Is there a such thing as Clutch Ability? (1 Viewer)

[Liquid Tension]

This came form a different thread in discussing the "clutchness" of QB's.

I made the following comment:



"I for one will tell you that almost everyone you meet has their own bias based on what they see on a VERY limited basis. This is even more true when it comes to clutch or being unclutch. I have done studies on this from baseball on forums with Bill James and am positive that people have VERY selective memory. It would shock any Yankee fan (which I am) that ARod is actually more clutch than Derek Jeter. This is a fact and I could prove it to anyone over a 3 year period and over 200 AB's in close and late situations. The dreaded selective memory is the albatross of logical thinking."

The Surfshop19 and Chase Stuart had asked me to forward some of the information. I start this thread off with a little background and then some stats.

I am a die hard Yankee fan who watches live or via TiVo 90% of the Yankee innings. I think Derek Jeter is one of the best guys to root for as he handles is success about as well as anyone, keeps a boy scout image and is about as respectful to the game and his team logo as you can be. I love having him on the Yankees and he is also a really good player.

Baseball is far more conducive to a statistical study than football because baseball is really an individual sport where these actions create the teams success. In football you need support to do well while in baseball the hitters don't get any help and the pitchers get defensive support, but that is not the largest factor.

Yankee fans have been KILLING ARod as someone who isn't clutch and doesn't get the job done "when you really need it." Jeter, I believe because of who he is gets a free pass. This is what I wrote in a forum regarding ARod and Jeter:

While ARod is the lightning rod and the fans boo him, He is still really effective. BTW, I think it is stupid to boo a Yankee unless he doesn't hustle. I mean don't you want him to do well? Why boo him when he still is a really good player when he is having the worst year of his career? I know because he isn't clutch, right? "Just compare him to Jeter and you will see why Jeter is better than ARod"...blah, blah, blah.

The interesting debate regarding if there is a such thing as Clutch ability is an ongoing debate among SABR folks. While there are clearly clutch performances, clutch ability would show someone to consistency perform at a higher level in those spots (or poorly in ARod's case). I used to feel that people would perform differently under pressure but have been shown that I was wrong in 99% of the cases. ARod has been worse in those spots and could catch up, but he is in pretty rare company if he truly is someone who has poor clutch ability and therefore you can predict that he will not perform in the clutch in the future. Hitting a 3 run homer in a 5-2 game may not seem clutch at the time, but you never know when you will need those runs and his numbers are great so they have to help somewhere?

As for who you want up there in the clutch, ARod has not shown himself to be clutch, but one thing I am absolutely positive about is people have selective memory when it comes to "clutch performance." I could puke every time I heard people say how clutch Joe Girardi was because of the triple he had against Maddux. yes, that was a huge hit, but what about Girardi hitting 0-10 with runners in scoring position every other time that series (people have selective memory). People seem to forget that against Boston in 04, in the series we lost, ARod carried us against Minnesota and also had 8 hits, 2 HR's and 2 doubles against Boston. He hit .320 and had an OPS of 1.014 in that entire postseason. For comparison, Jeter had an OPS of only .686 and a BA of .245 that entire postseason. In the Boston series, Jeter had 6 hits and only 1 double for extra base hits. I bet you didn't know that? Ok that is only one postseason and that is a fair comeback, but it also points out that the postseason is such a few AB’s that you will have statistical high’s and lows.

Let’s look at a larger sample so it is more valid. People usually talk about hitting with runners in scoring position (RISP) to see if someone is clutch. That has some holes because people will argue that when you are up 10-2 is that really a clutch spot? The one stat that is ALWAYS important would be hitting in "late and close" situations. This is what a "late and close" situation is: The game is in the seventh inning or later, and the batting team is either leading by one run, tied, or has the potential tying run on base, at bat, or on deck. It is kind of like hitting in a save situation.

You may be surprised that "your" selective memory isn't remembering the failures by Jeter in these spots. OPS (On Base % + Slug %) is a much better indicator of offensive performance than batting average, but you may be surprised that over the past 3 years Jeter only hit .249 in these situations with a pedestrian OPS of .744. This was with over 250 plate appearances! Jeter is a little better with RISP with a .288 and .785 respectively. Interesting that both are worse than his averages? So Jeter has been worse in clutch spots over the past 3 years than his average. For comparison over the last 3 years for just over 250 PA's ARod has a BA of .276 and an OPS of .945 in late and close situations. So ARod is actually significantly better than Jeter in these clutch spots, although neither is better than their average. I bet that surprises all of you? Selective memory or maybe people just expect so much more from ARod? Could the contract and our love for Jeter blind all of us? It surely looks that way. One other note, the Yankees pay Jeter I believe 4 mil more a year than Arod because we got Texas to pick up something like 8 mil a year on his contract.

