Posts: 1,407
Threads: 18
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=98110:date=May 24 2010, 04:05 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ May 24 2010, 04:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=98104:date=May 24 2010, 04:48 PM:name=VanSlawAndCottoCheese)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (VanSlawAndCottoCheese @ May 24 2010, 04:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=98100:date=May 24 2010, 05:41 PM:name=KBwsb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KBwsb @ May 24 2010, 05:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->It's more fun to believe that the guy got the hit in the ninth inning not because statistically it was his turn<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know these aren't your words, KB, but statistical determinism is every bit as much of bunk as "clutchness" is.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not determinism, it's playing the percentages. In a "clutch" situation, the guys who perform better (given enough examples to eliminate small sample size) are the guys who hit better.
So in a clutch situation, you'd rather have Tony Gwynn or Ryne Sandberg up to bat than Neifi Perez, even though Neifi once hit a game-winning pinch-hit grand slam in the 10th inning to beat the reigning NL champion Cardinals. (and I saw it with my own eyes...it was very, very "clutch").
But it doesn't mean he was a "clutch hitter." It means, like a good professional, he pounced on a mistake, and it happened to be in the 10th inning, instead of the 4th.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well of course Tony Gwynn is gonna be better than Neifi Perez, in every situation, he has 100 times the talent. I don't think anyone is arguing that a Neifi Perez could ever be better than a Tony Gwynn in a clutch situation, on average. Just that if two players all things fairly equal, are in similar 'clutch' situations, one may be better equipped to rise to a stressful occasion. The other may get sweaty palms, weak knees, and swing at everything. The argument is that people have feelings and thoughts and make decisions, they aren't computers.
Being able to stay calm and concentrate in a high pressure situation will never transform a utility player suddenly into a hall of famer, but it can make a difference, I mean really it has to doesn't it? I guess it would depend on who you ask. If you ask a Psychologist you'd probably get a very different answer than if you asked a mathematician, just depends on how you see the world.
Posts: 3,165
Threads: 12
Joined: Feb 2009
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=98110:date=May 24 2010, 06:05 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ May 24 2010, 06:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=98104:date=May 24 2010, 04:48 PM:name=VanSlawAndCottoCheese)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (VanSlawAndCottoCheese @ May 24 2010, 04:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=98100:date=May 24 2010, 05:41 PM:name=KBwsb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KBwsb @ May 24 2010, 05:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->It's more fun to believe that the guy got the hit in the ninth inning not because statistically it was his turn<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know these aren't your words, KB, but statistical determinism is every bit as much of bunk as "clutchness" is.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not determinism, it's playing the percentages. In a "clutch" situation, the guys who perform better are the guys who hit better. (given enough examples to eliminate small sample size).
So in a clutch situation, you'd rather have Tony Gwynn or Ryne Sandberg up to bat than Neifi Perez, even though Neifi once hit a game-winning pinch-hit grand slam in the 10th inning to beat the reigning NL champion Cardinals. (and I saw it with my own eyes...it was very, very "clutch").
But it doesn't mean he was a "clutch hitter." It means, like a good professional, he pounced on a mistake, and it happened to be in the 10th inning, instead of the 4th.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That may be your argument, which is fine; that's not what I infer from "statistically it was his turn."
One dick can poke an eye out. A hundred dicks can move mountains.
--Veryzer
Posts: 2,894
Threads: 72
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
Let me first state that, like most issues, I'm 70-30 about it, not 100%. It does seem, at first glance, that some guys are "tougher" than others, I agree.
Fella, I do have 2 problems with your otherwise fine point:
1-Ask any casual fan about Scott Brocius vs. A-Rod as a clutch hitter. How is that not like Tony Gwynn vs. Neifi? It's because of incorrect perceptions.
1- How come some guys who are thought to never get "sweaty palms or weak knees" (Derek Jeter, Reggie Jackson, Mariano Rivera) have multiple instances where they SUCKED in massively important, "clutch" situations?
The ultimate example of the non-clutch game of all-time?
Game <b>Seven</b>, 2001 World Series: Curt Schilling, one of the best "clutch" pitchers of all-time, pitching. Seventh inning, in a one-run, tight game, he surrenders a 2-run homer run to...try to imagine a really UN-clutch player.
Soriano?
Yes, it was Alf who homered.
So Schilling gets yanked. Now all the Yankees need to <i>win the World Series</i> is have Mr. Ice-Water in his veins, Mariano Rivera, come in and do what he usually does, be clutch.
He fails miserably: commits an error, beans a guy, gives up a huge game-tying double to a terrible hitter (Tony Womack), then gives up the Series-winning hit.
Jeter, Mr. November? A weak 1-for-4, with an earlier fielding miscue. His Series? 4-for 27, .148 average, no walks. For the leadoff hitter? He COST them the Series!
Or did he? <b>In Game 4, he hit the game-winning home run! </b>Bottom of the 10th inning!
<!--sizeo:4--><!--/sizeo-->So is Jeter clutch, or not?
