I've been enjoying the hell out of A-Rod's lack of clutchitude this postseason, but this was linked by Rob Neyer today and I actually burst out laughing....

I would LOVE to see one of those.

What do you mean by "lack of clutchitude"??

 

First, I didn't think you believed in "clutch" situations.

And, secondly, he's been having a great post-season.

brewguru:

What do you mean by "lack of clutchitude"??

 

First, I didn't think you believed in "clutch" situations.

And, secondly, he's been having a great post-season.

It was a purely sarcastic comment.

After hearing for years what a "choker" A-Rod was when the games mattered most in the postseason (despite his overall postseason numbers never actually even approaching "bad" at all despite some bad series) it's amusing to see him destory the ball and as a consequence, all those people who piled on the BS about him for those years.

I don't like the Yankees and I'm not a "fan" of A-Rod, but it's still amusing me to no end to watch him do what he's doing this postseason.

 Oh, and it's not that I don't believe in "clutch situations" or that some people are not as able to stand up to pressure as others, because I do.

My problem with all the "clutch" talk is that it's overblown and a cheap crutch for lazy sports reporting. Lots of points to make on that....

1) Baseball is a game of lots of individual events (pitches that add up to AB's, a series of movements that add up to a defensive play etc.) and as a result there are lots of varaiables that go into success or failure. Does a pitcher throw a batter a hittable pitch in an ab? Does the ump call the borderline pitch on 1-1? Does a SS guess correctly before the pitch and shade a little one way or another? As a result, the line between "success" and "failure" is small and, on a case by case basis, often subject to factors outside the players control. In the long run, a good player will win more of these situations than a bad one, but on a case by case basis (or even a 10 or 20 case basis) it's hard to draw to many firm conclusions, which bad sportswriters REALLY have trouble avoiding in these big situations, especially where competition is involved.

2) If a player is able to consistently "elevate" their game in big situations, wouldn't that tend to suggest that they're not giving their all in non-big situations?

3) Isn't baseball a game of pressure, day in and day out? Aren't there high stakes in games all the time throughout a season, throughout a career? If a player can stand up to that sort of pressure, is it really that likely that a player would completely crumble in the postseason if they had excelled in the regular season BECAUSE of the pressure? Isn't it much more likely that the player did what players do throughout the course of every season all the time, simply have a cold steak? I'm not saying this is always going to be the case, but isn't it at least more likely to be the case? Nick Swisher's trials and tribulations this postseason kinda help make this point. The guy was struggling bad in the fist two rounds, was called a "choker" and blamed for not being able to handle the pressure. Then in the WS, when the stakes are the highest, he starts coming up with the big hits in the big situations.

Again, I'm not saying that players never get awestruck by the "big situation" and fail to execute, I'm just saying that it's much less likely to be the case than it's made out to be, because it makes a good story for lazy sports reporters who aren't willing to go back and determine just what (if anything) changed.

 I have a self portrait that is half-clydesdale and 100% accurate.

Einsteinhood:

2) If a player is able to consistently "elevate" their game in big situations, wouldn't that tend to suggest that they're not giving their all in non-big situations?

I agree with #1 and #2, but I'd like to add a note to this one... I think with all of the pressure that's assigned to a "clutch" situation, the ability to maintain production is the feat that is applaudible .  I don't think anyone would actually improve in the clutch, because as you point out, that'd mean they aren't going 100% normally.

Einsteinhood:

3) Isn't baseball a game of pressure, day in and day out? Aren't there high stakes in games all the time throughout a season, throughout a career? If a player can stand up to that sort of pressure, is it really that likely that a player would completely crumble in the postseason if they had excelled in the regular season BECAUSE of the pressure?

I disagree.  You can't compare the "high stakes" of the regular season (day-in-day-out) to the postseason.  You lose me right there when you try using that argument. 

All in all I agree with you.  If memory serves me correctly, you've changed a bit from thinking that the clutch situation absolutely doesn't exist to now having this opinion.  Personally, I've gone from thinking players actually can improve in the clutch to realizing that those who are able to maintain their production are the one's who are percieved as "clutch."  Or... they're just lucky.

badger80:

 I have a self portrait that is half-clydesdale and 100% accurate.

I'm half man, half provider.

TheDude:

Einsteinhood:

3) Isn't baseball a game of pressure, day in and day out? Aren't there high stakes in games all the time throughout a season, throughout a career? If a player can stand up to that sort of pressure, is it really that likely that a player would completely crumble in the postseason if they had excelled in the regular season BECAUSE of the pressure?

I disagree.  You can't compare the "high stakes" of the regular season (day-in-day-out) to the postseason.  You lose me right there when you try using that argument. 

I didn't make the point clearly enough.