I know the next response is it only matters in the postseason; until Jeter puts up another .686 in the postseason and Boston wins another title

Some perspective for the next time someone talks about being clutch...You are now the wiser.

Now what does this have to do with FF? If this is true in baseball, wouldn't you think that the same is true in football?First, this tiny example doesn't prove the topic of this thread, however, I will tell you that this tiny example has been done thousands of times and you will have a VERY hard time finding guys that truly have clutch ability (not clutch performance).

I will say again that I have had a very hard time getting my arms around the hypothesis that major league players don't have a statistically valid difference in their performance in clutch spots. I was drafted for baseball as a catcher and broke a disc in my back and was more on the "players" side rather than the "geek" side, but have been swayed that I too have selective memory.

Thoughts?

 

[Chase Stuart]

I think this post and the comments are a good starting point to show that clutch ability likely doesn't exist.

There are three reasons why I don't think clutch ability exists.

1) No one has ever given me a satisfactory definition for it that I could apply consistently in the future without feeling ridiculous.

2) No one has ever shown any predictive ability about it (i.e., I don't think Matt Leinart will be clutch; or watch out for Vince Young, he won't be clutch. And trust me, as soon as Vince Young starts going to Pro Bowls but losing in the playoffs, people will forget about his BCS game and declare him a choker.)

3) No one has ever explained the reason for a particular player being clutch or not clutch. Why isn't Peyton Manning clutch? Is it in his genes? His cereal? His jersey number? Why is Tom Brady clutch? Does his dog's name end with a vowel? Does he only date brunettes?

Until I get some answers on those questions, I very much doubt that we can tell who has clutch ability. It may (or may not) exist, but it will be even harder to figure out who has it if it does.

 

[thesurfshop19]

I'm definitely in the camp that clutch players and ability does exist, but that this ability is in and of itself not particularly important.

This is a great study with some very cool stats -- I especially like this "late and close" thing and am surprised that I haven't heard more about this.

I mentioned in an article in the FFA that I did read the book Baseball Between the Numbers and they had a great article about David Ortiz and clutchness. They concluded that clutch ability does exist but contributes only 2% to winning from the plate (70% ability, 28% luck). Pretty interesting conclusion.

This is certainly pertinent to football because with the obvious Boston A-Rod vs. Papi debate comes the other Boston Manning vs. Brady debate, almost a perfect analog.

In my opinion the key difference between the two is that I think that Brady's a better QB than Manning all the time. Meanwhile, I think that A-Rod's a better hitter than Ortiz but in "late and close" situations I'd probably prefer Ortiz -- I'd be interested in his "late and close" numbers, they'd probably confirm the conventional wisdom in this case, no?

Totally agree about Jeter, though. He hasn't had a true clutch moment since game 4 of the 2001 World Series. And that's fine, he shouldn't be expected to always be clutch. Neither should A-Rod, though.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

My belief on the subject is this.

We all respond to stressful situations differently. It's just hard coded into us. Different types of stressful situations will have us act differently as well.

One type of response in a stressful situation would be instinct taking precedence over clearheadness.

In some instances, this would be good. This would help an NFL QB. Instead of overthinking in a stressful situation, he mantains his mechanics and makes good football decisions. This reminds me of Tom Brady.

Manning reminds me of an overthinker in stressful situations. He tries so hard to think his way out, that you see a completely different player on the field. He's no longer playing on 2nd nature like you have to in sports. It's almost like he's learning how to play QB for the first time.

This is not his fault, it's just how he is hardcoded. For being a football QB, this ends up bad. In other situations, this would b e good.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I think this post and the comments are a good starting point to show that clutch ability likely doesn't exist.

There are three reasons why I don't think clutch ability exists.

1) No one has ever given me a satisfactory definition for it that I could apply consistently in the future without feeling ridiculous.

2) No one has ever shown any predictive ability about it (i.e., I don't think Matt Leinart will be clutch; or watch out for Vince Young, he won't be clutch. And trust me, as soon as Vince Young starts going to Pro Bowls but losing in the playoffs, people will forget about his BCS game and declare him a choker.)

3) No one has ever explained the reason for a particular player being clutch or not clutch. Why isn't Peyton Manning clutch? Is it in his genes? His cereal? His jersey number? Why is Tom Brady clutch? Does his dog's name end with a vowel? Does he only date brunettes?

Until I get some answers on those questions, I very much doubt that we can tell who has clutch ability. It may (or may not) exist, but it will be even harder to figure out who has it if it does.

Chase thanks for the article. I am not sure if that proves that there is no such thing as clutch ability though. I look at that more in line with people can make splits look odd to explain their theory. However, if you can agree upon what a statistically valid measurement for "proving" a player to be clutch or not and then applied without bias, there should be a meaningful answer. In my example, hitting in close and late situations is clearly a clutch time, even if not the only one. A person could argue that the first run of the game was critical to the game or the 3 run HR in the 6th inning that got you close to allow a close and late situation, however, late and close is always important.

