Clutch Hitting, Clutch Hitters, David Ortiz, and Unicorns

by baseballgirl on Jul 5, 2006 7:57 AM PDT in News

It's been suggested during the recent offensive struggles that the A's don't have a very 'clutch' team. I respectfully disagree. No, it's not that I think the A's hitters are 'clutch', it's that I don't think they have been good...period. In all situations, and that doesn't make them 'un-clutch', it makes them lousy hitters.

I don't believe in clutch hitting. I think the idea was made up by a combination of the DJITBBPEE (Derek Jeter is the Best Baseball Player Ever EVER) club to justify his salary and 'intangibles', and players-turned-broadcasters/analysts who love any chance to remind the common fan that there is a mythical element to baseball that we can never understand; the idea that they alone can pick out a player of immeasurable worth, even though the actual numbers may tell a different story.

Measuring 'clutch performance' is a nebulous science, at best. Ask ten firm believers in the theory and you will get ten different definitions on what exactly constitutes `clutch'. It is this conveniently shifting definition that allows for the propagation of this concept, and the cherry-picking of stats. Some people (Rex Hudler) think that 'clutch' hitting is any time a player gets a hit with men in scoring position and two outs, regardless of the inning. Others (Joe Morgan) believe that the true measure of `clutch' is getting the always-important `big hit' in a `big game' in a `big spot'. Those compiling statistics for the Major League Baseball website have attempted to nail a definition down using the numbers: including hitting with RISP, hitting with 2 outs, hitting in the seventh inning or later, and game-winning hits.

Eric Walker, in The Sinister First Baseman, had his own theory, using the numbers to back his point up. I wrote a diary on the whole subject last year, using his book:

"Coming through in the clutch" has always been held out as one of the clearest hallmarks of a quality ball team or individual for that matter. This is one of a large number of baseball superstitions, most of which arise from a common source, a failure to grasp the elements of random-phenomenon patterns ("stochastic theory," the science types call it)...

The tale of Derek Jeter should be all you need to read regarding the New York situation. Make no mistake about it; Derek Jeter is an amazing hitter, shown in large part in that his playoff numbers rival his regular season ones. On the biggest stage, facing the best pitchers, Jeter still hits his numbers. But is this `clutch'? If anything, the idea of clutch reflects negatively on Jeter, in that, if he has the ability to step it up `when it counts' (which by the way, the numbers do not show--they show that Jeter is a good hitter, all the time, without any discrimination of who is on base or what inning it is), why doesn't he hit like that all the time?

From the comments after the same article:

The notion of the clutch player, especially in Jeter's case, is downright insulting. Why? Because with Jeter's OPS, if you're saying his hits all come close and late, then he's basically dogging it the rest of the way. I don't buy it. People are known to have faulty memories. I'd say that's more likely than Jeter only bothering to show up and play in the 8th and 9th innings against the Red Sox and Mets.

While clutch hitting may not exist, I can see the argument on the other side; 'un-clutch' hitting, of sorts. Players are human, and despite playing on a big stage all the time, I certainly believe the idea that there are times when a player can have a terrible at-bat in a big situation has some credence. Of course, any player at any time can have a `bad' series, and unfortunately, in the sports world, failures are minimized for those labeled `clutch' (when was the last time a Derek Jeter strikeout or error was broadcast on ESPN?), and maximized when the player is seen as a choker (see: all footage on A-rod).

But like any absolute, if I'm going to draw a line at what I'm willing to believe, then it must be true in all circumstances, not just when it's convenient. Which leaves me with the case of David Ortiz.

Fire Joe Morgan puts it best:

KT: This kills me to write, but...there is no such thing as clutch hitting. The reason it kills me is because I have watched David Ortiz win thirteen games with walk-off hits in the last three years, including three in the playoffs, and two in the last two days. David Ortiz/clutch hitting is like one of those magic eyes holograms - you know there is no 3-D space shuttle in the book you are holding, but holy [crap] does it look like there is a 3-D space shuttle.

Isn't that the truth? Maybe the solution is that Ortiz simply gets his pitch when it counts. Maybe opposing batteries just expect Ortiz to get the hit, and this is unconsciously reflected in their pitch selection. Maybe Ortiz is just a great hitter, and it follows naturally that a great hitter is going to win you some games. And if you look a little closer, you'll find that managers don't pitch him maybe the way they should, both in pitch selection, and choice of bullpen arms, seeing that the vast majority of this takes place against righties. To quote David Arnott, from the article above, David Ortiz against lefties is basically Brad Wilkerson.

