnt.
you assume too much when you assume i have not played the game at a higher level than bayonne.
Also good point, weeds do not grow well in dessert.
That’s good. Now we know you have no response.
Response to what, your position that you play the game and are clutch? I would not argue with that, I was the one who brought it up! Bayonne doesn’t even try unless the situation warrants it. He gives away at bats until it matters. Bayonne is clutch.
Hi Bayonne,
Those like you who have played the game understand how inconsequential stats are and the absurdity of believing one can decipher an individual’s talent, strength, weakness and value or put together team personnel through such analysis. Others like myself understand this too, even though our experience went so far as a sandlot game. However, those who don’t appreciate this are the ones who also contend that Brian Kenny with his saber analysis knows more about the game than Al Leiter, Larry Bowa or Mitch Williams and that one who admitted having no knowledge of the game was able to put together a franchise that became the dominant team in the American League for half a decade.
And for someone so young, Clayton expressed it with the poise of a seasoned baseball veteran when he said “And if you disagree, maybe you should get out from under your charts and calculator and watch a baseball game for a change.”
yeah, i wasn’t trying. That’s it.
so you are not good, even though yu are trying, in non-clutch situation? i dont understand. why dont you rise to the occasion in non clutch situations? particularly when you dont know that they are not clutch. sometimes a 1st inning homer wins the game. why are you not playing as hard as you can then?
Because i skipped to the plate whistling in easy games. I actually once moonwalked to the plate when we were winning 10-0 because i wasn’t needed.
I never try when i’m not needed. In fact i tell the manager only use me when the game is on the line otherwise i’ll just stand on one foot while at bat in a lop sided game.
Go back to your black room and stay in isolation where you belong you loser.
we are in complete agreement. clutch players like me and you, we know the score. if we bat 280 normally, that is because we are not trying hard, and we bat 330 when the coach needs it. its called rising to the occasion bro. me and you know all about it. yunno why?
becaus we played the game bro. if we learn nothing here today lets all remember one thing: bayonne played the damn game. bayonne played harder when it mattered, just like derek jeter does and david wright does not.
You aren’t getting it. It’s not that they don’t try, they just don’t have the win or go home mentality b/c there are still innings left to play.
yes, i know some players are lazy. the real men play every at bat like it means something. pitchers are amped up too but the science indicates that clutch pitching doesnt work i guess. not sure really. maybe clutch pitching is made up.
it’s common sense. Look at example 1 and 2
Ex 1: Tie Game, Bottom of the 9th, 2 outs bases loaded the pitcher falls behind 3-0.
Ex 2: Tie Game, Bottom of the 3rd, 2 outs bases loaded the pitcher falls behind 3-0.
According to SABR, both situations the pitcher is just as likely to throw a strike as the other.
According to common sense, there is an added pressure the pitcher in example 1 puts on himself that does not exist in example 2 because even if he walks the batter, there is another batter after him to get out AND there are another 6 innings left to play.
how do you think this pressure makes him better? or worse? he is nervous, which makes him worse, but he is amped up, which makes him better. which is it? the evidence shows that things work out the same as non-pressure situations, at least with batters.
is your position that pressure makes this example player worse or better? why? where is your evidence? because there are reams and reams of evidence that show that players bat at basically the exact same performance in these situations. jeter bats the same in the playoffs as he does in the regular season. everyone does, apart from small sample size anomalies. jeter has a large sample size of playoff appearances so his stats are almost identical, when clearly playoff AB are far more important.
It depends on the individual person. Some pitchers habitually do well under pressure, while others get rattled. Same thing for a hitter. Some habitually hit well in pressure situations while others look totally lost.
SABR is a great tool, but you cannot ignore the human element of sports. Mental toughness, gameplans and confidence play a huge role.
Players think and act differently when there is added pressure and that cannot be discounted simply because SABR hasn’t been able to mathematically account for it…
what i am telling you is that when you say some players habitually do well under pressure, that isnt true. players habitually do the same under pressure as not under pressure. there is mountains of data to support this. they guy that you think of as clutch or not is the same batter in normal situations.
you are just repeating things that are not at all supported by the facts.
And we are teling you there is no such thing as more pressure to perform only situations where you want him to perform better than others and in most cases those situations don’t even require them to do better than thier normal!
A power hitter in a clutch situation with the bases loaded and the game on the line does not feel pressured because he doesn’t have to hit a deep liner in the gap all he has to do is get a walk or a lowly bloop single!