1) I used late and close as my measurement and it is a good one

2) This is the main reason why (at the least) clutch ability doesn't exist at anywhere near the level that people make it out to be. Example, If Ventieri misses a few of those FG's would people remember Brady's 100 yard INT returned for a TD in the playoff game (that cost the me the game)?

3) Reason may not be that important to me as it would have to be in a persons mental make-up to "choke up."

Good stuff!

 

[radballs]

I'm not buying clutchness as a character trait either. When we're talking about football and people are analyzing players, I generally think those same people draw certain conclusions using absurdly small sample sizes.

The other problem I have is that people attribute way too much value to the quarterback in big games. There are 22 people who are winning that game, not just the guy distributing the ball.

 

[Liquid Tension]

My belief on the subject is this.

We all respond to stressful situations differently. It's just hard coded into us. Different types of stressful situations will have us act differently as well.

One type of response in a stressful situation would be instinct taking precedence over clearheadness.

In some instances, this would be good. This would help an NFL QB. Instead of overthinking in a stressful situation, he mantains his mechanics and makes good football decisions. This reminds me of Tom Brady.

Manning reminds me of an overthinker in stressful situations. He tries so hard to think his way out, that you see a completely different player on the field. He's no longer playing on 2nd nature like you have to in sports. It's almost like he's learning how to play QB for the first time.

This is not his fault, it's just how he is hardcoded. For being a football QB, this ends up bad. In other situations, this would b e good.

KRS, this is exactly the preconceived notion I had before spending MANY hours going over numbers and thoughts from others. As a ball player at a high level, I found it hard to believe that everyone would react the exact same way to stress. However, after reviewing I realized that in 99% of the cases (maybe it is 98% based on the good post by thesurfshop19) these are all elite athletes and if they had an issue with pressure it would have already been weeded out.Big Poopy (intentional) has proved to be clutch and I will post his stats shortly.

 

[Boston]

Having watched Larry Bird, Tom Brady and Ortiz play I can tell you that clutch ability does exist and it is a talent. It is the ability to raise your game to another level in the most important situations. I'm not talking simply about a May game against the Royals or a January game against the Seattle Supersonics. There's many a good player that can come through in that type of situation. I'm talking about pressure cooker situations like exra innings of a playoff game, the final drive of a Super Bowl or a tight game against the Lakers in the NBA finals. Situations where a whole season is on the line and your performance will strongly dictate the outcome of that game.

If you see guys like Brady and Bird perform at an elite level when all the marbles are on the line and not think there's something called clutch ability than we can simply agree to disagree because there is absolutely nothing you can do to convince me otherwise. There are certain players that get better in these situation and certain players that wilt. Always has been and always will be.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I think this post and the comments are a good starting point to show that clutch ability likely doesn't exist.

There are three reasons why I don't think clutch ability exists.

1) No one has ever given me a satisfactory definition for it that I could apply consistently in the future without feeling ridiculous.

2) No one has ever shown any predictive ability about it (i.e., I don't think Matt Leinart will be clutch; or watch out for Vince Young, he won't be clutch. And trust me, as soon as Vince Young starts going to Pro Bowls but losing in the playoffs, people will forget about his BCS game and declare him a choker.)

3) No one has ever explained the reason for a particular player being clutch or not clutch. Why isn't Peyton Manning clutch? Is it in his genes? His cereal? His jersey number? Why is Tom Brady clutch? Does his dog's name end with a vowel? Does he only date brunettes?

Until I get some answers on those questions, I very much doubt that we can tell who has clutch ability. It may (or may not) exist, but it will be even harder to figure out who has it if it does.

Chase thanks for the article. I am not sure if that proves that there is no such thing as clutch ability though. I look at that more in line with people can make splits look odd to explain their theory. However, if you can agree upon what a statistically valid measurement for "proving" a player to be clutch or not and then applied without bias, there should be a meaningful answer. In my example, hitting in close and late situations is clearly a clutch time, even if not the only one. A person could argue that the first run of the game was critical to the game or the 3 run HR in the 6th inning that got you close to allow a close and late situation, however, late and close is always important.

1) I used late and close as my measurement and it is a good one

2) This is the main reason why (at the least) clutch ability doesn't exist at anywhere near the level that people make it out to be. Example, If Ventieri misses a few of those FG's would people remember Brady's 100 yard INT returned for a TD in the playoff game (that cost the me the game)?

3) Reason may not be that important to me as it would have to be in a persons mental make-up to "choke up."

Good stuff!

1) That's fine, but people generally like to use playoff stats. Is it close and late in all games? Just playoff games? And then, of course, what's close and what's late?3) I believe if it's in someone's mental make-up to choke up, they couldn't play professional sports. It's also highly unlikely, since plays seem to start out as chokers and then become clutch, and vice versa.

