Follow Up

I was just ranting before about the elusive concept of "clutchness" but leave it to a statistically-trained smarty pants friend like Adam Taubman to dig a little deeper. Here's our exchange on the topic with Taubman doing most of the interesting point-making (chronologically bottom-up):

On 4/27/07, Adam Taubman wrote:

i have more thoughts: even if we convinced loring to do the statistical analysis, we couldn't be certain that anything we find is the result of clutch-ness per se (i.e. a mental state) and not better explained by some independent skill. for example, if we include in the definition of clutch something like average or slugging percentage with the bases loaded, we couldn't be sure that such a situation doesn't affect how the game is played in a way that suits the player's actual, physical skills. everyone's average goes up in bases loaded situations because pitchers don't want to walk in a run and thus give better pitches to hit. but what if a player's average jumps up more than other players' because his swing and eye are such that his hot zone is really only in strike territory? or someone who normally swings freely and suffers by chasing bad pitches gets a comparative advantage because there will be fewer bad pitches to hit. another example would be someone who normally suffers because he is easily fooled or put off balance by a pitcher's delivery, but when the pitcher pitches from the stretch is a lot better. these guys might be shown to be better in clutch situations, even if they aren't really clutch in the strict sense of the term. we should write a book about this...

On 4/27/07, Adam Taubman <adam.taubman@gmail.com> wrote:
i nominate loring.and i agree with you. i don't like to call players clutch, and i don't like to give them credit for the perception that they're clutch. there really isn't anyone on the mets that i would say i want up in the 9th inning for a reason other than pure talent. and, if i were a gm, i would never try to get my hands on a player solely because he supposedly has special clutch, or even post-season, value.

On 4/27/07, Daniel Kaminski < daniel.kaminski@gmail.com> wrote:
But who has time or energy to do that? What I'm saying is for those who don't have that time or energy (i.e. 99% of baseball fans) we should base our opinions on players on season and career-long stats and shy away from claiming someone is clutch.

On 4/27/07, Adam Taubman <adam.taubman@gmail.com > wrote:
yeah, i hadn't actually read your blog when i wrote that. i guess all we can do right now is suggest that he is and then undertake some real statistical analysis.

On 4/27/07, Daniel Kaminski <daniel.kaminski@gmail.com > wrote:
My point is, how do you know Jeter is clutch?

On 4/27/07, Adam Taubman <adam.taubman@gmail.com > wrote:
i don't know if it's completely genetic, but i'd imagine it at least partially is. at the same time, however involved genes are, the conscious mind is an intermediary in the process, so experience probably has a lot to do with it too. another point: i think it's one thing to say that as a matter of statistics we will find, simply because of probability, some people who in the past have hit better in certain situations--that in a field of hundreds of players, there will inevitably be some who have hit in "clutch" situations, even if "clutch" as a personal characteristic doesn't exist. but also as a matter of statistics, once we have identified players who are clutch ( e.g. jeter) and study them going forward, whatever we observe becomes more significant. there no longer is that chance factor because we've isolated a subject and a hypothesis.

On 4/27/07, Daniel Kaminski <daniel.kaminski@gmail.com > wrote:
So is it a genetic thing whether adrenaline helps a person focus or not? I ranted a little more on this on the blog.

On 4/27/07, Adam Taubman <adam.taubman@gmail.com > wrote:
that's pretty awesome. and that is crazy, although i think there is such a thing as a clutch hitter (we learned in psychology how adrenaline can help you focus more or have the opposite effect).