Thats not BETTER than he normally performs and there is less pressure than is on him in other situations.
The truth is you have no clue if there is any pressure at all on the batter!
Which is why to you Clutch doesn’t exist since you can add the PRESSURE variable to your equation!
And we already showed you how probability is about possible poutcome not actual events.
A coin that flips heads does not have a better chance of flipping to tails on the next try than heads does!
You could go 10,000 flips and come up heads every time because the coin has no memory.
All probability does is say how likely he will succeed but probability doesn’t determine what happens just what MIGHT happen!
Probability is nothig but a good guess it has no bearing on what actually happens!
Ignoring the human element is the biggest failure in SABR. To say that every single AB in every single game is exactly the same, is completely ridiculous.
Its all about margain of error.
If you strike out with the bases loaded in the 1st inning, you still have 8 other innings to make up for it. If you are at the plate trailing by a run with 2 outs and the bottom of the ninth, if you fail, the team loses.
To say hitters and pitchers act no differently in the bottom of the ninth, than they do in the bottom of the first is utterly ridiculous.
all at bas are not the same. i am suer players are more amped or nervous. but in terms of actual performance it doesnt. if you would like you can believe that the pitchers are also clutch and that evens it out. the end result is factually proven, batters perform the same in those situations. except bayonne, because he is extra lazy until he thinks game matters.
so it then possible that player A can control his nerves under pressure while player B cannot?
the evidence shows that players are basically the same no matter the situation. perhaps they are nervous and that makes them better. perhaps they are amped up and that makes them overeager and worse, but they are more adrenalized so it equals out. the point is that players cant rise to the occasion and hit better than they actually can. a 260 hitter is a 260 hitter regardless of the situation.
lets say for example a hitter can play better or harder. is your theory that the pitcher cant? why wouldnt they equal out, both guys are amped, both guys know the situation. instead of wondering, just look at the evidence, the evidence shows that clutch hitting is a myth and that players are what they are.
There are always exceptions but good players are good bad players are bad and average are average. Is a guy like Wright hitting. 300 in clutch situations clutch or just himself? Was Jordan clutch because of all his game winning shots or did he make those because he was Jordan. I think some ABS do have more pressure than others and I do think confidence matters. However I also think it has more to do with talent than clutch.
jordan is good at clutch situations because jordan is good in all situations. same thing applies to hitters. david wright got a clutch hit the other night because he is a good hitter. he would be the same hitter if he didnt. he hits at 350 or whatever and that will happen regardless of the inning and score.
So I Guess hitting .341 is the same as hitting .255 in your world…
Cause thats what your statistics are telling you!
The only way your statistics tell you that is if you don’t count what is a clutch AB and therefore all Abs are the same!
you can assemble all the at bats that you consider clutch and the ones that are meaningless according to you, and the player will have the same stats.
Ok I consider all ABs with RISP clutch and those without Normal.
Explain why Justing Turner doesnt’t hit .255 with RISP?
Wait… I thought HR are the most clutch and considering you have a chance to hit a HR every AB then all AB are clutch?
No not all ABs just the ones where a HR was hit are clutch ABs.
As I have said above any AB where there is a better than HR chance to score a run is clutch.
And hitting a HR (getting all the available runs you can get) is also clutch!
How clutch is dependent on how many you can score and your ability to score the runs that are available.
A triple that scores 3 men is more clutch than a triple that scores one.
Clutch situation is defined by opportunity to score and what you do with that opportunity!
And a HR that scores a run with no one on is just as clutch as a single that scores one run with a runner on base!
OK so RISP wouldn’t measure clutch completely either as a solo shot or a triple with a guy on first aren’t included.
Is RISP the only situation where you can get a clutch hit?
NO!
You want it to be defind so narrowly that NO SITUATION is a clutch situation and thats why you have no metric to show the difference between clutch not clutch!
Because you are refusing to accept the premise that a clutch Ab exists at all!
There are clutch situations throughout a game that may or may not have a guy on base.
They are as clutch as the situations as where a guy on base is.
A solo HR tied in the bottom of the 9th is as clutch as a single with a guy on 3rd in the 9th or 8th no?
So to limit it to just RISP leaves out a ton of other clutch situations that exist!
I pretty much defined it the way it should be done.
