Tony Romo

[JAG]

I'm not sure I like the anti-clutch arguments using superstar playoff numbers being worse than their regular season numbers as evidence. Wouldn't you expect their numbers to be worse against the elite teams than the dregs of the league?

Anyway, I used to believe in 'clutch' but not so much anymore. Football does not boil down to 'quarterback vs. quarterback', there are quite a few other moving parts in there.

[ISiddiqui]

+whatever on the not buying the clutch player argument. I really don't think it exists. I can somewhat buy the choaking player argument, because some people can't handle pressure (but I think it is VASTLY overrated in almost all cases it is used - they wouldn't be professional athletes if they choaked so bad all the time).

Looking over all the arguments and numbers, I just don't think clutch ability exists.

[flere-imsaho]

I firmly believe "clutch" exists, but the arguments in this thread are so all over the place I haven't bothered to dispute the many claims.

"Clutch", to me, is simply a personality trait of a person that causes them to consistently perform above the level of their competition in finite, high-stress situations where the immediate result will be win or lose.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I guess I don't really know what we've been arguing about if Marino isn't clutch, unless clutch = have a really great defense and running game.

The guy has the most 4th quarter comebacks in NFL history.

I was a huge Marino fan, he is the reason I ever even followed the Dolphins and is my all-time favorite QB. That franchise died a little when he retired.

However, with that being said, I looked at his career playoff stats and his QB rating in the playoffs was 77.1. Not terrible, but not great either. I completely understand the team concept thing, and how a good defense and some luck can make a huge difference in the outcome. But those things have nothing to do with how a player performs as an individual, and when the run challenged Dolphins needed Marino to be great in the playoffs, he was only slightly above average. I do believe with a better team, he would have won a super bowl, but I just don't buy into him being a clutch player.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Here is the thing though, statistics don't back up your argument. The players you list as "clutch" just so happen to be great players in the regular season as well. The reason they perform in big moments isn't because they have some inate ability to get better, it's because they were already a great player who just did what they normally do.

Lets take Derek Jeter who everyone calls "clutch". Jeter has worse statistics in the playoffs than he does in the regular season. He hits 10 points higher when no one is on base than if runners are in scoring position. In fact, in games considered "Close and Late", Derek Jeter hits 23 points lower than his career average. (I can do the same for Jordan and Bird who shot worse in the playoffs than they did in the regular season)

So in your mind you and many others have considered Derek Jeter clutch. In reality, the statistics don't play out that way. He's essentially the same hitter and even a little worse in those situations. This isn't just for Jeter, it's for almost all athletes (plenty of statistical studies to back it up too). In sports, we like to create narratives. We need to have a reason why someone struck out in a crucial spot. It's easier to say that he is a choke artist instead of saying that statistically there was a 20% chance he would.

Notice that your list doesn't have any below average players who magically turn into Hall of Famers come crunch time. If there was a "clutch" that magically turned players into much better players, your list would be filled with people who we wouldn't consider great normally.

Jeter is a perfect example of a clutch player. It isn't the sum of his stats that necessarily matter (which makes each sport so much different in classifying what "cluch" really means). What makes Jeter clutch is his ability to hit in key situations, when the game is on the line. Conversely, Alex Rodriguez is anti-clutch because he rarely, if ever, comes through in key situations. I totally believe it is a mental/emotional thing. In A-Rod's case, I think he tries too hard and is just too tense, thus causing him to strike out/pop out/etc.., while Jeter seems to be a more relaxed player in general, and it shows in the playoffs/big situations.

As for average players becoming clutch, someone mentioned Robert Horry and he is a good example of a player that really elevates his play in the playoffs. Another one is Sam Cassell. I tried to think of some in other sports but at the moment am unable to.

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Winner Winner!

I dont think there is anything to a clutch player theory but I do feel there is something to an anti-clutch theory. Its hard for me to believe that a player can be better in tough situations over more normal situations but I can believe that certain players dont deal well with pressure whether its scared to fail, not confident in them situations OR ?????