How about Mo Rivera?<!--sizec--><!--/sizec-->
There's nothing better than to realize that the good things about youth don't end with youth itself. It's a matter of realizing that life can be renewed every day you get out of bed without baggage. It's tough to get there, but it's better than the dark thoughts. -Lance
Posts: 540
Threads: 26
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->I read about a couple of psychologists who studied the so-called "hot hand" in basketball—the idea that players who are hot keep hitting baskets and players who are cold keep missing them. No matter how they crunched the stats, it turned out that the phenomenon didn't exist<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a great example, to show how the stat heads are misguided. It is common sense, that some days, guys are going to be sick or injured, and have a bad day. They play against different defenders and coaches use different schemes. Hotness and coldness are not random, but they happen within a normal distribution. You take a guy with a 50% FG% (a coin) and flip it 16 times, for 82 games. It is not going to be 8 heads all 82 times. There are going to be a normal distribution of results - random hotness occurs. Basketball is a game of skill. We know actual hotness happens, but because it never happens to the extent that it could not be random, it does not statistically happen.
I like you guys a lot.
Posts: 2,894
Threads: 72
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=98128:date=May 24 2010, 06:34 PM:name=leonardsipes)-->QUOTE (leonardsipes @ May 24 2010, 06:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->I read about a couple of psychologists who studied the so-called "hot hand" in basketball—the idea that players who are hot keep hitting baskets and players who are cold keep missing them. No matter how they crunched the stats, it turned out that the phenomenon didn't exist<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is a great example, to show how the stat heads are misguided. It is common sense, that some days, guys are going to be sick or injured, and have a bad day. They play against different defenders and coaches use different schemes. Hotness and coldness are not random, but they happen within a normal distribution. You take a guy with a 50% FG% (a coin) and flip it 16 times, for 82 games. It is not going to be 8 heads all 82 times. There are going to be a normal distribution of results - random hotness occurs. Basketball is a game of skill. We know actual hotness happens, but because it never happens to the extent that it could not be random, it does not statistically happen.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think we need to define what we're talking about here. You guys are saying, after the fact, that some guys are clutch, or get the hot hand, and it was obvious to all who saw it. Obviously, I agree with that, because it's an inarguable point.
What I'm talking about is: is it something you can <b>predict?</b> Is it something inherent in that player?
There's nothing better than to realize that the good things about youth don't end with youth itself. It's a matter of realizing that life can be renewed every day you get out of bed without baggage. It's tough to get there, but it's better than the dark thoughts. -Lance
Posts: 3,804
Threads: 111
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
If you don't believe in clutchness or hot-handedness, I don't really want to hear anything else you have to say involving sports.
Posts: 4,641
Threads: 210
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=98130:date=May 24 2010, 07:43 PM:name=ruby23)-->QUOTE (ruby23 @ May 24 2010, 07:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->If you don't believe in clutchness or hot-handedness, I don't really want to hear anything else you have to say involving sports.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think it's not a yes or no question. It - like many things - is a spectrum.
I think some players are naturally better at handling pressure, and thus have an incrementally better "clutch" ability, if you want to call it that.
But those guys tend to be the better players overall.
Posts: 11,810
Threads: 390
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=98131:date=May 24 2010, 06:49 PM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ May 24 2010, 06:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=98130:date=May 24 2010, 07:43 PM:name=ruby23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ruby23 @ May 24 2010, 07:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->If you don't believe in clutchness or hot-handedness, I don't really want to hear anything else you have to say involving sports.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think it's not a yes or no question. It - like many things - is a spectrum.
I think some players are naturally better at handling pressure, and thus have an incrementally better "clutch" ability, if you want to call it that.
But those guys tend to be the better players overall.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you define "clutch" as "not pissing down your leg in a big situation and being able to play at the same level as if it weren't a big situation," then I believe in "clutchness." If you define "clutch" as "being able to raise the level of your game *above* your regular level of play at will during a big situation," then I don't believe in "clutchness."
I do believe, however, that there are some players who piss down their legs in big situations -- including some pretty good players. So if "clutch" helps define those players who aren't "clutch," then that's fine.
Posts: 14,118
Threads: 90
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=98147:date=May 24 2010, 08:37 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ May 24 2010, 08:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=98131:date=May 24 2010, 06:49 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ May 24 2010, 06:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=98130:date=May 24 2010, 07:43 PM:name=ruby23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ruby23 @ May 24 2010, 07:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->If you don't believe in clutchness or hot-handedness, I don't really want to hear anything else you have to say involving sports.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think it's not a yes or no question. It - like many things - is a spectrum.
I think some players are naturally better at handling pressure, and thus have an incrementally better "clutch" ability, if you want to call it that.
But those guys tend to be the better players overall.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you define "clutch" as "not pissing down your leg in a big situation and being able to play at the same level as if it weren't a big situation," then I believe in "clutchness." If you define "clutch" as "being able to raise the level of your game *above* your regular level of play at will during a big situation," then I don't believe in "clutchness."
