Where Would You Hit Overbay/Grace/Williams in theLineup?

[DWKB]

I'd like to emphasize what Derek is saying in the fact that there definately are clutch situations, and a by product of those situations is that sometimes people come through, but that doesn't mean there was an ability to perform well in those situations.

I think especially when you look at the production that came out of Bucky (a HR with only 40 career HRs) and Ozzie (a HR with only 28 career HRs).

You've gotta ask yourself, if they can perform to such a higher degree when the pressure is on strong, why do they lax back into their "average performance" when there is no pressure? Are they slackers?

 

[RLakin]

Originally posted by Derek in Tucson
Well until there's some study that proves clutch hitting exist, that certain players perform in late inning pressure situations more than just in random years, then I'll chose hard facts over anectdotal evidence.

Btw, I'm not saying that Bobby Thomson(note the correct spelling of his last name) or any of the other players didn't "come through in the clutch", only that they weren't predisposed to do so, or had some inherent talent to do it that others don't. You also picked out the names that get mentioned the most because they are the most famous. However there are other players who have performed feats of similar stature in the playoffs who aren't so well known. Players like Scott Brosius, Pat Borders, Gene Tenace, Eddie Perez, and the DBacks own Craig Counsell who was the MVP of the NLCS in 2001. Players who have otherwise had indistinguished careers.

I imagine you could put together a team of these players who wouldn't be even good enough to make the playoffs. They were just merely in the right place, at the right time, and saw a nice fat pitch, or number of pitches, they could hit.

I'll except that theory about taking hard evidence over anecdotal evidence (note the correct spelling of anecdotal).

 

[AZZenny]

You've gotta ask yourself, if they can perform to such a higher degree when the pressure is on strong, why do they lax back into their "average performance" when there is no pressure? Are they slackers?

It's called 'facilitative anxiety,' and is fairly well documented in psychology and neuropsychology. Some people become undone by heightened stress/pressure; it degrades their performance because it basically jazzes them up too much - too much norepinephrine causing racing thoughts and anxiety, and excess peripheral epinephrine (adrenaline) experienced as "nerves" and discoordination. (See: Rick Ankiel)

However, some people focus like lasers under the same conditions - the biochemistry is presumably something like this -along with enough norepinephrine to heighten arousal and alertness, you get increased frontal dopamine which narrows the focus, brightens colors, and excludes extraneous thought, and some ACTH which slows time and maximizes physiological output.

So there's a reason for it, and research would suggest some people generally do better under pressure and others generally do worse, and there are probably some for whom the greater the pressure, the better the focus. BUT - there are also probably a lot of fluke occurrences that stand out more vividly because they were outside the player's norm.

 

[schillingfan]

Just because studies haven't proven clutch hitting doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I think that it's simply something that is unquantifiable. Measures such as RISP and late and close are just not definitive enough and real clutch hitting probably is few enough times as to be difficult to measure. To me it's about pressure situations and the measures we have don't measure pressure because one RISP situation can be fastly different from another. (Game 7 of World Series with the bases loaded and a tie game is different from a guy on 2nd in the first inning of an April game.

I've never seen any studies about clutch pitching. I guess one of the reasons you can't convince me there isn't clutch hitting is because I so firmly believe in clutch pitching. I've watched Curt Schilling pitch in 3 post-seasons. Curt seems to raise his performance a level in the post-season, or even his incredible victories after loss record. But I'm not sure if the measurements would be definitions of clutch either - men on base after the 7th inning with a tie game or 1 run lead?

Besides that would seem to contradict numbers on BABIP. Is only a strike-out in a "clutch" situation indicative of "clutch" as hits are only luck or defense? Is giving up the gopher ball in that situation non-clutch?

 

[moviegeekjn]

Originally posted by schillingfan

I've never seen any studies about clutch pitching. I guess one of the reasons you can't convince me there isn't clutch hitting is because I so firmly believe in clutch pitching. I've watched Curt Schilling pitch in 3 post-seasons. Curt seems to raise his performance a level in the post-season, or even his incredible victories after loss record. But I'm not sure if the measurements would be definitions of clutch either - men on base after the 7th inning with a tie game or 1 run lead?

Curt definitely has a reputation for being a "clutch" pitcher, which is born out with his playoffs record for those who want to quantify it.... Most just sense that he elevates his game during those times. Bob Gibson also had a reputation for being a "clutch pitcher"--the most often cited specific examples come from his World Series record, but I'm sure some pure stats guy would attempt to discredit the validity...

 

[Derek in Tucson]

but I'm sure some pure stats guy would attempt to discredit the validity...

I'm by no means a "pure stats guy", but it's not about discrediting accomplishments at all. It's about the search for the truth and whether those "intangibles" are based in fact with numbers to back them up, or if they're just a myth. I also don't see anybody on the clutch topic who tries to convince baseball and it's fans that there is such a thing as clutch at this level with anything more than isolated stories.