My point is that pressure to perform is part of the whole process of becoming a draft pick, becoming a big leaguer, becoming a starter, becoming whatever. You have to produce to become each of these things, and with a need to produce goes at least some level of pressure, right? I'm not saying that each of these is comparable to postseason play, because that is the next step up from these, obviously.

If a player was able to adjust to each of these levels of pressure, how much of a chance do you think there is that they can't adjust to the pressure of postseason play. Is that a better way of phrasing the point?

Einsteinhood:

Is that a better way of phrasing the point?

More clear where your stance is.  Lets say I just slightly disagree instead of disagree :)

One thing to think about, and I'm basing this off of my whole 3 courses of psychology at UWW:  perhaps in the most pressure-filled situations are more of a culmulative mass of all the pressure that has happened to date.  Meaning, as a guy's trying to perform, whether it'd be in game or before, he might be feeling that he has to live up to being drafted, making the roster, and overcoming all the diversity by needing to succeed in that at bat, game, or series.

And as you point out by saying...

Einsteinhood:

becoming a big leaguer, becoming a starter,

... it shows that as a player gets further into his career, the pressure can grow too.  Think about it.  The most pressure filled situation for a starting pitcher could have been his very first start.  His next one could have been his first close game... or whatever.

I think you hit the point on the head, that how a guy handles all of those situations could dictate how he handles the most recent pressure situation.  But that just leads to a reason WHY that player is more apt to perform to his norm and not regress.

That said, remember, this is from only 3 trecherous psych courses and many years on the field.  My opinion is as good as many others around here.

I thought this was interesting and somewhat related to this discussion, but I'm not sure if I totally agree with it....

Einsteinhood:

I thought this was interesting and somewhat related to this discussion, but I'm not sure if I totally agree with it....

Mike (Long Island)

Rob, isn't this chasm between the sabremetricians and the "old school" (scouts, sportswriters, etc.) more of a generational thing? Obviously, "older" people (55 may be the approximate dividing line) aren't as likely to have embraced computers for anything other than surfing for porn, and certainly you'd agree that those who provide in-depth statistical analysis using sophisticated computer models is still a pretty niche audience. As time goes on, what we now know as sabremetrics will become a more standardized way for all baseball types (including fans) to assess performance.

Rob Neyer

  (12:48 PM)

It's mostly generational, but it's also still an insider/outsider thing. When you're an insider -- a manager, a coach, a beat writer -- it's hard to avoid falling into the trap of basing your analysis on personalities and short-term results.

What I think people don't really get is that it's not really a one thing or the other kind of deal.  The real purpose of Sabremetrics, from my understanding is that the statistical analysis or breakdowns that is provided is intended to tell you what you should be looking for in a more traditional "scouting" manner, in order t ogain any advantage from it.  The statistics give you the result, but it often doesn't tell you why you are getting the result. 

The reality is that sabremetrics is practically useless as a management/coaching tool unless you know how to analyze and correct the things that it might suggest you should be looking at.  The correction part is where only traditional analysis is going to yield a positive result.

Here's an example (completely made up - not an actual analysis): 

Joe Blows strikes out 50 more times than last year, and sabremetric analysis tells you that he is being thrown 10% more breaking balls and 5% more changeups.  One can reasonably conclude from this that Joe Blows has trouble hitting anything but a fastball.  But you still need to watch his AB's to see if that is where he actually is having trouble, first of all.  Then, assuming you can locate the problem pitch, you still need to be able to coach him to be able to either make a correction to be able to hit that pitch, or change his approach to lay off of them until absolutely necessary. 

In this case, you need both Sabremetric analysis AND "old-school" scouting in order to provide any real value.

brewhawk:

you need both Sabremetric analysis AND "old-school" scouting in order to provide any real value.

Holy sh!t.  We've only been saying that for the past how many years?

badger80:

brewhawk:

you need both Sabremetric analysis AND "old-school" scouting in order to provide any real value.

Holy sh!t.  We've only been saying that for the past how many years?

Except that having no clue about the latter doesn't seem to stop some people from talking like experts on the former.

brewhawk:

badger80:

brewhawk:

you need both Sabremetric analysis AND "old-school" scouting in order to provide any real value.

Holy sh!t.  We've only been saying that for the past how many years?

Except that having no clue about the latter doesn't seem to stop some people from talking like experts on the former.

 

Who on this board has a clue about scouting?

radio silence:

brewhawk:

badger80:

brewhawk:

you need both Sabremetric analysis AND "old-school" scouting in order to provide any real value.

Holy sh!t.  We've only been saying that for the past how many years?

Except that having no clue about the latter doesn't seem to stop some people from talking like experts on the former.

 

Who on this board has a clue about scouting?

I actually have a small basis, but nothing I would brag or attempt to be authoritative about.