Any opportunity to score a run without hitting a HR is a clutch situation. If you get a hit it is a CLUTCH hit, How clutch depends on how effectively you score the runs that were available to you! I.E. A single with the bases loaded is less clutch than a triple with the bases loaded
And in ADDITION any AB where you score all the runs available that can be scored such as a solo HR is a clutch AB as well because the batter made it clutch by scoring all the runs that was available to him for scoring!
RISP is limited and does not count the clutch Abs where the batter scores a runner on first!
scoring ANY runner on ANY base is a clutch hit!
And scoring one that isn’t on base (Solo Hr) is too!
It may not appear like a clutch situation before he hits it but he made it a clutch hit when he hit the ball over the fence and scored a run!
And for the record I’m not saying those are the only clutch acts that can be counted…
You can call a walk with 2 out and no one on in the 9th a clutch act if you want to.
It sure isn’t weighted as heavily as an act that scores a run though!
I just think that clutch is about opportunity and what you do with them.
Succeed more when opportunity knocks makes you a more clutch hitter than guys who do NOT or hit the same as they do in ANY OTHER situation.
Right so using Turner’s RISP as a measure of clutch would be faulty. I can’t remember who did that.
Not as faulty as claiming Justin Turner hits .255 in clutch situations because RISP would constitute the majority of his clutch ABs!
Just not all of them!
In case your interested he is hitting .283 with runners on first, Still way above his normal BA now isn’t it?
And since he only has 2 Hrs it sure shows that the majority of his hits have come with runner on.
His BA with MOB is .314, .388 OBP with a .416 SLG!
He gets better when he has a better chance at scoring with RISP which is the most clutch you can get,
The most clutch situation of all (Bases loaded) he is hitting .429, .526 OBP 500 SLG
Yet according to You and Martin he is the same as usual in those clutch situations…
The Math (no one will ever show) says so!
ROFLMAO
Hey I am not the one that said clutch was measured but RISP then said it wasn’t then said it was then said HR at any time are clutch but aren’t necessarily used in what you day is clutch but then it is a good measure. Round and round we go until Metsie starts using middle school rhetoric and then says but… but… he did it first…
Seen this show before. Have fun.
There you go trying to confuse what I said in hopes of getting out of the fact that YOU REFUSE TO DEFINE CLUTCH!
And the reason you refuse?
Because you don’t WANT it to exist and the second you define it we will show you how clutch hitting DOES exist and some are better than others in those situations.
My definition was quite clear!
You just don’t like it that more than just one situation happens to be clutch!
You want to limit it to the 9th inning tied or behind with 2 outs (on the first wendsday after the blue moonj wyhen cows give purple milk and square eggs are laid by green chickens)
Just so that situation is never found and you can be right to say it doesn’t exist!
Thats the only way you win this argument!
So define it, I did! You don’t like mine then lets hear yours! If you don’t have one then you have no business being in this argument at all since you got nothing to base your opinion on!
I already defined mine 38 times the last 38 times we had this circular debate. High Pressure situations is where I start. To me clutch is a measure of pressure and performance. You on the other hand are moving the target by saying that RISP is a good measure then saying it isn’t then using it to prove that it is…
Oh Please High Pressure is not a Definition of Clutch it is at best a SYNONYM!
I suppose High Pressure situations can be defined as any situation where the pressure isn’t low if I prss you for a definition of High Pressure too right?
Evasive little runt!
Define what situation is HIGH PRESSURE/CLUTCH please…
Be specific!
Coming up with a guy on 1st has just as much pressure associated with it in the 1st inning as it does in the 9th!
So you had better tell us what parameters constitutes high pressure or your just running from the concept for the reasons I stated!
It is already defined. It’s a stat. You can look it up and it applies more to MOST people’s definition of clutch. Yours is different, you think pressure is the same in the first as it is in the ninth as it is down by one or up by ten. So be it but I and most will disagree.
You mean they have a stat for what you said earlier today doesn’t exist?
It’s funny but I just looked at BREF’s clutch category and there is only one stat that seems to subscribe to your definition…the late and Close…
Yet they have plenty of other situations (9 others) that all subscribe to my definition.
And they seem to be missing a few such as RISP with 1 out. RISP no outs.
SO I guess anything in the 6th inning with RISP and one out is not a clutch hit?
Even if it is the hit that wins the game for you?
Your definition is flawed!
And if you do what I expect and try to run to leverage Win Expectancy happens throughtout every inning of every game!
So your inning and pressure doesn’t apply to that definition either!
