06-03-2009, 06:10 PM
<!--quoteo(post=41856:date=Jun 3 2009, 04:50 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Jun 3 2009, 04:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=41854:date=Jun 3 2009, 04:47 PM:name=bz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bz @ Jun 3 2009, 04:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->God that Bill James quote pisses me off. Who in the hell ever suggested that being clutch turns a player into something he isn't? It's the opposite. It's a player not changing his ability under an intense situation. It's a player still playing at the level they normally would despite their heart rate and breath rate increasing, the increase of sweat, the hyperfocus, the adrenaline, the endorphins, the inner monologue, etc.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then your definition of "clutch" is different from most people's.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No it isn't. When anyone talks about a player being a clutch player it is generally a good player. Also, it isn't just one rigid definition or usage of the word "clutch". They could be speaking in the classificatory sense where "clutchness" is evaluated as existing or not depending on how they perform in situations that appear to be in need of relative "clutchness" and are typically associated with an increased amount of stress, for example, their batting average with runners in scoring position.
They could also be using the word in the evaluative sense which is generally what you have a problem with because it elevates a players percieved ability despite the empirical evidense that suggests otherwise. An example is Scott Podsednik being thought of as clutch because people observed him hitting one fucking game winning home run regardless of the fact that he sucks at baseball. This is where someone might be doing what Bill James is referring to.
Generally, most people fall in between these two. They see a player who is normally good come through and perform when there is a lot of pressure more often than not.
Then your definition of "clutch" is different from most people's.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No it isn't. When anyone talks about a player being a clutch player it is generally a good player. Also, it isn't just one rigid definition or usage of the word "clutch". They could be speaking in the classificatory sense where "clutchness" is evaluated as existing or not depending on how they perform in situations that appear to be in need of relative "clutchness" and are typically associated with an increased amount of stress, for example, their batting average with runners in scoring position.
They could also be using the word in the evaluative sense which is generally what you have a problem with because it elevates a players percieved ability despite the empirical evidense that suggests otherwise. An example is Scott Podsednik being thought of as clutch because people observed him hitting one fucking game winning home run regardless of the fact that he sucks at baseball. This is where someone might be doing what Bill James is referring to.
Generally, most people fall in between these two. They see a player who is normally good come through and perform when there is a lot of pressure more often than not.
If Angelo had picked McClellin, I would have been expecting to hear by training camp that kid has stage 4 cancer, is actually 5'2" 142 lbs, is a chick who played in a 7 - 0 defensive scheme who only rotated in on downs which were 3 and 34 yds + so is not expecting to play a down in the NFL until the sex change is complete and she puts on another 100 lbs. + but this is Emery's first pick so he'll get a pass with a bit of questioning. - 1060Ivy