 

[radballs]

Was Brady clutch in Denver last year? Would Brady have been labeled a choker if Vinatieri had missed the kick in the snow bowl or in those Super Bowls?

 

[radballs]

If someone is "clutch" in that they perform better in key or important game situations, then why are they dogging it when it is not a "clutch" situation? Doesn't seem too professional to not be trying or performing your best at all times.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I'm not buying clutchness as a character trait either. When we're talking about football and people are analyzing players, I generally think people draw certain conclusions using absurdly small sample sizes.

The other problem I have is that people attribute too much value to the quarterback in big games. There are 22 people who are winning that game, not just the guy distributing the ball.

Agreed...If you break down by % every position, the QB is worth at most 12% of the total team and that may be generous.

Discounting coaching (which we all know is absurd to do), if offense is 40% and defense is 40% and ST is 20% these numbers have to be true. How much is the OL worth as a total? How much is the FB, RB, TE, WR's worth? Many would argue that the OL is worth 50% of the offense?

Lets' say that all 5 lineman or worth 7% of the offense each? Lets say that the RB is worth 15% and each WR is worth 7%. the TE and FB combined is worth 7% sorry Gates). That leaves the QB to be worth 29% of the offense or 11.6% of the team. Adjust the numbers as you seem fit, but I don't see it as unreasonable to say the QB is the same as your starting RB and two receivers.

 

[Boston]

Was Brady clutch in Denver last year? Would Brady have been labeled a choker if Vinatieri had missed the kick in the snow bowl or in those Super Bowls?

Does clutch mean 100% success rate? I don't think it does because no one is perfect. Yet, in his overall body of work I'll take his track record in a pressure packed situation any day of the week because he has proven that far more often than not he produces and can provide a great aid to his team's overall chance for victory.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Manning reminds me of an overthinker in stressful situations. He tries so hard to think his way out, that you see a completely different player on the field. He's no longer playing on 2nd nature like you have to in sports. It's almost like he's learning how to play QB for the first time.

This is not his fault, it's just how he is hardcoded. For being a football QB, this ends up bad. In other situations, this would be good.

Does this mean Manning will never win a close game in the playoffs? Or will his hardcoding change once he wins?

 

[Boston]

If someone is "clutch" in that they perform better in key or important game situations, then why are they dogging it when it is not a "clutch" situation? Doesn't seem too professional to not be trying or performing your best at all times.

That's nonsense. Being clutch has nothing to do with effort. It's the ability to produce in pressure packed, important situations. It's the ability to not to sucuumb to a situation where all eyes are on you and a major part of a season is on the line. Some guys thrive in that environment and others don't. It's pretty simple.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I think this post and the comments are a good starting point to show that clutch ability likely doesn't exist.

There are three reasons why I don't think clutch ability exists.

1) No one has ever given me a satisfactory definition for it that I could apply consistently in the future without feeling ridiculous.

2) No one has ever shown any predictive ability about it (i.e., I don't think Matt Leinart will be clutch; or watch out for Vince Young, he won't be clutch. And trust me, as soon as Vince Young starts going to Pro Bowls but losing in the playoffs, people will forget about his BCS game and declare him a choker.)

3) No one has ever explained the reason for a particular player being clutch or not clutch. Why isn't Peyton Manning clutch? Is it in his genes? His cereal? His jersey number? Why is Tom Brady clutch? Does his dog's name end with a vowel? Does he only date brunettes?

Until I get some answers on those questions, I very much doubt that we can tell who has clutch ability. It may (or may not) exist, but it will be even harder to figure out who has it if it does.

Chase thanks for the article. I am not sure if that proves that there is no such thing as clutch ability though. I look at that more in line with people can make splits look odd to explain their theory. However, if you can agree upon what a statistically valid measurement for "proving" a player to be clutch or not and then applied without bias, there should be a meaningful answer. In my example, hitting in close and late situations is clearly a clutch time, even if not the only one. A person could argue that the first run of the game was critical to the game or the 3 run HR in the 6th inning that got you close to allow a close and late situation, however, late and close is always important.

1) I used late and close as my measurement and it is a good one

2) This is the main reason why (at the least) clutch ability doesn't exist at anywhere near the level that people make it out to be. Example, If Ventieri misses a few of those FG's would people remember Brady's 100 yard INT returned for a TD in the playoff game (that cost the me the game)?

3) Reason may not be that important to me as it would have to be in a persons mental make-up to "choke up."

Good stuff!

1) That's fine, but people generally like to use playoff stats. Is it close and late in all games? Just playoff games? And then, of course, what's close and what's late?3) I believe if it's in someone's mental make-up to choke up, they couldn't play professional sports. It's also highly unlikely, since plays seem to start out as chokers and then become clutch, and vice versa.