Hey now that you mentioned it late and close combined with high leverage would get you a good guess. As I have said over and over to me high leverage is as close as it gets. It adds for situation, score and inning and would give the most weight to a hit that changes the game the most. Perfect? No. What stat? Bit it us damn close to my definition of clutch. You can keep yours if you want.
This discussion is about DEFINING not GUESSING!
I know all you have is a guess but lets stay on topic shall we?
You like Leverge? Then your definition of clutch is wrong. Leverage is not based on inning but based on score!
a team with a 2-1 lead in the 4th has the same win expectancy as it has up 2-1 in the 8th!
SO much for your late and close too…
Because it only counts games where the game is close and would only count events that happen in the 7th or after…
So that clutch 3 run homer in the 6th would not count and we know you don’t want to count it since you don’t really want to count any event as being clutch!
Hence the wishy washy GUESS as opposed to nailing it down so someone could show you the stats of that situation!
You obviously don’t understand leverage if you think a team has the same percentage chance of winning up 2-1 in the 4th as in the 8th. So again you got yours and I will stick with mine.
over time he will. over time he will “regress to the mean”. thats why you can flip a coin and get heads 10 times in a row but not a thousand times. by the time you hit a thosand you will be damn close to 50/50 and never ever 90/10
And what time is that there Martin?
Over time all hitters will regress to hitting .250 if you let them play long enough.
Doesn’t mean they were not .300 hitters in their prime!
none of what you said made sense.
i flipped a coin once it was head 100 of the. i can promise you it wont be heads 100% of the time in the future.
dont use my 100% heads to predict the future, it wont work. and dont expect justin turner to hit above his average for long either. justin turners isnt exacly cal ripken. he doesnt have a huge amount of data. prollz shouldnt judge his clutchness just yet.
Ahh we get it now…You did NO MATH, NO RESEARCH, HAVE NO DATA…
Thats why you don’t understand it because your not actually using Formula or calculation/Analysis at all…Just maiking every AB a coin flip.
Just ASSumed that averages apply to all events even when data shows otherwise!
Just as averages apply to coin flips!
It’s all luck and situations don’t affect outcomes….
Glue a penny to the tails side giving it more weight on one side than the other and tell me how your 50/50 averages apply?
If you didknow anything about math and statistical analysis you know probablility does not have anytyhing to do with outcome….
Flip a coin one time and if it turns up heads you know what the probability changes to on the next flip?
It doesn’t it’s still a 50/50 shot you will get either heads or tails!
And neither time or instances change the odds at the flip!
It will ALWAYS be 50/50!
This is why your argument is wrong and you have no proof because it is based on a false premise that AVERAGES and PROBABILITY evens itself out!
It doesn’t, the coin doesn’t know what it came up in the past and really doesn’t care when it decides what side to show you when it lands!
Unfortunatly for you People are not coins and they DO have the ability to change the outcomes in certain situations…
This is why you failed!
“the point is that players cant rise to the occasion and hit better than they actually can. a 260 hitter is a 260 hitter regardless of the situation.”
This is where you are wrong. Yes, according to the rules of probability, all things being equal, if you flip a coin a million times, you would get 50/50 heads and tails.
The problem is that in sports, all things are not equal. Margin of error decreases and pressure goes up as you go through a game which is why players hit better in the first three innings, than they do in the last 3 innings and why batters hit better with no outs, than they do with 2 outs.
that is nice but the data shows that hitters hit their averages in clutch and not clutch situations. argue all you like, but yunno, data.
SHow this data!
Show us the equation used to calculate the results.
SHOW THE MATH and what you defined as the clutch metric value.
you are the one defining when the clutch situations are. i am telling you can define them anyways you like and the average will be the same as the regular average.
if you define them as when there is man on third in the bottom of the 9th with 2 outs and a tie score and barry bonds up, that would be a situation really likely to result in a walk, so that doesnt count as clutch. but actual situations where a batter is trying to get a hit.
hitters hit what they hit. the end.
So then go ahead and define them and show us how Kieth Hernandez didn’t hit better in clutch situations!
Show us how you figured he didn’t hit better in the situations I mentioned or pick your own situations and show us his splits compared to averge under them!
Can you?
Or are you just arguing a point you can’t prove while lying here and insisting you have data that shows something….
what about Adam Dunn? is he just an exception to the rule?