But MAN!, he makes the 'clutchness' (used ironically) of Derek Jeter pale in comparison. And against a right-handed pitcher in a crucial at-bat, David Ortiz probably would high on my list of batters I'd want up there (A-rod and Pujols fight for the top spot). Yet I think I'd choose Ortiz simply because he's a really good hitter, not because of any mythical, magical `clutch' ability...I think.

So what is `clutch'? Do players really `rise' to the occasion when needed? Are some players just overall good players, and naturally they're also good in the big situations? Is it possible for a player to be average most of the time, but somehow turn it up when he needs a 'big hit'? Is David Ortiz a great hitter all the time or a clutch hitter when it counts? Or both? And more importantly, can you back it up?

Discuss.

And reminder: Day Game today! A's try for the Detroit sweep at 12:35 against...yeah, you know.

Tweet Comment 60 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Clutch THIS!

there are clutch performers. baseball just makes it tougher to measure. Think of any other sport, heck any other job and it is easier to see how some players dont let pressure effect them. I dont think that players get more dialed in so to say, but some certainly crumble. the biggest example i can think of is Doug Cristie for the sacramento kings against the Lakers in the playoffs a few years back. He started with a bad series and by the end of the 7th game was having some of the worst looking shots anyone could take. It seemed that he couldnt handle the pressure from the games and from the lakers trash taking.

or just think about your own work environment. I'm sure we all know people at our jobs that handle pressure easily and others that fall apart. Why would a job like ballplayer be any different? they are just people afterall.

by thefosseposse on Jul 5, 2006 8:08 AM PDT reply actions

But I think this is part of BBG's point

that there certainly is unclutch (people who perform significantly worse when the pressure is on, such as Doug Christie in your example) but not clutch, if that is taken to mean people who perform consistently significantly better than their average in those types of situations.

"Even if you know the deck is stacked in your favor, you still have to have the discipline to trust the math and the cojones to go to the ATM." BB

by green star oakland on Jul 5, 2006 8:49 AM PDT up reply actions

"Clutch" as a tangible doesn't exist

"Clutch" is a word used to describe a situation and a reaction: Most specifically, a situation with the game on the line, and the reaction of doing something to win it. Being "clutch" simply means that a player often reacts the same way in the same situation. The situation itself, while the details may change like the number of runs behind, number of men on base, is basically the same, and the reaction is what creates "Clutch."

"Clutch", since it's only a reaction to a certain situation, is completely irregular, and I don't think you can say any player is consistently "clutch".

I also think that announcers use the word way too much. You can pinpoint when a "clutch" reaction happens, but it's proabably not a good idea to label players with it, because clutch is, in my opinion, opportunity mixed with bits of luck. The "clutch" player often has no say in the end situation, because his reaction will change with the pitches he's thrown.

"Clutch" as an intangible, on the other hand, is someone's way of trying to describe luck (you can't, which is my point.) "Clutch", if you call it an intangible, is kind of irrelevant to the other "clutch" described above. Sure, it's a fun word to use about somebody that comes through, but I don't think that it actually means anything, because, as I said above, you can't put the label of clutch on anybody.

I sincerely hope that made some whit of sense, because I thought it up on the spot and it seemed to sound right.

"I've heard the hangovers are worse." -Zito on high altitude

by Squeaky on Jul 5, 2006 8:13 AM PDT reply actions

"Clutch"

is a kick ass band though. Any fans of some good, ass kickin music check out www.pro-rock.com

Thats the official CLUTCH website. Im tellin yall they rock!~

Bring back the Bash! Bring back the Mustache! Go A's in 2006!!!

Death To The Angels!!

by Shippee33 on Jul 6, 2006 12:56 AM PDT up reply actions

Not trying to sound like Joe Morgan...

And I know statheads will prove me wrong, but I believe in clutch hitting. I believe that there are some players (you can say Ortiz, I remember Tejada and Marco for us) who for whatever reason excel in close and late game situations. That's how I define "clutch" - it's a feeling that if you're down by a run or two going into the ninth, and player X is due up, you feel that the odds are still in your favor.

I fondly remember the feeling that no matter how far we were down, even if Mariano Rivera was on the mound, that Tejada would somehow win the game for us. It's just my opinion, but some things in baseball can't be measured. It's what makes this game magical. Not saying statistics are bad or anything, but if you try to put "clutch" into a number, you start to lose its meaning. It's more heart than head.

Stephen Colbert: "Kids who look up to athletes become athletes themselves."
The Word: Or bitter sports journalists.

by JLaff on Jul 5, 2006 8:15 AM PDT reply actions

Easy to measure

Good hitter and Bad Hitter.

Good Hitter = Clutch
Bad Hitter = Not Clutch

Bad Hitter + selective memeory = seems clutch but really is not.