I agree that if someone was a real choker than they wouldn't make it to the pros. I can tell you that when scouts are watching you the pressure is on, but when you step into the batters box you are zoned in regardless of what is going on around you.I defined close and late above...

This is what a "late and close" situation is: The game is in the seventh inning or later, and the batting team is either leading by one run, tied, or has the potential tying run on base, at bat, or on deck. It is kind of like hitting in a save situation.

Playoffs are fine, but because you are only talking about 20 AB's it is pretty statistically invalid. Even great players go through 50 AB stretches during the season where they are not hitting well. You Will find that Jeter's entire postseason numbers are pretty close to his regular season numbers because he has so many AB's

 

[Chase Stuart]

I defined close and late above...

This is what a "late and close" situation is: The game is in the seventh inning or later, and the batting team is either leading by one run, tied, or has the potential tying run on base, at bat, or on deck. It is kind of like hitting in a save situation.

Playoffs are fine, but because you are only talking about 20 AB's it is pretty statistically invalid. Even great players go through 50 AB stretches during the season where they are not hitting well. You Will find that Jeter's entire postseason numbers are pretty close to his regular season numbers because he has so many AB's

I meant close and late for the NFL.

 

[Chase Stuart]

If someone is "clutch" in that they perform better in key or important game situations, then why are they dogging it when it is not a "clutch" situation? Doesn't seem too professional to not be trying or performing your best at all times.

That's nonsense. Being clutch has nothing to do with effort. It's the ability to produce in pressure packed, important situations. It's the ability to not to sucuumb to a situation where all eyes are on you and a major part of a season is on the line. Some guys thrive in that environment and others don't. It's pretty simple.

Don't you think if Brady was more clutch he could have beaten out Drew Henson? Or was that not a pressure packed situation?

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Manning reminds me of an overthinker in stressful situations. He tries so hard to think his way out, that you see a completely different player on the field. He's no longer playing on 2nd nature like you have to in sports. It's almost like he's learning how to play QB for the first time.

This is not his fault, it's just how he is hardcoded. For being a football QB, this ends up bad. In other situations, this would be good.

Does this mean Manning will never win a close game in the playoffs? Or will his hardcoding change once he wins?

It means he will be his own worst enemy.The Colts can win with him in a close game. Whether or not he wins will have zero effect on his hardcoding. The issue is whether or not that can obstacle can be overcome.

Winning a big playoff game might help some.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Manning reminds me of an overthinker in stressful situations. He tries so hard to think his way out, that you see a completely different player on the field. He's no longer playing on 2nd nature like you have to in sports. It's almost like he's learning how to play QB for the first time.

This is not his fault, it's just how he is hardcoded. For being a football QB, this ends up bad. In other situations, this would be good.

Does this mean Manning will never win a close game in the playoffs? Or will his hardcoding change once he wins?

It means he will be his own worst enemy.The Colts can win with him in a close game. Whether or not he wins will have zero effect on his hardcoding. The issue is whether or not that can obstacle can be overcome.

Winning a big playoff game might help some.

Hasn't he won three big playoff games?Isn't the entire Manning theory based on two playoff games: the two NE games.

The Jets game was hardly a choke, it was a blowout. In every other playoff game he played anywhere from decent to unbelievable.

It hardly seems that he's hardcoded to do poorly. If Vanderjagt hit that FG, and Manning went on to win the SB, you might view his "hardcoding" differently.

 

[CalBear]

Was Brady clutch in Denver last year? Would Brady have been labeled a choker if Vinatieri had missed the kick in the snow bowl or in those Super Bowls?

Does clutch mean 100% success rate? I don't think it does because no one is perfect. Yet, in his overall body of work I'll take his track record in a pressure packed situation any day of the week because he has proven that far more often than not he produces and can provide a great aid to his team's overall chance for victory.

The question before those who wish to posit the existance of "clutchness" is, is a player with a history of performing well in clutch situations more likely to perform well in clutch situations in the future? Most people who believe in clutchness believe that Vinatieri is a clutch kicker. What odds would you have been willing to give on Vinatieri missing a fourth-quarter kick in the playoffs in 2005? 4-1? 5-1? 10-1? Or to put it another way, given his overall success rate of about 80%, what would you have predicted as his success likelihood on a fourth-quarter playoff kick to be?

I think it would have been foolish predict a 90% success likelihood (and, of course, he missed that kick). I think if, for the rest of his career, you were to predict anything above 85% success in "clutch" situations (however you define that), you would be treading on some pretty shaky ground. I wouldn't bet on anything above his career FG percentage.

 

[Men-in-Cleats]

I'm not buying clutchness as a character trait either. When we're talking about football and people are analyzing players, I generally think people draw certain conclusions using absurdly small sample sizes.