I really dont get why this is argued so much in the last 10 years. Whether it’s on this site or Fangraps or BP, it seems all three sites fight about this at least once a month off season and on. Why cant both sides just meet in the middle? It’s always the same old arguments with neither side ever proving anything other than an unwillingness to consider the flip side to the argument. This is getting tired.
Why? Because it is proof positive and exposes the whole problem with Statistical Analysis being used to promote certain types of philosophies in baseball!
The same statistical methids than they claim shows no such thing as a clutch hit when just about everyone knows does exist!
The same math that brought you Higher OBP = More RS is the same math that is trying to tell us all there is no such thing as clutch!
the same dastardly math that claims 2 plus 2 is 4.
Yes 2+4=4 under normal circumstances…
In Clutch situations which you insist doesn’t exist
2+2+clutch=4….
Where Clutch (being non existent) equals 0!
And thats how your math came out that players are the same as average in clutch situations because your bias weighted Clutch to be Zero, Non-Existant!
Justin Turner my friend…You can run from him but you can not hide!
Show us the formula you use to make Justin Turner a .255 hitter in clutch situations please…
You do after all HAVE one don’t you, after insisting you have proof why not show us your math and how you got Justing turner hitting .255 in clutch situations?
i dont need a formula to make turner hit his normal average in clutch situations. all i need is time. cant ignore data.
just like arod wadnt clutch……until he was.
he was always the same.
same with wright.
AHHH so all his math and reasearch you keep saying exists is not needed…
So all you really have is insistence eh?
So calculate this…
Keith Hernandez .296BA, .382OBP .436SLG in his career
Hit .315BA, .406OBP, .475SLG with MOB
How much more time do you need for him to come down to his normal average in Clutch situations?
men on base isnt clutch. it depends on the score and the inning.
also if a pitcher is giving up runners he is not pitching effectively so i would guess all batters have better averages when there are men on base. pitchers that are dominating dont face batters with men on base.
Why does a run in the 1st count more than a run in the 9th?
You see your whole argument only works if we let you get away with dismissing every clutch event as not countable basicallty all your doing is denying it existence so you can claim it doesn’t exist when the situations do!
But I’ll play one more round with you here…
DEFINE CLUTCH, ALL of it not just one part of it, ALL of it! Every situation that can be clutch!
I will debunk all you limitations placed on the definition!
the reason is that fools do not accept evidence and a desperate for some other narrative or they are not entertained. i am entertained even though clutch hitting does not exist. but unlike bayonne, i played the game.
You don’t have any evidence…You claim hitter hit the same no matter what the situation and I just showed you P{ROOF of one who doesn’t!
So really Martin who is the guy ignoring evidence and proof here?
YOU!
You claim there is no such thing as clutch!
And since you seem to think the following
2+2=4 under normal circumstance
2+2+CLUTCH=4 because Clutch doesn’t exists and is calculated to be ZERO…NOTHING…Doesn’t Exist!
BTW Playing stratomatic doesn’t really count as playing…
i didnt play stratomatic, i played the real game, like bayonne, except harder. my uniform was always dirtiest and i never got a hit unless it was clutch. my ob was terrible but i had lots of RBI.
Hmm then it must hve been your glowing personality and internal makeup that kept you from playing in the pros!
The problem with the term clutch is that it is subjective. My definition of clutch is going to be different than yours. Unless you have a standard for what is a clutch AB, you can never quantify it.
SABR chooses to dismiss it because it is too broad and I agree, however to say that a .260 hitter will be a .260 hitter in every situation, if they get enough AB is also too broad…
BINGO! It’s what I was saying before!
What the Sabers have done is to limit the sample size to be so small that anything found statistically is insignificant!
Clutch situations add emotional context to numbers that no spreadsheet can quantify!
It isn’t an absolute therefore until the actually define what is clutch they can’t find data to show it because there is nothing to be recognized!
It’s called Biasing the equation.
metise, you define what is clutch and gather data. you will find nothing. thre are books about this. they are not books filled with lies.
metsie i think if you quit analyzing stats and just played the game a little you would understand this better. put away the calculator and play the game, then you would see what clutch is.
I did define it and showedthe data, you said it wasn’t clutch so now you tell us what IS because none of us are into guessing what is going on inside that non-commiital head of yours!
metise you did it for one player.
i just flipped a coin twice and it was heads both times. i guess heads is clutch. came through during the only two chances i gave it.
And what does probability tell you about the next flip?
Better chance of Tails coming up because the average is 50/50?
And yes I showed one player to your NONE!