This isn't what clutch is, though. Clutch is not always being better in tough situations, instead it is maintaining that level of greatness all of the time, regardless of the situation.

Originally Posted by jbergey22

And why the hell is Dan Marino in this debate? The guy had a history of leading teams back in the 4th quarter. Let me guess? He didnt when a Super Bowl so people think he is not clutch? Funny

See above.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I firmly believe "clutch" exists, but the arguments in this thread are so all over the place I haven't bothered to dispute the many claims.

"Clutch", to me, is simply a personality trait of a person that causes them to consistently perform above the level of their competition in finite, high-stress situations where the immediate result will be win or lose.

This is much better than my long-winded explanation.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Ping: Fire Joe Morgan

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I firmly believe "clutch" exists, but the arguments in this thread are so all over the place I haven't bothered to dispute the many claims.

"Clutch", to me, is simply a personality trait of a person that causes them to consistently perform above the level of their competition in finite, high-stress situations where the immediate result will be win or lose.

Is it clutch you are really after though? Some players may have the ability to not let their performance drop as much in tight situations because they are mentally tough and confident in these situations. The numbers pretty much accross the board are down on all athletes in difficult situations so it that how we want to define clutch? Players that dont let their pressure ability decrease as much from their normal real ability as a different player? I could live with this if thats the case.

That sounded confusing, sorry!

What I would be talking about is lets say on a game Peyton Manning has an overall ability of 97. During difficult situations his rating perhaps drops to 92 while a different player lets use Romo. He would have an overall ability of 92 but in clutch situations he would drop to a 75. Basically meaning that no player outperforms is actual ability in tight situations however some play much worse in tight situations. Hope this makes sense.

Actually having reread your post this is what you are saying pretty much.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Is it clutch you are really after though? Some players may have the ability to not let their performance drop as much in tight situations because they are mentally tough and confident in these situations. The numbers pretty much accross the board are down on all athletes in difficult situations so it that how we want to define clutch? Players that dont let their pressure ability decrease as much from their normal real ability as a different player? I could live with this if thats the case.

Basically meaning that no player outperforms is actual ability in tight situations however some play much worse in tight situations. Hope this makes sense.

This is essentially what I was getting at, just didn't do a very good job of it I guess.

Clutch = Maintaining a high level of play due to mental toughness compared to the competition.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

A-Rod is a lot better in the "clutch" than most people believe, which I think is indicative of the very subjective nature of "clutch" in the first place. We bias ourselves by only remembering his failures and not remembering his successes.

Alex Rodriguez Career Batting Splits - Baseball-Reference.com
Derek Jeter Career Batting Splits - Baseball-Reference.com

Not all that different in the clutch.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Is it clutch you are really after though? Some players may have the ability to not let their performance drop as much in tight situations because they are mentally tough and confident in these situations. The numbers pretty much accross the board are down on all athletes in difficult situations so it that how we want to define clutch? Players that dont let their pressure ability decrease as much from their normal real ability as a different player? I could live with this if thats the case.

I think what you're suggesting is that we could define "clutch" as a trait whereby individual athletes do not suffer a performance drop off (or too much of one) in difficult situations. To which I would say no, that's not what I'm saying, because it's too simple/broad a measure.

By way of example, let's say Team A and Team B enter the 4th quarter (football, obviously) with Team B ahead by 3 points. The QB of Team A, who has been completing 60% of his passes, continues at this level in the 4th quarter, resulting in a TD and a 4-point win over Team B. That's not necessarily "clutch", in my mind, it's simply a good QB continuing to perform well.

This, frankly, is why I view it as a nuanced personality trait that resists objective measures.

[cartman]

So why does a QB's "clutch" suffer when, after making numerous mistakes during the game, does lead his team to a score and the lead very late in the game, but the team ends up losing due to the defense allowing a score?