Marco Scutaro super sub, so-so hitter, no one remembers when he does not come through. And, there are quite a few times where Scutaro has been up in the ninth and we needed a base runner, and he did squat.

(Note: I like Scutaro as a super sub.)

by Donner on Jul 5, 2006 9:05 AM PDT up reply actions

(He's not even all that super, though.)

Can intangibles exist? Only the ones you can touch.

by salb918 on Jul 5, 2006 9:06 AM PDT up reply actions

Yep

Scutaro is a classic case. We remember the seven times in two years when he won a game for us, but I can remember way more times than that when he did nothing in the 9th also.

Scutaro is just not a very good hitter. Period.

Tony LaRussa:"If you have the horses, you'll win. If you don't, you'll lose." Me: "We're missing some ponies!"

by baseballgirl on Jul 5, 2006 9:10 AM PDT up reply actions

I'm not saying

Marco is a good hitter. I admit that he is one of my favorites, so that may fog my judgement. But he's just one of the guys who I feel somehow confident in that he can come through with a big hit when needed. No, this does not happen all the time. Statistically, it rarely happens. No, he's not the optimal everyday player.

My point was that I think "clutch" is in the eye of the beholder. Not all star players (to take the mass-produced example - A-Rod) are "clutch". Whether player X is more or less clutch than player Y will differ in views from myself, baseballgirl, sal, or any other baseball fan in the world. As cirquegirl said, "clutch" is more or less luck. If our favorite .190 hitter happens to guess fastball, and get it right, well then... he's clutch for that night.

Stephen Colbert: "Kids who look up to athletes become athletes themselves."
The Word: Or bitter sports journalists.

by JLaff on Jul 5, 2006 10:05 AM PDT up reply actions

A single event can be clutch...

But, there are only 3 types of hitters in terms of clutchness.

Good hitters
Bad hitters
Good hitters who crumble under pressure.

And, #3 should not make it into the majors and if they do, they end up looking like #2. I mean how much more pressure is there in the ninth than there is in the first in a gigantic ballpark with 30,000 fans?

See Billy Beane.

by Donner on Jul 6, 2006 7:58 AM PDT up reply actions

You know, maybe we're lookin at this the wrong way

I've read your diaries, BBG, and know you've done all your homework, but since people's perception of 'clutch' continues to exist, how about we look at this from another perspective?

Specifically, we know from your stats, that 'clutch' doesn't truly exist, and really the best case argument for clutch is from players that maintain the same performance in 'clutch' situations. I totally agree with that and have even tried to convince people that this is the case. But what if you take it one step further?

My stat-based question is ...
What is the expected dropoff (if any) for the average player in a 'clutch' situation? Is it possible to extract those situations from a player's normal stats?

I guess it crossed my mind that if the average player is proven to be 'un-clutch' by some noticeable degree, then that un-clutch performance is actually the norm, and by default, a 'clutch' player would be one that can maintain their average. Does this make any sense?

I realize this could probably involve quite a bit a stat-crunching, but maybe it'd be manageable if confined to the A's and Red Sox rosters (where we know which players have a 'clutch' reputation).

by Rickeyfan on Jul 5, 2006 8:21 AM PDT reply actions

I think this is

the framework you're looking for:

You could do this with historical WinExp data to identify "clutch" players. Run a regression of WinExp Data to OBP/ISO. You will get an equation of the form WinExp (predicted) = a*OBP + b*ISO. I imagine the r^2 will be something like 0.90.

Then, you can define Residual WinExp = WinExp (actual) - WinExp (predicted). This RWE is the win expectancy contributed beyond what one would expect given only his OBP and ISO. (You may have to adjust for playing time, or you could just use VORP instead of OBP/ISO.) You could then use the BPro year-to-year methodology to see if some players consistently show the ability to add WinExp above and beyond what their basic stats show.

http://www.athleticsnation.com/comments/2005/10/16/17229/607/3#3

For what it's worth, of course clutch hitting exists. We see it every day. The only question, in my mind, is whether clutch hitters exist.

Can intangibles exist? Only the ones you can touch.

by salb918 on Jul 5, 2006 8:37 AM PDT up reply actions

That's an interesting idea.

Unlike last year, I actually understand it. I'm not going to touch it with a cattle prod, but that's an interesting concept.

"The hard... is what makes it great."

by Jjjsixsix on Jul 5, 2006 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions

I see that you

have read "Baseball Between the Numbers", Great book. It totally helps me understand what WinExp, and a few more of the less mainstream stats means. I have seen WinExp and VORP thrown around AN for a few months now, and I was totally in the dark untill I read that book.

Bring back the Bash! Bring back the Mustache! Go A's in 2006!!!