And i didn’t even have to look very far just find some guy who is done and will not be getting anymore time to prove your warped theory correct!
And actually I showed you two I also showed you Turner who if he quit today would blow your idea right out of the water!
CLUTCH and UNCLUTCH
Is there a widely accepted definition?
So just what does ‘clutch’ mean?
What does clutch have to do with being amped up?
What does it have to do with trying harder?
What does it have to do with nerves?
What does it have to do with being lazy?
What does it have to do with ‘skipping to the plate?
What does it have to do with a radar gun? (Was a young Bobby Parnell just as clutch when he was throwing 100 mph but getting booed?)
What does it have to do with ‘high leverage’?
What does it have to do with confidence? What does it have to do with focus?
Is every situation with MOB a clutch situation? (If so, is it always ‘clutch’, even when the score is wildly lopsided, e.g., 10-1, in the 9th inning?)
P.S.: I thought Bayonne’s claim to fame was that he coached some early teens. From there he went on to fame as an expert critic. His calm demeanor is a testimony to his knowledge.
Des April 19, 2011 at 4:17 pm
Here’s Des quoting himself. The snippets he refers to here ARE HIS OWN QUOTES from other posts!
——
There will inevitably be references to Ruben Tejada. Here are snippets posted from the past couple of days:
“After the first three games, Tejada has cooled, as reflected by his 5 for 23 (AVG .217). In total this season, Ruben hit a triple in his first game but hasn’t got any other extra base. He is an offensive deficit. “
“Let’s put the Ruben Tejada hitting and fielding skills into perspective. We know right now that Tejada is a weak hitter. He may develop into a serviceable hitter but he’s nowhere near that right now.”
“What’s not known widely is that Tejada is also weak fielder. This season Tejada has been shaky in the field for the Bisons. He has five errors in ten games at SS. He’s had 50 chances, and is fielding .900 — no doubt he’ll improve but this is a bit of a surprise.”
“For his minor league career, encompassing five seasons at SS and three seasons at 2B, Tejada’s Total Zone Fielding Runs Above Average is 3 at SS, but -2 at 2B. During the same time, Tejada has a .954 fielding percentage at SS. At 2B, his fielding percentage is .937. These numbers are well below those of top and even mediocre major leaguers. In the majors, average percentages at SS are around .975 and in the .980′s at 2B.”
“Tejada is a poor to mediocre middle infielder. In fact, Chase Utley, a guy who is viewed by many Mets fans as a inferior second baseman, has numbers way, way better than Tejada.“
“In 2010, Tejada played 50 games at 2B. How well did he play compared to all major league second basemen? Of the 91 players who played at least ten games at 2B, Tejada’s fielding percentage of .972 placed him tied at Number 77 with one other guy. Only 13 of the 91 players had a poorer fielding average.”
Bayonne you understand the game prett well for a guy who never played or coached. Do you read lots of bill James or baseball prospectus. If so that is cool. Kinda takes the fun out it when it’s all calculators and slide rules. More fun to understand the game, like viscerally, smell the grass and be on the field. That’s how you get real wisdom. Not with pocket protector in the basement with no girlfriend and a stack of statbooks
Thats funny…Bill James is the guy you got the no clutch exists bit from…
Was that pretty much you describing yourself to the rest of us?
More red herring BS from Bayonne. Thanks Bayonne. You are a clutch post writer.
P.S.: Explaining anything to Bayonne works until the next time his IQ is exceeded by his low EQ.
I’ll Answer….
Is there a widely accepted definition? NOPE!
So just what does ‘clutch’ mean?
(My Definition) Any situation where you have a chance to score a run without the NEED for a HR, AND any situation where you hit a HR. The better you are at scoring the potential runs available during the batting opportunity the more CLUTCH exists in the AB. Outs, Inning, score does not matter (thats where some disagree with my definition)
What does clutch have to do with being amped up? NOTHING it is about Opportunity given and Opportunity taken,
What does it have to do with trying harder? NOTHING! It is about success or failure not effort!
What does it have to do with nerves? Again NOTHING NERVES can act as a plus or a minus in all situations but the situation and nerves (if it is a factor) is directly proportional to the opportunity presented in the form of Runs that can be scored in the AB and even in cases where no pressure exists a hit can be clutch i.e. the walkoff HR in the 9th with no outs! No pressure there but that HR is as clutch as it gets!