[JAG]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

However, with that being said, I looked at his career playoff stats and his QB rating in the playoffs was 77.1. Not terrible, but not great either. I completely understand the team concept thing, and how a good defense and some luck can make a huge difference in the outcome. But those things have nothing to do with how a player performs as an individual, and when the run challenged Dolphins needed Marino to be great in the playoffs, he was only slightly above average. I do believe with a better team, he would have won a super bowl, but I just don't buy into him being a clutch player.

Are you claiming that QB rating is a statistic that has no relationship with the rest of the team? I don't buy it. It's a lot easier for a QB to complete a pass if the defense has to worry about Adrian Peterson in the backfield. You can throw a fantastic ball but if the WR has hands of stone, what does it matter? If you're up 10 points, your whole playbook is open. If your defense and special teams have you down 21 points, the defense knows you're going to be forced to throw, teams can turn loose pass rushers, a lot more interceptions are thrown when you have to throw a lot more passes to keep up with the other team.

I'm not going to claim to be a scholar about Marino, the 80's / early 90's Dolphins playoff teams and their opponents, but I'm not going to buy that rating in isoloation as a reason he wasn't a clutch player.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by cartman

So why does a QB's "clutch" suffer when, after making numerous mistakes during the game, does lead his team to a score and the lead very late in the game, but the team ends up losing due to the defense allowing a score?

To me, "clutch" isn't defined by a single instance.

A game like football can sometimes obscure this because no one player (well, at the Pro level) can be on both sides of the ball. A QB could certainly be "clutch" if he consistently put his team in a position to win (say a lead with less than a minute to go), even if his defense consistently fucked it up.

[TroyF]

Roma,

If your definition of Jeter is correct, it should show up in the numbers. It doesn't. Everyone loves to say A-Rod sucks in the postseason. People love to remember how A-Rod tanked in the Tigers series a couple of years ago, while Jeter hit close to .500.

But look at these numbers:

6-30, .200 avg,, .333 obp, .233 SLG
3-17, .176 AVG, .176 OBP, .176 SLG

The top line is Jeter in the 2004 series against the Red Sox. (A-Rod his .258 and slugged over .500 in the same series)

The bottom line is Jeter two years ago against the Indians. A-Rod hit .267 that series.

You point out that Jeter comes through in the clutch, while A-Rod rarely does. The reality is that A-Rod comes through plenty and always has. Again, it's the ridiculous ways we define "clutch".

Jetere has hit better than .250 in a playoff series 16 out of 25 times in the postseason. (64%)

ARod has hit better than .250 6 out of 8 tries in the postseason. (75%)

Jeter has had 7 cracks at the ALCS and he's done this:

.262 BA, 25 runs in 41 games, .339 OBP, .405 SLG.

ARod has had 3 cracks at the ALCS:

.313 BA, 12 runs/10 RBI/4 HR in 14 games, .413 OBP, .611 SLG.

See, I know what you are going to say before you say it. One is ARod hasn't won a World Series. Of course he hasn't. Neither has Jeter sinse ARod has been on the team and I don't think that's all his fault. It's easy to blame ARod for the failure in the 2004 series and give Jeter a ton of credit because the previous year he hit a double to ignite the ninth inning rally against Pedro. (BTW, Jeter hit .233 that series in 2003)

Do I think there is a clutch factor there? The statistical evidence surely doesn't point to anything in that regard. I know Carmelo Anthony is over 2x more likely to hit a last second shot than Kobe Bryant based on the numbers. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but it didn't really seem to make a difference last year when Kobe killed the Nuggets in the playoffs.

Outside of a couple of anomolies, I think clutch is usually just a superstar being himself in the final minutes of a game.

[larrymcg421]

How about these playoff performances?

1986 vs. Cleveland - Miami down 21-3, Marino leads them back 24-21.
1991 vs. Kansas City - Miami down 16-3 late in 4th quarter, Marino leads them back 17-16
1994 vs. San Diego - Gets the ball back with less than a minute. Marino puts them in winning FG range. Stoyanovich misses.
1998 vs. Buffalo - Miami down 17-14. Marino leads two scoring drives for 24-17 win.
1999 vs. Seattle - Dolphins down 17-13. Marino leads game winning drive, including converting 3rd and 17 for a 20-17 victory.

