Clutchness

[VanSlawAndCottoCheese]

<!--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."