Death To The Angels!!

by Shippee33 on Jul 6, 2006 1:01 AM PDT up reply actions

all about chokers

Good point, someone must have done this study of drop-off. In other words, I find it hard to believe that some people play significantly BETTER in clutch situations, but I don't find it hard to believe some people "choke" in clutch situations.

On the other hand, it wouldn't surprise me if this effect didn't exist either. After all, we're not talking about looking at all people, we're talking about a hand-selected group of 1200 people out of millions chosen because they can handle pressure.

In my mind, there are three basic underlying issues.

American sports (and life) ideology is this "performance = assessment of your worth and character".
People cannot truly distinguish by numberless observation significant performance differences in baseball. That means once you get a reputation (clutch or choker), it is very hard to change it.
Any narrative with heroes needs its villians.

If you believe (1), then you really don't like the idea that a lot of important plays in baseball are random. We want to believe in clutch because we want to believe that sports performance is about character. If it's completely about character, then how can it ever be random? Jeter earns all of those hits, etc.

(3) means that the issue is NOT about players being clutch. The important thing is for some to be clutch and some to be chokers. That's why A-Rod exists as a "choker" even though he outperformed Jeter in every way in every situation last year, and unless he hits a couple of game-winning hits in a Series-winning year, (2) means he's going to be a choker forever. It just wouldn't be interesting if EVERYONE at the highest levels (or even the large majority) was clutch, which is quite likely to be the case, in my opinion.

by Apricot on Jul 5, 2006 8:46 AM PDT up reply actions

I think you pretty much showed

that there really is clutch and how it really should be defined. If you argue that "unclutch" exists, specifically as those who buckle under the pressure (defined loosely) then you have to have people who are "clutch" defined as players who don't buckle under the pressure.

Ortiz is absolutely a clutch hitter. Not because he keeps coming through at the end of the game, but because he doesn't succumb to the pressure of the end of the game. Clutchness is not about going above and beyond what is normal for you in a less than normal situation. Clutchness is about playing the game/circumstances as if it were the same as any other time. A guy like Ortiz doesn't succeed everytime the pressure is on, but he also doesn't fail more often when it is. That's clutch. That being said, under those terms, someone like Perez could be considered clutch, and perhaps he is. "Clutch" performers may exist, but the importance of them may not be as exciting or as necessary as its made out to be. Especially as its brought up by bad announcers, its definitely not as important as advertised.

And... on a side note. Don't listen to Hudler or Morgan about anything baseball related. Or else you'll write their opinions down as if they mattered. And we all know you know better.

by DMOAS on Jul 5, 2006 8:22 AM PDT reply actions

The idea of clutch hitting certainly wasn't

invented around the time of Derek Jeter. Baseball did exist before 2000, people, even though you wouldn't know it by reading the posts here.

I'll try not to swear.

by Tony on Jul 5, 2006 8:41 AM PDT reply actions

Riiight...

...and the first book I quoted in the post was one written in the early 80's, which seemed to usher in the 'new era' of baseball?

Tony LaRussa:"If you have the horses, you'll win. If you don't, you'll lose." Me: "We're missing some ponies!"

by baseballgirl on Jul 5, 2006 9:08 AM PDT up reply actions

why start this?

what, mac vs. pc is no longer relavent? this is the least interesting topic on AN. its been beaten to death. stat-heads assert their arrogance and point to "evidence" that it is a misnomer. why not just simulate games on the xbox if stats are all that matter.

"If you think there's a solution, you're part of the problem." -George Carlin

by eshock on Jul 5, 2006 8:50 AM PDT reply actions

you have it backwards

Statheads have no stake in clutch existing or not existing. If you're going to propose a phenomenon, we would just like evidence that it exists. The flow goes propose a theory -> find evidence, not propose theory -> challenge others to find evidence to disprove your theory.

Stats only matter in the sense that they are an accurate record of what has happened. They don't tell the future, they simply predict an outcome's likely range of probabilities. That why you may not be able to tell 100% for sure who's going to win a particular hand of blackjack, but americans spend more money on gambling than any other form of entertainment because the odds are stacked ever so slightly against them.

by MrIncognito on Jul 5, 2006 9:07 AM PDT up reply actions

Actually, I'd say it goes

a) propose theory
b) derive measurable predictions of theory
c) observe and measure predicted quantities
d) compare observations with predictions to test theory

I think what you said (propose theory -> find evidence) is what happens a lot, and is otherwise known as cherry-picking.

"Even if you know the deck is stacked in your favor, you still have to have the discipline to trust the math and the cojones to go to the ATM." BB

by green star oakland on Jul 5, 2006 9:33 AM PDT up reply actions

If something continues to be

"beaten to death" and people continue to show interest in it, then it must not be the "least interesting topic on AN" to everybody, eh?