So how would you rate Randy Johnson? Is he clutch? Up to the 2001 playoffs he certainly didn't have that reputation, but he sure came through that year. Did he learn to be a clutch pitcher? How about Greg Maddux, one of the best pitchers of all time? He has an 11-11 record in the postseason. Are you saying he isn't a clutch pitcher? By every account I've ever read about him, he's unflappable...nothing gets to him.

How about Bonds? He's been protrayed for years as the opposite of clutch, but last season in the playoffs he destroyed the pitchers he faced. So is he now clutch?

There's just so many examples out there that run counter to your claims. That's why some people don't buy into the idea of clutch. I think they're all clutch. Sure the World Series is a high pressure situation, but just think what it must feel like to be a minor leaguer who knows if he doesn't have a good season he'll be selling cars for the rest of his life.

It's like the PGA golfers who have to go through qualifying school. They'll tell you it's the toughest tournament they play in and there's no major involved, no green jacket and a million dollar check. But they know if they don't make the cut, then they'll probably be working as a club pro some where giving lessons to some duffer, or trying to work their way back by playing in some sattelite tour.

 

[schillingfan]

Originally posted by Derek in Tucson
So how would you rate Randy Johnson? Is he clutch? Up to the 2001 playoffs he certainly didn't have that reputation, but he sure came through that year. Did he learn to be a clutch pitcher? How about Greg Maddux, one of the best pitchers of all time? He has an 11-11 record in the postseason. Are you saying he isn't a clutch pitcher? By every account I've ever read about him, he's unflappable...nothing gets to him.

Randy strikes me as profoundly non-clutch. He didn't learn to become clutch, he merely didn't put as much pressure on himself since Curt was carrying the load initially in the playoffs in 2001. Relaxed him. However, look at what he did again in 2002 NLDS, funked it. Curt pitched his usual great game.

None of this is to criticize Randy by any means, it's just the nature of his personality I suspect.

Greg Maddux is just a choker. But then I'm biased on that.

I realize it's purely anecdotal, but I don't think any of the measures they use to trying and prove or disprove clutch in any way measure clutch. And to me, to deny it is to say that human beings aren't human. We are all susceptible to pressures and some rise and some fail. That's just the nature of the beast. I don't understand why people want to deny human nature.

 

[Derek in Tucson]

I don't understand why people want to deny human nature.

Well it's also human nature for people to believe in UFOs, Bigfoot, and the Loch Ness monster. But then there are others who would like to see some concrete evidence that those kinds of things actually exist.

 

[BC867]

Originally posted by Derek in Tucson
Well it's also human nature for people to believe in UFOs, Bigfoot, and the Loch Ness monster. But then there are others who would like to see some concrete evidence that those kinds of things actually exist.

The next time you see Quinton McCracken bat with runners on base in the 8th inning, you'll see!

At a Spring Training game in Tucson two weeks ago, when 'Q' came up with a runner on third and either zero or one outs (I forget), I said to my wife, "He WILL drive him in.

And he did! With a sacrifice fly to the opposite field. Some players just have a knack. 'Q', Counsell, Bautista . . . that's what makes champions!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When the Suns were on a run earlier in the season, the top four players in the league with scoring in the final minutes were Suns -- Marbury, Hardaway, Marion, and Stoudemire. The top four in the league!!!

I don't like to see people overuse the word "unbelievable" . . . but that was unbelievable -- the top four players in the league!

That lasted until injuries broke up that group and put pressure on the rest of the lineup.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some players transcend stats, because they are tough in the clutch!

 

[Derek in Tucson]

Glad you brought McCracken up since he's a good example to use. Now I have to say Q-Mac was nails last year. Everything you said about him was true for the most part.

BUT...

...let's look at what he did in 2001.

With men on base and 2 out, he hit .091 with a .182 OPS.

With a man on 3rd and less than 2 outs, he was 1 for 2, good there.

With runners in scoring position and 2 out, he hit .143 with a .286 OPS.

*Close and Late, he hit .222 with a .522 OPS.

Now don't you think that if McCracken had some inherent ability as a clutch hitter en it would show through every year? According to the other opinions offered up in this thread, being clutch is just human nature, or it's found in the biochemisty of the human body. If that were the case, then you'd be able to identify a clutch hitter as having superior numbers in every year over the course of his career. The trouble with that is, like McCracken, there are very few players who display this charachteristic over the course of their career. And it's also often not the big names you might think who post marginally higher numbers in slutch situations.

That is why some people don't think there's such a thing as a clutch player, or they believe that all MLB players are clutch to a certain extent since their abilities are tested under pressure from the time they sign a major league contract....or even before then if you think some 12 year old playing in the Little League World Series came through in the clutch when he was the star on the team that won the title.

*Close And Late - results in the 7th inning or later with the batting team either ahead by one run, tied or with the potential tying run at least on deck.