But Roma put it best, "run challenged Dolphins". I once asked a trivia question about Dolphins RB's in the Marino era. If you take the top 10 playoff performances from Dolphins RB's in the Marino era, they range from 56-99 yards (Yep. Not once did they go over 100). In those games, Marino is 7-2. Go figure. Marino didn't need great RB's. If he had fucking adequate RB's, it would've been nice.

You think maybe there's a difference when you're throwing into nickle and dime defenses? When you don't have an RB that can run out the clock? When no one is scared that you're going to run it on 1st or 2nd down? When your defense constantly puts you behind? It's funny that the guys who are considered clutch and have "killer instinct" didn't have to worry about any of that.

[Julio Riddols]

I think Romos problem is that he is afraid to be bad. He is afraid now (after the one fumbled snap) to make the mistake in the big game. Until he gets over the hump and wins one and hears people talk about it, he probably won't stop doing this fading act. If the Cowboys are running away with the division late, he'll probably struggle in the playoffs. If things are tight late in the year, he'll probably start his struggles late in the year.

I think you could see it all in his relationship with Jessica Simpson. Once he saw how people were talking about her, how it negatively affected him, he got rid of her. Anything that affects him that way just nags at him. T.O. was probably the biggest nag for him last year.. This year, its the pressure of the new stadium and an owner thats pretty damn overbearing. It must be a perfect year. Thats all on Romo. He has to love Felix Jones right now.. And wants him back fast.

With Romo I am convinced it is entirely mental. He started it with one fateful fumble on one key play. He won't finish it until he manages to escape that nagging doubt by succeeding in one of these key situations either by overcoming the little voices or by dumb luck. (Derek Anderson did it that way for a whole season.)

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Roma,

If your definition of Jeter is correct, it should show up in the numbers. It doesn't. Everyone loves to say A-Rod sucks in the postseason. People love to remember how A-Rod tanked in the Tigers series a couple of years ago, while Jeter hit close to .500.

But look at these numbers:

6-30, .200 avg,, .333 obp, .233 SLG
3-17, .176 AVG, .176 OBP, .176 SLG

The top line is Jeter in the 2004 series against the Red Sox. (A-Rod his .258 and slugged over .500 in the same series)

The bottom line is Jeter two years ago against the Indians. A-Rod hit .267 that series.

You point out that Jeter comes through in the clutch, while A-Rod rarely does. The reality is that A-Rod comes through plenty and always has. Again, it's the ridiculous ways we define "clutch".

Jetere has hit better than .250 in a playoff series 16 out of 25 times in the postseason. (64%)

ARod has hit better than .250 6 out of 8 tries in the postseason. (75%)

Jeter has had 7 cracks at the ALCS and he's done this:

.262 BA, 25 runs in 41 games, .339 OBP, .405 SLG.

ARod has had 3 cracks at the ALCS:

.313 BA, 12 runs/10 RBI/4 HR in 14 games, .413 OBP, .611 SLG.

See, I know what you are going to say before you say it. One is ARod hasn't won a World Series. Of course he hasn't. Neither has Jeter sinse ARod has been on the team and I don't think that's all his fault. It's easy to blame ARod for the failure in the 2004 series and give Jeter a ton of credit because the previous year he hit a double to ignite the ninth inning rally against Pedro. (BTW, Jeter hit .233 that series in 2003)

Do I think there is a clutch factor there? The statistical evidence surely doesn't point to anything in that regard. I know Carmelo Anthony is over 2x more likely to hit a last second shot than Kobe Bryant based on the numbers. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but it didn't really seem to make a difference last year when Kobe killed the Nuggets in the playoffs.

Outside of a couple of anomolies, I think clutch is usually just a superstar being himself in the final minutes of a game.