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Jul 5, 2006 9:12 AM PDT up reply actions

If you think its boring...

Why read it and comment? Just go to the next diary.

Bring back Hammer.

by OaktownPower on Jul 5, 2006 9:16 AM PDT up reply actions

Or write a better one

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Jul 5, 2006 9:19 AM PDT up reply actions

My silence

I silently protest "useless" arguments all the time. You see, Nico, after a while, subjects on bulletin boards get beaten to death and it becomes useless to argue their merits hence my mac vs. pc argument. It does not matter which computer you use, both sides continue to disagree. And, this is not the diary, this is the featured home page article. You see, Nico, something that I point out on this site, is that there is a responsibility as an Admin or Editor of an online community. A responsibility of germaineness, being interesting, guiding the discourse and creating an identity. You may think this is a social club with inside jokes and cliques, and that's fine. For others, we rely on AN for thoughtful discussion of the game. A forum to point out nuanced observation to an audience that cares. Should I be silent in trying to assert that this place could be better? More inclusive? I guess you would prefer that I go away for ever.

"If you think there's a solution, you're part of the problem." -George Carlin

by eshock on Jul 5, 2006 11:02 AM PDT up reply actions

Well said.

I'll try not to swear.

by Tony on Jul 5, 2006 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions

Agree with this post

Exactly. It's silly to tell someone complaining to just go away. If I call KNBR to complain about a show, their telling me to "just not listen" doesn't address my point.

eshock made a valid point about the original diary. There's no reason for anyone to tell him to just not read or respond or whatever.

by RLangford on Jul 5, 2006 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions

Thanks RLangford

I remember noticing you and I were some of the very few that didn't give up all hope after the Dbacks sweep. I appreciated seeing your post back then... I'm thinking, don't we all remember how night and day this team has been this Millenium? That is the pain and joy of loving this team. Nothing this team does will ever surprise me. Even winning the WS this year would not surprise me.

"If you think there's a solution, you're part of the problem." -George Carlin

by eshock on Jul 5, 2006 2:26 PM PDT up reply actions

I guess my point is that

I don't think the point eshock made was valid. It stated that the topic was tired; a later post asserts that front-page writers have an "obligation to be interesting".

You cannot please everyone with your choice of topics or your attempted "interestingness". On this site, any move by Ken Macha is generally agreed to be great and awful, the A's future rosy and bleak, a given comment hilarious and offensive. The same topic eshock finds old and dull, many find interesting; whatever eshock would find exciting and fresh, many undoubtedly would find old and/or dull.

If a reader says, "Thanks for all the time you volunteer to write the best stuff you can; I didn't care for that one," fair enough. If a reader says "great writeup!" one time, then "lame writeup" another time, fine. If a reader puts him/herself out there for praise or criticism too, fair enough.

But to consume the content day after day without showing any appreciation, and only to comment when inspired to offer "well this one sucks" criticism, is, IMO, about as impressive as Kendall's power.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Jul 5, 2006 5:39 PM PDT up reply actions

There's been a LOT of attention...

...on David Ortiz and Derek Jeter vs. A-rod lately--on a LOT of baseball sites--enough so that I've been really looking at the idea of a clutch hitter.

I did the best I could with this; I'm sorry if you felt it was a waste of time.

Tony LaRussa:"If you have the horses, you'll win. If you don't, you'll lose." Me: "We're missing some ponies!"

by baseballgirl on Jul 5, 2006 2:33 PM PDT up reply actions

Clutch

One of the problems you've identified is defining what clutch means. Since there are a dizzying array of definitions, it's difficult to address each one.

In terms of clutchness of players, here's a brief examination of our own Marco Scutaro's 3 year splits (avg/obp/slg):

Overall: .257 .306 .389
Scoring Position, 2 out: .225 .323 .288
Close/Late: .252 .313 .368

I remember some of his game winners, so I can understand how he got his rep as a clutch player, but in reality, he has been aweful at every dimension of the offensive game in every situation. If you want to define clutch as "not choking," I suppose that you could argue he doesn't choke, but that's more an indictment of his terrible offence in general.

We're all programmed to look for the unusual. We naturally and routinely look at immensely complex systems and find small anomolies. Sometimes we make amazing breakthroughs (How did we ever figure out that heating certain rocks gives us metal?). Sometimes we end up with superstitions (rain dances). We invented rational analysis to tell the difference.

I don't have any particular distain for the notion of clutch hitting, but I'm not going to jump on board with an idea until I've seen some sort of data to validate it, and so far, I've seen nothing that I would consider clutchness.

by MrIncognito on Jul 5, 2006 8:57 AM PDT reply actions

Apricot and DMOAS

said exactly what I would have said, which is that "clutch" is probably just the ability not to be "unclutch".