The other problem I have is that people attribute too much value to the quarterback in big games. There are 22 people who are winning that game, not just the guy distributing the ball.

Agreed...If you break down by % every position, the QB is worth at most 12% of the total team and that may be generous.

Discounting coaching (which we all know is absurd to do), if offense is 40% and defense is 40% and ST is 20% these numbers have to be true. How much is the OL worth as a total? How much is the FB, RB, TE, WR's worth? Many would argue that the OL is worth 50% of the offense?

Lets' say that all 5 lineman or worth 7% of the offense each? Lets say that the RB is worth 15% and each WR is worth 7%. the TE and FB combined is worth 7% sorry Gates). That leaves the QB to be worth 29% of the offense or 11.6% of the team. Adjust the numbers as you seem fit, but I don't see it as unreasonable to say the QB is the same as your starting RB and two receivers.

This is flawed in that the QB is the only player on the offense to touch the ball on every single offensive play (other than trick plays anyhow). If the RB handles the ball he needs a clean handoff, if the WR gets the ball he needs a catchable pass. The O-line can only block for so long and needs the QB to be able to deliver the ball or get rid of it. Yes they all are intertwined and depend on each other, but the QB is obviously the most important cog in that machine since it single handedly affects every single position. I think it is obvious that not every player is able to come through in the clutch, but there are certainly players that have come through in those situations again and again and again while others have consistently fallen short.

 

[Boston]

If someone is "clutch" in that they perform better in key or important game situations, then why are they dogging it when it is not a "clutch" situation? Doesn't seem too professional to not be trying or performing your best at all times.

That's nonsense. Being clutch has nothing to do with effort. It's the ability to produce in pressure packed, important situations. It's the ability to not to sucuumb to a situation where all eyes are on you and a major part of a season is on the line. Some guys thrive in that environment and others don't. It's pretty simple.

Don't you think if Brady was more clutch he could have beaten out Drew Henson? Or was that not a pressure packed situation?

Is clutch ability defined as a young QB who is far from a finished product learning the game? Or is it a college coach giving time to a young QB who at the time was supposed to be the second coming of Johnny Unitas?By the way I believe if you look at Brady's record v. Henson's he probably has a better won-lost record. My guess is there were probably a few games where he did step up in pressure situations and was showing signs of clutch ability even that early in his career.

Does this topic apply to all humans? Should we believe that all firemen and cops act the same way under durress? That all sales reps perform the same way giving a monster presentation? That every human will act like a hero in a tough situation regardless of their personal makeup.

Maybe it's because I don't play video games but I really find it hard to believe that this is a topic being debated.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Having watched Larry Bird, Tom Brady and Ortiz play I can tell you that clutch ability does exist and it is a talent.  It is the ability to raise your game to another level in the most important situations.  I'm not talking simply about a May game against the Royals or a January game against the Seattle Supersonics.  There's many a good player that can come through in that type of situation.  I'm talking about pressure cooker situations like exra innings of a playoff game, the final drive of a Super Bowl or a tight game against the Lakers in the NBA finals.  Situations where a whole season is on the line and your performance will strongly dictate the outcome of that game.

If you see guys like Brady and Bird perform at an elite level when all the marbles are on the line and not think there's something called clutch ability than we can simply agree to disagree because there is absolutely nothing you can do to convince me otherwise.  There are certain players that get better in these situation and certain players that wilt.  Always has been and always will be.

You can say it in absolute terms but you will find VERY FEW examples agreeing with you. What would happen if a few FG's were missed and Brady didn't get some of those wins? What happened last year to Brady when he looked like a rookie QB at the end zone; is he all of a sudden a choker? No, he isn't, but he will play at the level he is capable of as more and more opportunities present themselves he will average out to his level (high).Ortiz is an interesting one as he surely appears to be THE guy to prove clutch hitting. A few stats this year. In late and close situations Ortiz is only hitting .243 in about 50 AB's (Not a large sample). I just put this out there to show why batting average really doesn't mean squat for baseball and OPS is FAR more important. Ortiz has an OPS of .970 this year in late and close situations which is in line with season numbers over the last 3 years (.983). So maybe this year he is playing pretty close to what you would expect in these clutch spots. People see the ESPN highlights and think he is doing better, but ESPN doesn't show him getting out in clutch spots because it doesn't sell.

To be fair, Ortiz has been great in clutch spots the last 3 years.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

As a ball player at a high level, I found it hard to believe that everyone would react the exact same way to stress. However, after reviewing I realized that in 99% of the cases (maybe it is 98% based on the good post by thesurfshop19) these are all elite athletes and if they had an issue with pressure it would have already been weeded out.

