Clutchness

[biggz]

<!--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.