What does it have to do with being lazy? Nothing thats just Martin laying smokescreen to hide a verty poor argument about probability of coin flips which doesn’t apply to human beings as they are not inanimate objects!
What does it have to do with a radar gun? Nothing but it can show those nerves and pressure that others think are key. When the pitch seems important power pitchers will try to add power but in the case of a guy like Dickey radar guns do not apply and location is the key!
Is every situation with MOB a clutch situation? (If so, is it always ‘clutch’, even when the score is wildly lopsided, e.g., 10-1, in the 9th inning?)
Yes because every run counts towards the final score and you can’t score the 10th run needed to win a game until you have scored the first 9 runs. This is also why the inning doesn’t matter either…
The last run scored in the 9th inning that wins you a one run game by a score of 3-2 is no more important than the 2 runs you scored earlier that made that run worth getting!
Nice try Metsie. Most definitions are elegant if they are simple. How do you rate yours?
Pretty simple!
Clutch is all about do you have the opportunity to score a run without the need to hit a HR (which every batter has) and how much of the available runs available to you did you drive in.
With no men on there is only one run you can get in nthe AB so therefore if you hit a HR it is a clutch hit as you drove in all the runs made available to you in the AB.
Some hits are more clutch than others.
Bases loaded for instance, 3 Run available without a HR, 4 With one.
HR is the biggest clutch hit there because you get the most runs.
Triple would be next because it gets you three runs with a runner in deep scoring position/
Double would get you Two of the three or all three but is less than the triple due to the fact your more than just one base away from scoring..
Etc…etc…
How you want to weight them is debatable. But it is the most simplest definitions of what is clutch and what is not than anything you guys could define trying to use pressure which has no indicator to go by!
I say the pressure exists and is the same in all like situations regardless of inning and score!
Cause as much as it is rediculous to say guys don’t try harder to get hits in important situations it’s just as rediculous to claim they don’t try to get those runs in when you deem it less important.
All Batters WANT to drive in the runs and if they feel any pressure it is proportional to how many guys are on base and how little is required to score them!
I’ve said the same thing since this “debate” began.
Clutch is in the eye of the beholder.
If you I can tell you ask me about non-Mets I can tell you what pitchers are great strikeout pitchers, I can tell you who are great power hitters, who hits for average, who is fast etc.
I can’t tell you who is clutch. A Kc Royals fan likely doesn’t know that people here think David Wright is “unclutch” because the “moments” mean nothing to them.
You remember what you want to remember as a fan. Clutch moments are easily defined as the most memorable. Which is why Jeter or Reggie are defined as clutch, because they had ample opportunities on a big stage.
The more opportunity for the “moment” the more likely you’ll be remembered for only the good or the bad.
I want a hitter to come through in the 6th inning just as much as I do in the 9th. That’s me.
If you hang your hat on Bottom of the 9th, 2 out, type scenarios than almost nobody will ever be good enough.
Clutch is what YOU make it out to be. It’s an emotion, not a statistic.
To take it a step further, you are never “clutch” after you are deemed “unclutch” or vice versa.
In the 2001 World Series, Derek Jeter went 4 for 27 in the loss to the DBacks.
Reggie had terrible LCS’ in 73 and 74
Alex Rodriguez was called unclutch by his own fanbase then hit .365 in the 2009 playoffs and carried the Yanks through to the AL pennant and still nobody will ever call him clutch.
It’s what you want it to be. Some people use the word to create a nostalgia for a player or a reason to never give the player credit.
The fact the Mets do so well with 2 outs tells me they don’t give up at bats and they are a gritty team, it doesn’t tell me they are “clutch”.
Your really asking the wrong Question here…
The one you should ask is does clutch really matter or is it really as important as people make it out to be?
Cause the bottomline is most people here have stated they think clutch is a situation with pressure and that pressure is there because they don’t really have to do too much to succeed which is why there is pressure on them in the first place!
As an example 9th inning vs Phils with Wright up.
He didn’t really need to do anything but hit a single….
And thats ALL he actually did!
If he needed to hit a HR that would be one thing but then again if they were that far away from the lead there wouldn’t be all that pressure on Wright to hit a HR.
So while everyone thinks Clutch is some great accomplishment really in most cases it is a situation wherethe players best is not needed and all that is needed is just doing enough and in many cases LESS than the batter does on average to get the job done!
With a runner on third if pressure is the key there is a lot less pressure to do something with a runner on third than if the runner was on second.