That's what I think. First of all, all NFL games are meaningful to the players. Rookies often throw up before their first preseason game, so even preseason games can be stressful. And veterans sometimes say that that basic pre-game feeling never really goes away. I think the difference between what the public perceives as a "big game" and what the public perceives as a "normal game" probably isn't that great for the players. Part of why they're in the NFL is that they're able to get themselves up for every game.In any event, here's how I'd test for clutchness.

1. Come up with a decent objective measure of what a "big game" is.

2. For every player in the relevant universe, do a t-test to see if he's been clutch (or anti-clutch) to a statistically significant degree. I.e., if his normal passer rating (or win percentage or whatever metric you use) is X, how likely is it that his actual playoff passer rating (or win percentage) of Y would be acheived given that he his still morally an X-type player even in the playoffs? (Only use players with a large sample of "normal" games, otherwise there are problems with using X as his baseline.) (Note: using win percentage would be wrong unless you only used playoff-bound seasons to determine X. And even then there might be problems, since the seasons with stronger teams would still probably be over-weighted in the playoffs compared to seasons with lesser teams.)

3. See how the actual results line up with the confidence interval of your t-test. If you chose a confidence interval such that you'd be expected to get a false positive only 2.5% of the time, and a false negative another 2.5% of the time, and if it turns out that roughly one in forty players are clutch to a statistically significant extent (and another one in forty are anti-clutch to a statistically significant extent) while the results for 95% of the players tested are not statistically significant . . . then it looks like there's no such thing as clutchness (or anti-clutchness). But if 1 out of 20 players are clutch to a statistically significant extent, then it looks like there is a such thing as clutchness.

I'm sure other people have come up with better ways to do it than that, but that would be my initial thought.

 

[Liquid Tension]

From CalBear

The question before those who wish to posit the existance of "clutchness" is, is a player with a history of performing well in clutch situations more likely to perform well in clutch situations in the future? 

Exactly! Somewhat similar to my Jeter comment was yeah he is always clutch until he isn't and then what do you predict? Brady was not clutch last year... was that

a) the start of his evening out to his normal high level or

b) was that an aberration?

Smart money would say a)

edited to show CalBear as the author of the quote

 

[Doug Drinen]

Should we believe that all firemen and cops act the same way under durress?

One quick point, and this shouldn't be taken as agreement or disagreement with your other points, but we're not talking about "football players" here. We're talking about the absolute best football players on the plaent. We're talking about players who, for the most part, have succeeded (in clutch and non-clutch situations) in junior high, high school, and college. If you want to compare to firemen or cops, then you have to compare to the most elite group of firemen or cops in the world, a group that had been selected in large part because they had proven their ability to perform admirably in all kinds of situations in the past.

Seventh-grade football players choke, sometimes almost literally. There's no doubt about it. I've seen it. But I don't know that I've ever seen an NFL football player choke. That's not to say it never happens, but you can't see it. The true chokers don't make it to the NFL.

Again, I'm not saying this proves clutch/choke ability doesn't exist at the highest level. I'm just saying it's why I don't necessarily buy the "all people react differently to different situations" argument that there must be.

 

[Liquid Tension]

From CalBear

The question before those who wish to posit the existance of "clutchness" is, is a player with a history of performing well in clutch situations more likely to perform well in clutch situations in the future? 

Exactly! Somewhat similar to my Jeter comment was yeah he is always clutch until he isn't and then what do you predict? Brady was not clutch last year... was that a) the start of his evening out to his normal high level or

b) was that an aberration?

Smart money would say a)

edited to show CalBear as the author of the quote

I would also argue that many people perceive that players are clutch and they really aren't. The people just have selective memory.

 

[Liquid Tension]

As a ball player at a high level, I found it hard to believe that everyone would react the exact same way to stress.  However, after reviewing I realized that in 99% of the cases (maybe it is 98% based on the good post by thesurfshop19) these are all elite athletes and if they had an issue with pressure it would have already been weeded out.

That's what I think. First of all, all NFL games are meaningful to the players. Rookies often throw up before their first preseason game, so even preseason games can be stressful. And veterans sometimes say that that basic pre-game feeling never really goes away. I think the difference between what the public perceives as a "big game" and what the public perceives as a "normal game" probably isn't that great for the players. Part of why they're in the NFL is that they're able to get themselves up for every game.In any event, here's how I'd test for clutchness.

1. Come up with a decent objective measure of what a "big game" is.

2. For every player in the relevant universe, do a t-test to see if he's been clutch (or anti-clutch) to a statistically significant degree. I.e., if his normal passer rating (or win percentage or whatever metric you use) is X, how likely is it that his playoff passer rating is morally X given that his actual results have been Y? (Only use players with a large sample of "normal" games, otherwise there are problems with using X as his baseline.) (Note: using win percentage would be wrong unless you only used playoff-bound seasons to determine X. And even then there might be problems, since the seasons with stronger teams would still probably be over-weighted in the playoffs compared to seasons with lesser teams.)