I would add, though, that IIRC, major leaguers, on average, hit better with RISP than without, as a collective. This may just mean pitchers aren't as good off the stretch, or that runners tend to be in scoring position when the pitcher is struggling, or not that good to begin with. But if it meant players "bear down" in more important situations, it would beg the question, "Why not do this all the time?"

All I know for sure is this: There are certainly clutch posters on AN. bear88 and Sharon come to mind.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Jul 5, 2006 9:09 AM PDT reply actions

Totally. Sharon is SO clutch!

But AlaskaA...MAN what a choke job.

Tony LaRussa:"If you have the horses, you'll win. If you don't, you'll lose." Me: "We're missing some ponies!"

by baseballgirl on Jul 5, 2006 9:11 AM PDT up reply actions

Well, duh--

I was trying to be nice by not mentioning it.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Jul 5, 2006 9:13 AM PDT up reply actions

Can't "bear down" all the time

I mean really, it's just not human nature.
People have cycles, up days, down days. Days where the adrenaline kicks your mind into a hyperfocus, days where it makes you a jittery mess. Blithly saying "focus all the time" makes the idea of focus as a special mental state meaningless.

(aside - I had a V.P. at a company tell my group "We need to focus on everything." A vacuous statement. )

I do agree with the notion that there should be a noticable difference in hitting based on the history - a bad pitcher will get bases loaded more often than a good one, and therefore give up more hits. It's not a path-independant statistic.

by MobiusKlein on Jul 5, 2006 11:48 AM PDT up reply actions

the word "clutch"

is just an adjective. Why does it have to be made so complicated?

Jay payton came up with a clutch base hit yesterday. Wouldnt that be accurate?

I dont think you can or NEED to try and measure something like this. Its like trying to prove that Jason Kendall has big brass balls after the dive in Texas. Just leave it for what it is.

Bill Stoneman is about to be offered three seasons of a right-handed version of Vladimir Guerrero - Rev Halofan

by pickinmachine on Jul 5, 2006 9:18 AM PDT reply actions

Whenever Huston Street

pitches well, he also turns in an especially clutch performance. But when he doesn't, it is a particular choke job. Might have something to do with always pitching the 9th inning...

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Jul 5, 2006 9:20 AM PDT reply actions

AN-D Dan Johnson's Defense?!?! :)

While taint is everywhere and baseball is certainly no different, it's important that it be treated with open attention-Devo

by saint @ Athletics Nation on Jul 5, 2006 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions

I'd like to see winexp used more as stat measure

I think winexp would be a good measure of "clutch" in that its got "clutchness" built into the equation.

There's certainly clutch performances, I think, though it doesn't translate to future performance. JayPay yesterday = clutch, Swisher in Colorado = clutch. Huston recently = not very clutch. Byrnes and Tejada = not clutch!

by closetasfan on Jul 5, 2006 9:32 AM PDT reply actions

Bleh....

Just because something is hard to measure does not mean it doesn't exist. Further, "clutch" situations are few, and typically are not statistically significant.

"Knucklehead over there is second or third in the league in home runs."Billy Beane talking about Nick Swisher

by 510inDenver on Jul 5, 2006 9:47 AM PDT reply actions

we all know that mental and emotional factors

also play into players' performance. besides outside factors (crowd size, etc) some players seem to relish getting a chance to bat with the game on the line, and for whatever reason seem to have a good track record of coming through more at those times than at other points of the game or season. This also happens in other sports and other pursuits. Some get calmer, more focused in such moments.

Don't use "clutch" if you don't like that phrase. But just because you might not be able to graph it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

by OaklandSi on Jul 5, 2006 9:51 AM PDT reply actions

Or we can say this

A's vs good teams = clutch
A's vs bad teams = very non-clutch.

the home run that Eric Chavez did was tight. Sprots4Kids quote

by Satchmo22 on Jul 5, 2006 9:55 AM PDT reply actions

or

A's ninth inning = clutch at heart, keeled over in fetal position

by Apricot on Jul 5, 2006 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions

Tejada and Chavez

were very non-clutch in the playoffs. Over and over again for four years. At a certain point in '03, it just felt like the whole "can't hit in the playoffs" thing had gotten into their head. Especially into the head of Chavez.

I don't have their stats in front of me, but I know it's accurate to say that the two of them performed poorly year after year. And I know that despite being the Bill James reader that I am, I felt like their performance had something to do with the situation in which they found themselves.