See, the problem here is that you can't always base "clutch" on statistics. This is where the different stats in different sports mean so many different things. In baseball, for example, batting average is such a heavy statistic, but a guy that hits .150 in the playoffs might have gotten that ONE hit that meant the difference in a game. While Jeter may not hit .350 every year in the playoffs, he has proven over his career that he is a clutch player by his propensity to hit when it matters. It is true that I am not a fan of A-Rod, but it is hard to argue his ineptness in big situations in the playoffs. How many of the above numbers of his were when it didn't matter? I can't count how many times I have seen him strike out when it mattered, and hit a towering home run with no runners on and ahead 12-1 or losing 8-0. There is some truth to the concept that "clutch" can be based upon perception. The bottom line, however, is that we all really know which players we trust in big situations, and until guys like Romo prove that they can get it done, we will not consider them a clutch player. Either a guy has "it" or he doesn't.

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

How about these playoff performances?

1986 vs. Cleveland - Miami down 21-3, Marino leads them back 24-21.
1991 vs. Kansas City - Miami down 16-3 late in 4th quarter, Marino leads them back 17-16
1994 vs. San Diego - Gets the ball back with less than a minute. Marino puts them in winning FG range. Stoyanovich misses.
1998 vs. Buffalo - Miami down 17-14. Marino leads two scoring drives for 24-17 win.
1999 vs. Seattle - Dolphins down 17-13. Marino leads game winning drive, including converting 3rd and 17 for a 20-17 victory.

I had nightmares about that missed FG for months. I was living in San Diego at the time too.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Jeter is a perfect example of a clutch player. It isn't the sum of his stats that necessarily matter (which makes each sport so much different in classifying what "cluch" really means). What makes Jeter clutch is his ability to hit in key situations, when the game is on the line. Conversely, Alex Rodriguez is anti-clutch because he rarely, if ever, comes through in key situations. I totally believe it is a mental/emotional thing. In A-Rod's case, I think he tries too hard and is just too tense, thus causing him to strike out/pop out/etc.., while Jeter seems to be a more relaxed player in general, and it shows in the playoffs/big situations.

You can keep calling Jeter clutch, but statistics show that he gets worse late in close games. At some point you have to factor in his actual performance into this equation.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

How many of the above numbers of his were when it didn't matter? I can't count how many times I have seen him strike out when it mattered, and hit a towering home run with no runners on and ahead 12-1 or losing 8-0. There is some truth to the concept that "clutch" can be based upon perception. The bottom line, however, is that we all really know which players we trust in big situations, and until guys like Romo prove that they can get it done, we will not consider them a clutch player. Either a guy has "it" or he doesn't.

But your memory of A-Rod vs. Jeter is most likely biased by your beliefs - you remember A-Rod's failures and diminish his successes, and vice versa for Jeter.

[RainMaker]

The funny thing about Rodriguez not being "clutch" is that he actually had some great playoff series in his career. He nearly carried Seattle a couple times and his first year in New York was a big success.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

You can keep calling Jeter clutch, but statistics show that he gets worse late in close games. At some point you have to factor in his actual performance into this equation.

You are obviously hung up on the statistics portion of this argument, I guess I have nothing further to add.

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

But your memory of A-Rod vs. Jeter is most likely biased by your beliefs - you remember A-Rod's failures and diminish his successes, and vice versa for Jeter.

C'mon now. Am I the only one who actually watches these guys play?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

C'mon now. Am I the only one who actually watches these guys play?

No, you're the only one who relies on your "gut feeling" and the media narrative to determine this, and not actually look at what happened.

What is there to tell the story about A-Rod vs. Jeter other than statistics?

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

No, you're the only one who relies on your "gut feeling" and the media narrative to determine this, and not actually look at what happened.

What is there to tell the story about A-Rod vs. Jeter other than statistics?

