Clutch stat
 

Is there a sabermetrics stat that measures how good a player is in "the clutch"?

instead of looking at how my batters do in "close game"...is there an actual number that measures it?

there's no such thing as clutch :p

that doesn't exclude the possiblity that a person lets their nerves get to them. that's self-inflicted. no one is ever better than what they are.

law of independent results explains why sometimes it seems like someone is good in tougher situations. .but it's really just luck it happened in a small window of time.

http://research.sabr.org/journals/th...clutch-hitting

In OOTP there's Win Probability Added.

Win probability added and leverage index can show how a player performed in clutch situations but the actual difference in talent level (non random) between players is very small.

Rob Mains and Pete Palmer published a thorough study of “clutch” at Baseball Prospectus last month, and they correctly concluded, once again, that there is no such repeatable skill.

This is a really, really old study and I'm almost positive that there's since been stuff that shows that there is apparently some effect for some hitters. It's much easier to see in other sports, granted - there's no question that some players are better at scoring in crunch time in the NBA, for example. The thing there is, this is due to measurable skills like the ability to create one's own shot off the dribble or a quick release on a jumper that separate a "clutch" shooter from a guy who can generate points collecting garbage or coming off of picks but who won't necessarily find those opportunities available when defenses are actively attempting to stop that player from scoring.

With baseball, there's the issue of what constitutes "clutch". Is it late inning pressure situations? Okay, sure. Those situations if memory serves *do* favor players who can get around on good fastballs and track breaking pitches better than mistake hitters (as well as, in turn, pitchers with good stuff and small platoon splits). If it's something like late inning pressure situations during the World Series, or key games in a pennant race, the sample sizes will never be high enough to measure whether there's more of an effect or not.

In game, I believe that Markus has said that some players get a small boost. It's not huge and generally not dissimilar to the effect you see where some hitters hit a certain pitcher really well - more for flavor than to be a thing you can exploit.

Every rigorous study says the same thing: “clutch” is perceptual BS.

And if you really think only new studies can be any good, which is a very biased outlook, then read the latest thorough study. It’s from last month.

A Revised Look at Clutch Hitting (Part 1)

A Revised Look at Clutch Hitting (Part 2)

here's the thing:

they don't get better... the others shrink.

you cannot improve your hand eye coordination with will. simply not possible.

cuase and effect... what is the cause for that effect? magic? dna changes? muscle grows? this isn't the Grinch who stole christmas.

if you want to say some people let their nerves get to them and others do not.. this can be a cause and effect i can get behind. Most mlb players get over the nerves after playing in front of 40,000 booing or cheering fans pretty quickly.

you can always underperform for any multitude of reasons (sleep, personal problems, effort, nervers etc etc), but overperforming is just small sample luck.

as long as "clutch" doesn't mean they are better than normal, i'm okay with it.

if you think barry bonds wasn't "clutch" because of a handful of playoff games, you are nuts 48 games is nothing.

if you think the buffalo bills on the late 80's or early 90's "choked" you are nuts. (well the kicker never played again, lol. Norwood?). they just were the 'lesser' team all but that first year. they should have beat the giants with a backup QB.

1/10 they lose all those super bowls in a row? even if 1%, not so incredulous that it can happen. those were great teams with great players, and it's unsubstantiated nonsense to clalm they are failures in any way.

the best team doesn't often win the championship.. .the more layers of playoffs, the less likely it becomes.. and that's assuming a fair and balanced scheduel -- which the NFL can never have due to so few games played. even MLB schedule best record only has a ~40% confidence they are the best team too and that's 162 games with less parity than the NFL.

So basically it's such a small factor, I should consider it as such.

Thanks

it's a video game, but based on how they speak about it... not likely in the game, since it can't be proven to be a real force..

on the other hand, it is a video game... so?

rl - no such thing, guaranteed... all i will say.

I used think there was a real thing as a "clutch" hitter until I gave it some thought.

With tying and winning runs on base and the game on the line darned right I would have wanted George Brett at the plate instead of say Jason Heyward. But when I thought of it, I'd want Brett batting instead of Heyward in any situation. Examples of these kinds of contrasts between hitters are endless. The best hitters come through no matter the situation, and you could manipulate the stats any way you want, come up with whatever "advanced metric" you want and the end of the day George Brett will come out better than Jason Heyward.

For pitchers I think it's a little different. There are pitchers with ice water in their veins who want the ball with the game on the line. "Put me in skip, I'll get 'em." These are the guys you bring in kill the late inning rally, or nail down the final three outs. Not every pitcher can do this. That's why there are guys with electric stuff starting clean seventh innings because they can't be trusted in pressure situations. If everyone could be a stopper or closer, they would.

stil can't do 110%.. only ~100% is possibly and never reached. theoritical yield is impossible to reach in reality. we are thoroughly flawed beings.

the pitchers that can't do it are scared or don't want that perceived responsibility, even though it's no different than any other three outs in a game. it's all in their head. ie self-inflicted. the ones that can merely don't let it bother them.

So it's really not about going to 110% but rather dropping to 70-80% due to nerves, etc?

Which would mean clutch is not a guy stepping up in a tough situation but rather a guy who doesn't drop his bundle in a tough situation (retains peak performance, in other words).

Nigh impossible to quantify.

As Yogi Berra put it, "90% of the game is mental, the other half is physical."

This doesn't talk at all to what I'm saying. I agree with the general sense that yes, the best clutch hitters are also the best overall hitters, and all this shows, basically, is that the spread of "clutch hitters" is pretty similar to random chance. What I'm saying is that certain *types* of good hitters might have better ability in the clutch than certain other *types*. That's not necessarily going to show up in something like this - in fact, it appears that it did not - but may show up in the next few years once we have enough batted ball and pitch movement data to sift through.

Proven and concluded are two different concepts, each preserving their own right and integrity of position. It’s a wonderful investigation full of possibility. As for me, on a related note, regardless of my stand on the findings of studies, in the most critical of decisions with men on base I’m inclined to revisit a player’s statistical record with runners in scoring position, while it is only a record, not a predictor. Our nature, or at least mine. :2cents:

Guys, guys, guys. You can't quantify it because it does not exist.

I would argue offensive stats with runners in scoring position.

Can this stat be found in the game? I was searching for it the other night and couldn't find it anywhere.

I've never thought to look for it, but it's probably in batting splits somewhere. You can break down hitting with stuff as granular as pitch count, so I assume RISP is in there somewhere.