I remember always wishing that the team would grow up, stop being little kids overwhelmed by the great big world of the playoffs.

by RLangford on Jul 5, 2006 10:07 AM PDT reply actions

Actually helps to look at the stats

Chavez was fine in '00 and '02. Tejada in '00.

Overall, though, Playoff OPS for each:

Chavez: .568
Tejada: .565

And I don't remember a single meaningful big hit for either. But that might be selective on my part.

by RLangford on Jul 5, 2006 10:17 AM PDT up reply actions

BBG:

"Clutch" does exhist.

It is just that there are no guarantees that a player who has the capacity to better perform in "clutch", pressure situations is going to get a pitch to hit.

Clutch does not mean that said hitter can hit a 93 MPH Rob Nenn slider in the dirt out of the park every 9th inning.

Look at the pitches Marco Scutaro has connected with to win games.

Pitchers let down against the marco's of the world and he makes them pay.

They are looking into the On-Deck circle or thinking about the next guy and them whammo a .220 hitter just beat you.

This does not mean that Scutaro is clutch, just that he gets better pitches to hit.

As a hitter you have to be able to relax and react to the ball in any situation.

Some players can and some can't.

While taint is everywhere and baseball is certainly no different, it's important that it be treated with open attention-Devo

by saint @ Athletics Nation on Jul 5, 2006 10:24 AM PDT reply actions

i think i agree

with pickinmachine - i think hits can be categorized as "clutch" and we should be less eager to put that label on actual people (not exactly what was said, i know - not trying to put words in other peoples mouths)

i'm glad someone brought up street into this whole "clutch" discussion. i know i don't have a whole lot to offer into this discussion because quite frankly i haven't watched enough baseball or listened to enough commentary, and i know my perceptions get the better of me - BUT, i did want to raise the question of pitchers into this equation. can pitchers be "clutch" (inasmuch as anyone can be "clutch")?

oh, and since the A's have had those two extra-inning games recently decided by a walk, can a walk be considered "clutch"? that's a guy NOT trying to get a big hit in a big situation, and still winning it for the team.

and if a hitter is defined as "clutch", doesn't that put even MORE pressure on him in already high-pressure situations? does he then become double-clutch? and if a hitter defined as a "choke" hitter and he ends up getting a clutch hit (as a-rod did the other night) does his "clutchness" cancel out his "chokeness" leading him to just be a normal guy?

things that make you go "hmmmm"

"One time I climbed a fence to get a baseball that had been run over by a lawn mower. I thought it was beautiful" *Scott

by MisplacedOakFan on Jul 5, 2006 10:24 AM PDT reply actions

I bet Carl Everett believes in clutch

"the poop stain on the collective AN pantalones." -ohad

by ArakSOT on Jul 5, 2006 10:32 AM PDT reply actions

Players turned Broadcasters/Analysts...

I'm confused as to how they are so easily discounted on this site. A premium is commonly placed on "large sample size", and yet these people, who's Baseball sample size is infinitely larger than that of any casual fan are treated as sooth-sayers invoking myths and legends.

You may disagree with Joe Morgan, you may think he's an idiot...that's a matter of opinion. But, to disregard his opinion is invalid, as he is as "expert" as one can possibly be in the world of Baseball. He has seen and played in more games than anyone on this site. In fact, he's more than just a player, he is one of the greatest players of all time and has played on some of the greatest teams in history. He deserves some respect for that experience level, even if you don't like what he has to say.

His job is to relate the game of baseball to the casual fan. The casual fan wants to believe in Clutch, because it is a concept which heightens the experience of those fans.

I also find it ironic that after devoting about 6 inches of space to the argument against "clutch", BBG (of whom I'm a fan in general) reminds us that Kenny Rogers is pitching in Oakland...meaning Doom for our beloved Athletics, because he is simply dominant (or clutch?) in the Coliseum.

"Dad? Where's this 'Toledo' and why is it Holy?"

by Mike Gallego is my Hero on Jul 5, 2006 10:35 AM PDT reply actions

Sure..he played...

But listen to him do a whole game.....He bases his comments based on what happened in the game. He will often say somethign and then say the opposite 4 innings later cuz it fits the situation.

Ripping Money ball without reading it is another thing...but as an announcer, I find him lacking because he doesnt stick with his opinion..it wavers based on the game.

Bring back Hammer.

by OaktownPower on Jul 5, 2006 10:41 AM PDT up reply actions

Every time I listen to Joe Morgan,

I'm struck by how competent he is, and how often he is right on with his analysis. Maybe his "Moneyball" gaffes were the exception, not the rule?... He does know a thing or 20 about the game.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Jul 5, 2006 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions

Every time I listen to Joe Morgan,

I'm struck by my forehead hitting the floor.