Watching a player actually play. This is true regardless of what sport or position you are talking about. Saying that A-Rod is on the same level as Jeter in big situations is just silly.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

You are obviously hung up on the statistics portion of this argument, I guess I have nothing further to add.

Because statistics are what actually happened. They aren't biased by anything. They don't have preconceived notions.

It's like saying "Lebron James is a great 3-point shooter". The other person claims that he's a 33% shooter from beyond the arc which is not great by any means. Then coming back and saying "well I can just tell by watching him he's a great 3-point shooter".

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Saying that A-Rod is on the same level as Jeter in big situations is just silly.

As the links I posted earlier show, in high leverage situations Jeter has a tOPS+ of 101, meaning he is slightly better than his usual performance in those situations. A-Rod, on the other hand, has a tOPS+ of 103, meaning he is slightly better than his usual performance in those situations, and betters his usual performance MORE than Jeter does. There is nothing silly about this.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Watching a player actually play. This is true regardless of what sport or position you are talking about. Saying that A-Rod is on the same level as Jeter in big situations is just silly.

Read the book Moneyball. It will change your view on sports.

You can't determine things like that with the naked eye. As I said earlier, the difference in a .275 hitter and .300 hitter is one hit every 2 weeks. Even if you watched every game, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference in the two. That is why statistics are so important, they can tell the difference in those 2 players.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

You are obviously hung up on the statistics portion of this argument, I guess I have nothing further to add.

Wow.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Watching a player actually play. This is true regardless of what sport or position you are talking about. Saying that A-Rod is on the same level as Jeter in big situations is just silly.

Wait. Didn't you just use QB rating to determine Marino wasn't clutch? You can't have it both ways.

[Sun Tzu]

Wait wait wait...did somebody here say that Joe Montana struggled after winning a title? Exactly which title are we talking about? Someone who wins 4 titles in 9 seasons all decently spread out with completely different talent around him in 3 out of those 4...when was this struggle?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Radii

Wow.

+2

When someone says you are using too many statistics, that's when I start to devalue their opinion on sports.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

See, the problem here is that you can't always base "clutch" on statistics. This is where the different stats in different sports mean so many different things. In baseball, for example, batting average is such a heavy statistic,

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Wait. Didn't you just use QB rating to determine Marino wasn't clutch? You can't have it both ways.

Statistics mean different things, depending on the sport. That is all I was alluding to.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

+2

When someone says you are using too many statistics, that's when I start to devalue their opinion on sports.

I never said this.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Read the book Moneyball. It will change your view on sports.

You can't determine things like that with the naked eye. As I said earlier, the difference in a .275 hitter and .300 hitter is one hit every 2 weeks. Even if you watched every game, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference in the two. That is why statistics are so important, they can tell the difference in those 2 players.

So you are saying that I can't determine whether or not Jeter gets a hit in a key situation vs. A-Rod not getting a hit in a key situation with the naked eye? Hmmm...interesting.

I have heard of that book Moneyball, who wrote it?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

So you are saying that I can't determine whether or not Jeter gets a hit in a key situation vs. A-Rod not getting a hit in a key situation with the naked eye? Hmmm...interesting.

I have heard of that book Moneyball, who wrote it?

One at-bat you can, but over the course of their careers you can't determine who is "clutch" and who isn't. It's just not possible. Just as you wouldn't be able to tell me if Lebron shoots better in the final minutes of a game if you watched every game. Everyone skews what they see. Kobe was always considered a clutch player and closer, but statistics actually show that he gets much worse in the final parts of the game.

Moneyball is written by Michael Lewis. It essentially chronicales Billy Beane and the A's and how they were able to build 90+ win teams on essentially a crap payroll. The jist of the book is that they figured out that scouts are horrible evaluators of talent. They can't tell the difference in a .275 and .300 hitter just by watching their games. They figured out stats that were undervalued and were able to draft and pick up free agents who other teams didn't think were worth much.