I do believe, however, that there are some players who piss down their legs in big situations -- including some pretty good players. So if "clutch" helps define those players who aren't "clutch," then that's fine.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is pretty much what I was saying earlier. Sports stats can't be analyzed in a vacuum. There is no controlled environment. Randomness happens, and players tend to revert to their averages, but it doesn't mean that everyone deals with varying degrees of pressure in the exact same manner every single time. Seems to me that some are arguing a point that no one is really making.
Posts: 2,143
Threads: 41
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=98147:date=May 24 2010, 08:37 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ May 24 2010, 08:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=98131:date=May 24 2010, 06:49 PM:name=Ace)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ace @ May 24 2010, 06:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=98130:date=May 24 2010, 07:43 PM:name=ruby23)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ruby23 @ May 24 2010, 07:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->If you don't believe in clutchness or hot-handedness, I don't really want to hear anything else you have to say involving sports.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think it's not a yes or no question. It - like many things - is a spectrum.
I think some players are naturally better at handling pressure, and thus have an incrementally better "clutch" ability, if you want to call it that.
But those guys tend to be the better players overall.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you define "clutch" as "not pissing down your leg in a big situation and being able to play at the same level as if it weren't a big situation," then I believe in "clutchness." If you define "clutch" as "being able to raise the level of your game *above* your regular level of play at will during a big situation," then I don't believe in "clutchness."
I do believe, however, that there are some players who piss down their legs in big situations -- including some pretty good players. So if "clutch" helps define those players who aren't "clutch," then that's fine.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I subscribe to the former.
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." - George Carlin
"That was some of the saddest stuff I've ever read. Fuck cancer and AIDS, ignorance is the scourge of the land." - tom v
Posts: 8,024
Threads: 100
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
0
It's this simple. If you believe in coldness you can't reasonably <i>not </i>believe in hotness. Rami is swinging a cold bat. It's not statistically his <i>turn</i> to swing a cold bat. The vast array of things that all contribute to good hitting are not coming together. It's mechanical...or between his ears...or whatever. Swinging a hot bat...and swinging it in clutch situations is when those things <i>are</i> coming together.
A career .230 hitter probably hit somewhere near .230 for any given stretch of time. But he also probably raked at a .320 clip for a couple of months somewhere in a career and stats won't tell you what caused that.
Posts: 3,165
Threads: 12
Joined: Feb 2009
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=98159:date=May 24 2010, 10:21 PM:name=jstraw)-->QUOTE (jstraw @ May 24 2010, 10:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->It's not statistically his <i>turn</i> to swing a cold bat.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Argle-bargle.
One dick can poke an eye out. A hundred dicks can move mountains.
--Veryzer
Posts: 8,024
Threads: 100
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=98160:date=May 24 2010, 09:23 PM:name=VanSlawAndCottoCheese)-->QUOTE (VanSlawAndCottoCheese @ May 24 2010, 09:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=98159:date=May 24 2010, 10:21 PM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ May 24 2010, 10:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->It's not statistically his <i>turn</i> to swing a cold bat.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Argle-bargle.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, the idea of a statistical turn is gobbledegook. That's what I'm saying. Statistics are good. They're useful. You can determine when an event is statistically due, historically speaking but you sure as hell can't use statistics to predict events.
Posts: 3,165
Threads: 12
Joined: Feb 2009
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=98162:date=May 24 2010, 10:29 PM:name=jstraw)-->QUOTE (jstraw @ May 24 2010, 10:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=98160:date=May 24 2010, 09:23 PM:name=VanSlawAndCottoCheese)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (VanSlawAndCottoCheese @ May 24 2010, 09:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=98159:date=May 24 2010, 10:21 PM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ May 24 2010, 10:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->It's not statistically his <i>turn</i> to swing a cold bat.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Argle-bargle.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, the idea of a statistical turn is gobbledegook. That's what I'm saying. Statistics are good. They're useful. You can determine when an event is statistically due, historically speaking but you sure as hell can't use statistics to predict events.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh, I get it now. You were saying that it's not that it's statistically his turn to swing his bat. Sorry, gotcha, I dig.
One dick can poke an eye out. A hundred dicks can move mountains.
--Veryzer
Posts: 8,024
Threads: 100
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
0
<!--quoteo(post=98163:date=May 24 2010, 09:32 PM:name=VanSlawAndCottoCheese)-->QUOTE (VanSlawAndCottoCheese @ May 24 2010, 09:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=98162:date=May 24 2010, 10:29 PM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ May 24 2010, 10:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=98160:date=May 24 2010, 09:23 PM:name=VanSlawAndCottoCheese)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (VanSlawAndCottoCheese @ May 24 2010, 09:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=98159:date=May 24 2010, 10:21 PM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ May 24 2010, 10:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->It's not statistically his <i>turn</i> to swing a cold bat.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Argle-bargle.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, the idea of a statistical turn is gobbledegook. That's what I'm saying. Statistics are good. They're useful. You can determine when an event is statistically due, historically speaking but you sure as hell can't use statistics to predict events.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh, I get it now. You were saying that it's not that it's statistically his turn to swing his bat. Sorry, gotcha, I dig.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right. Hot and cold exist. Streaks happen. But they exist because of factors. There are causes, not just the fulfillment of a statistical likelihood.
|