With 1 out a fly ball scores him, With two outs a single scores him,
But a double requires a much better act to get the run home and there fore should have more pressure and be more clutch than a guy on third!
This is why I poo Poo the pressure folks!
See for me I think the “idea” does exist. I just think its something that you, me, bayonne, alex, xtreem etc all view differently.
That’s my issue with labeling players as clutch or unclutch.
Outside of hitting a game winning HR in a deciding playoff game or World Series there is almost nothing that David Wright CAN do to go from “unclutch” in some eyes to “clutch.”
To me, that proves it’s a label of emotion more than skill. What % must a player succeed in order to be clutch?
Who are the clutch players on KC, Cleveland, Oakland etc?
Or does clutch hitting only matter in the playoffs? Because it seems we hold the 06 playoffs against Wright and ignore anything and everything after that.
Well I agree it is a subjective definition which is what happenes when you try to judge a player based on a possible mental state you can’t possibly know!
I fully agree with your original point in regards to that “Pressure” factor is all about what the VIEWER feels at the time and not anything the batter could be feeling.
I made an error in my example above I said Wright needed to hit a single when all he really needed was a walk. Was there a lot of pressure on Wright or more on the Pitcher since he couldn’t walk him meaning he had to throw strikes and that put Wright into an EASIER (Less Pressure) situation than he would be under in a normal AB and therefore didn’t have to be BETTER than normal in fact he didn’t need to do as much as normal!
The only thing Wright was pressured to do in that AB was not make an out! That kind of pressure pretty much exists in every AB doesn’t it? So I don’t see any more pressure on him in that situation but the hit was still clutch to me.
Until they come up with a way to show a players EKG and Pulserate during an AB I refuse to take any of those factors into account. I sure know my feelings sure won’t influence what he does in the AB so I have tried in my definition to remove all emotional content from my definition (showed above in reply to Des)
I agree folks are wishy washy with the labels just as they are wishy washy on what is clutch situations and what is not.
They can’t define it but they know it when they see it…
So we have something we actually both agree on what many percieve as clutch is based on THIER INTERNAL feelings of pressure not anything to do with what the batter is feeling.
Which makes most people’s idea of clutch subjective not objective.
A nervous Nelly watching a ballgame could think every AB is a clutch AB!
And a person who doesn’t really care either way will say Clutch doesn’t exist!
I prefer to define clutch without the emotional baggage and define it as any situation where you have a better than HR chance of scoring a run and do plus any AB that you score every run available to drive in during an AB. And the scale in between is filled by all the situations where you score a run, how easy it should be to score him and how many of the available runs you could have scored you actually do score!
I actually believe that the perception of clutch is misunderstood.
It’s not restricted to the final inning – it can be as early as the first Remember when the Mets had Andy Petite on the ropes last month? Petite was laboring that first inning and it was understood the Mets had to take advantage of that situation. Thus Ike’s two out three run homer was crucial for if one doesn’t get to a great pitcher early, there might not be another opportunity later on. And how often do we also hear that a team “wasted a golden opportunity” which eventually cost them the game.
I see clutch as not being how a player performs in terms of game situations – because there are nine innings and 27 outs to a game – but how he performs late in the season. Now, we know that some players wilt in the heat of a pennant race and post-season. Both Billy Wagner and Armando Benitez were overall great at their trades – until September came around and they were not the same. Most of the time ARod pressed so hard that he was a detriment to the Yankee attack in post-season. And others, like Roberto Clemente and Reggie Jackson thrived on it.
Under-achieving in September and October doesn’t take away from the accomplishments that helped get their teams to the positions they were, it’s just that those who can stand up to the day-in, day out pressure of the season on the line are usually called “the money players”.
A batter or pitcher who cannot perform day in and day out in all types of situations is not so much not a clutch player as he is a bench player.
BTW – George Steinbrenner called Dave Winfield “Mr. May” because he went 1 for 22 in the 1981 world series.
If we have to talk in terms of pure pressure, I think the players who know their jobs are not secure are the ones who really hit under pressure the most. Those with five year contracts don’t have that extra worry weighing on their shoulders. Even Jason Bay – who I think gives 100 percent effort and is quite unhappy with the way he has performed in New York – doesn’t have that type of pressure to contend with. Neither did Beltran in game seven. The pressure of competition is different and players usually thrive on it – no matter what the result.
Even Ralph Kiner had that type of pressure today’s player doesn’t have. Remember, he was told the Pirates could finish last with him or without him.