He's an intelligent man to talk to, but he smells like rat urine @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jul 5, 2006 11:21 AM PDT up reply actions

notwithstanding his comments on the A's

he was a great ballplayer and also a student of the game. I respect him alot, even if he has some blind spots. (who doesn't?)

by OaklandSi on Jul 5, 2006 12:04 PM PDT up reply actions

who said that?

He's an intelligent man to talk to, but he smells like rat urine @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jul 5, 2006 12:11 PM PDT up reply actions

Clutches!

Actually, some pressure plates and throwout bearings as well... it's hard to find pure clutch these days.

"You can throw your cocks if I don't care!" - Iggy Pop

by AlamedaAphid on Jul 5, 2006 10:46 AM PDT reply actions

those don't exist

</Magritte caption>

He's an intelligent man to talk to, but he smells like rat urine @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jul 5, 2006 11:22 AM PDT up reply actions

Nice.

Now that's a QOTM.

Can intangibles exist? Only the ones you can touch.

by salb918 on Jul 5, 2006 11:23 AM PDT up reply actions

The 1% Doctrine

I say, if there's even a 1% chance that clutch exists, we must believe in it.

He's an intelligent man to talk to, but he smells like rat urine @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jul 5, 2006 11:29 AM PDT reply actions

Of Course Clutch Exists

I concede it's somewhat tough to measure, but are we really debating whether some players respond to pressure better than others? That's crazy. While Moneyball demonstrated that much of the "old wisdom" about the game was crap, it shouldn't be used to say that "everything you think you know" is wrong. Because some of what you think you know, even if difficult to measure, you in fact do know.

Anybody who watched Cory Lidle pitch game 4 of that awful playoff series against the Yanks could see a prime entry in the World Series of Choke. Forget Giambi's non-slide. More clear by far was that Lidle wanted to be anywhere on earth but on that mound. His only enthusiastic moment was handing the ball to Art Howe and getting off that field. Aren't there hitters who show the same get-me-out-of-here mindset on a regular "tight moment" situation? Of course there are. (As an aside, I also think the Colts have a better chance of winning close games in the playoffs now that they have dumped Vanderjagt for Vinatieri, even thought the former is every bit as accurate, historically.)

Not to be always picking on my whipping boy when it comes to this topic, but my general dislike of Chavvy at the plate is the residue of several years of watching this guy put up terrific year-long numbers despite widespread failure at key moments in tight games. Yeah, maybe you can't touch the intangibles, but I know without looking at the stats that Chavvy has performed poorly in important situations, such as playoffs, 2 outs runners in scoring position, close and late, whatever.

More importantly, I would submit that certain players in the game, Chavvy among them, have poor aggregate stats for reasons well beyond statistical randomness. When the game gets tight, Chavvy presses. That's not my subjective analysis. I can see it with my own eyes, and you can, too. Time and again, Chavvy gets either crazily aggressive at the plate, swinging at curve balls that break close to a foot outside or, conversely, taking strike one and strike two right down the middle. In short, it's not only that he doesn't hit well as the result is recorded, it's that he totally loses the ability to work the count and dictate play. As such, there are an inordinate number of 0-2 counts.

Again, I agree it's tough to document, but did you want Chavvy up there in the bottom of the 8th in yesterday's tie game with one out and the winning run on second? Did you like his approach to the at bat? How about the situation in the 10th, with a runner on first and one out? Did you want Chavvy up there? I sumbit that the two strike outs were both perfectly predictable. Not that he will always strike out in that situation, but that he will prove more disappointing in that situation generally, by far, than he will in the 5th inning of a game in which the A's are up or down by 5 runs.

by solotar on Jul 5, 2006 11:30 AM PDT reply actions

Clutch Exists

Why don't we just start off simply, by giving the definition of clutch?

clutch: tending to be successful in tense or critical situations (adj, informal)

Can it be quantified? No. Can an outsider really determine when someone does something in the clutch? No.

Only the person performing the action knows whether or not they're doing something in the clutch. If I'm giving a huge presentation at work and go through it smoothly and confidently, I tell myself I came through in the clutch. But for those who saw my presentation, they probably just think it was normal and smooth.

Derek Jeter may never get flustered in a crucial situation. He approaches every at bat the same, perhaps. If this is the case, then there is no clutch factor for him.

If Mark Kotsay stresses and feels the pressure when the tying run is on base, he will consider that to be a crucial situation where he has to come through in the clutch. If he succeeds, he'll feel like he accomplished something in the clutch.

It's that simple. Clutch exists, but it all depends on whether or not the performer of the action believes the situation is indeed a clutch one. No one else can determine that.

by fadedash on Jul 6, 2006 11:22 AM PDT reply actions