It's short and I think a must read for any sports fan. It's not a boring statistics book, but instead written as a pseudo-biography that is interesting and tells a story. There are also a lot of other good sources like Baseball Prospectus that compiles these stats and can debunk things like clutch. There was a study a little while back that took every major leaguer and crunched the numbers to find out that only 2 had actually signifigantly improved on their career averages in the clutch.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

I never said this.

So you never said:

You are obviously hung up on the statistics portion of this argument,

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

One at-bat you can, but over the course of their careers you can't determine who is "clutch" and who isn't. It's just not possible. Just as you wouldn't be able to tell me if Lebron shoots better in the final minutes of a game if you watched every game. Everyone skews what they see. Kobe was always considered a clutch player and closer, but statistics actually show that he gets much worse in the final parts of the game.

Moneyball is written by Michael Lewis. It essentially chronicales Billy Beane and the A's and how they were able to build 90+ win teams on essentially a crap payroll. The jist of the book is that they figured out that scouts are horrible evaluators of talent. They can't tell the difference in a .275 and .300 hitter just by watching their games. They figured out stats that were undervalued and were able to draft and pick up free agents who other teams didn't think were worth much.

It's short and I think a must read for any sports fan. It's not a boring statistics book, but instead written as a pseudo-biography that is interesting and tells a story. There are also a lot of other good sources like Baseball Prospectus that compiles these stats and can debunk things like clutch. There was a study a little while back that took every major leaguer and crunched the numbers to find out that only 2 had actually signifigantly improved on their career averages in the clutch.

See, this is the thing. I don't think clutch is improving a career average, rather it is maintaining that average in more difficult circumstances.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Right, and I showed you the statistics that show that A-Rod has a better than average record in high leverage situations.

[RomaGoth]

I said:

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

You are obviously hung up on the statistics portion of this argument...

You said:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

When someone says you are using too many statistics, that's when I start to devalue their opinion on sports.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

So you never said:

I fail to see how these are the same thing.

[ISiddiqui]

I see them as absolutely equivalent. You are saying we are using too many statistics instead of watching games and making subective opinions.

[Sun Tzu]

I'm right in the middle on this thing. I think there's something to being "clutch" that can't be measured by statistics. There's only so much that numbers can show. Various factors can affect stats throughout a game.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

How can something exist that can't be measured by statistics? If clutch hitting existed, why couldn't we find statistical proof of it? I mean, "clutch hitters" should see a performance boost, right? Otherwise, what's the point of being clutch?

[Sun Tzu]

Oh, yeah I'm talking about Football. With baseball just about everything (outside of outstanding defensive plays) can be measured.

[flere-imsaho]

Can someone explain to me what tOPS+ is?

[Passacaglia]

Obviously each play needs to be given a 'clutch weighting' that is calculated from all the factors going on in whatever game it is, then use that weighting times the result in every play for a player, add them up, and get the rating.

Get to work, gents!

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Can someone explain to me what tOPS+ is?

Originally Posted by baseball-reference.com

OPS+ of this split relative to the player or team's overall OPS: 100*((split OBP/total OBP) + (split SLG/total SLG) - 1)

Yeah, I don't know that I get it either.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

It's measuring that players OPS+ (which is OPS normalized to league averages) in that particular situation against that players OPS+ in every situation. If the number is 100 that means in whatever situation you are looking at that player is performing at his average level. If it's over 100, they are playing above their average level.

[flere-imsaho]

OK, so what's OPS?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

On-base plus slugging - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The addition of the player's OBP and SLG.

[flere-imsaho]

OK, so what defines a "high leverage situation"?

Sorry I'm being dense, but I'm a history major.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I don't have time to find a better answer - leaving soon - but here's a quick definition

Mathematically, leverage is based on the win expectancy work done by Keith Woolner in BP 2005, and is defined as the change in the probability of winning the game from scoring (or allowing) one additional run in the current game situation divided by the change in probability from scoring (or allowing) one run at the start of the game.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/gl...earch=leverage

Baseball by the Numbers (book) had a great chapter on leverage, where I learned about it.