3. See how the actual results line up with the confidence interval of your t-test. If you chose a confidence interval such that you'd be expected to get a false positive only 2.5% of the time, and a false negative another 2.5% of the time, and if it turns out that roughly one in forty players are clutch to a statistically significant extent (and another one in forty are anti-clutch to a statistically significant extent) while the results for 95% of the players tested are not statistically significant . . . then it looks like there's no such thing as clutchness (or anti-clutchness). But if 1 out of 20 players are clutch to a statistically significant extent, then it looks like there is a such thing as clutchness.

I'm sure other people have come up with better ways to do it than that, but that would be my initial thought.

Nothing wrong with this analysis as it would be interesting to note, but I will still stick to my guns that baseball is FAR more conducive to a statistical approach because performances are somewhat mutually exclusive events. Football is a TEAM sport. The batter pitcher confrontation is really one against one. you could argue that there are many of those battles going on in a football game, but if you are the RB your success is predicated on your OL success and the handoff rather than in baseball where it is 95% you.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I'm not buying clutchness as a character trait either. When we're talking about football and people are analyzing players, I generally think people draw certain conclusions using absurdly small sample sizes.

The other problem I have is that people attribute too much value to the quarterback in big games. There are 22 people who are winning that game, not just the guy distributing the ball.

Agreed...If you break down by % every position, the QB is worth at most 12% of the total team and that may be generous.

Discounting coaching (which we all know is absurd to do), if offense is 40% and defense is 40% and ST is 20% these numbers have to be true. How much is the OL worth as a total? How much is the FB, RB, TE, WR's worth? Many would argue that the OL is worth 50% of the offense?

Lets' say that all 5 lineman or worth 7% of the offense each? Lets say that the RB is worth 15% and each WR is worth 7%. the TE and FB combined is worth 7% sorry Gates). That leaves the QB to be worth 29% of the offense or 11.6% of the team. Adjust the numbers as you seem fit, but I don't see it as unreasonable to say the QB is the same as your starting RB and two receivers.

This is flawed in that the QB is the only player on the offense to touch the ball on every single offensive play (other than trick plays anyhow). If the RB handles the ball he needs a clean handoff, if the WR gets the ball he needs a catchable pass. The O-line can only block for so long and needs the QB to be able to deliver the ball or get rid of it. Yes they all are intertwined and depend on each other, but the QB is obviously the most important cog in that machine since it single handedly affects every single position. I think it is obvious that not every player is able to come through in the clutch, but there are certainly players that have come through in those situations again and again and again while others have consistently fallen short.

You may not agree with the breakdown but it is not flawed? Yes, the QB handles the ball every play, but handing it off and fielding the snap is done by any QB. Yes, throwing the ball is important but haven't we seen a QB look great when TO all of a sudden is on his team? Let me give it you this way. Take the best QB and the worst and then take the best WR's and RB's and which would make your team better assuming a decent line and TE and FB? This should be a poll?Would you be better off with:

a) Tom Brady, Kevan Barlow, Justin McCarriens and Keary Colbert

or

b) Kyle Boller, Ladanian, Steve Smith and Chad Johnson?

 

[Lightning Fast Whip]

I think there really are differences in how people/players handle pressure packed situations. That they had huge talent to get to the level they are at is one thing. To have same or better ability at that level under pressure is another.

Let's say we'd never heard of Adrenaline from scientists/doctors...it would be easy to deny the " someone get a "burst" of strength or energy" tales we sometimes hear. Since Adrenaline is a well known thing we don't question it much...but is adrenaline the only chemical/substance that enhances/changes performance? Of course not. Do we know them all? Are some being developed all the time in labs? I expect there are a number of naturally occurring chemicals that are released in human body AND MIND under stressful/pressured situations and like most everything in differing amounts in each individual. Steroids can both enhance the physical but in other ways detract from clear thinking...that there are chemicals naturally occuring that effect peoples thinking under pressure is reasonable assumption. Example- under pressure some people eat excessively while others don't eat at all...opposite results under stress.

Peyton seems like the main reason this comes up in NFL Talk. Personally I rarely watch College Football so didn't have a strong opinion of him entering the NFL. Some Florida fans certainly did though. And That Tennessee won a National Title the year after he left is another argument against. My take on Peyton is from watching him under pressure in NFL ( after he had already been labeled by some college fans). In NFL he has looked different under pressure and it has seemed to be exaggerated the bigger the games importance is. There have been exceptions to this ...First time I said "WOW, he might be different now...he might turn the corner" is when he rallied Indy back from a huge deficit vs Tampa Bay on National TV. It was as good/even great a performance as you could ask for in a regular season comeback...completely different from the confused look or happy feet (he did not look good vs PITT despite any claims otherwise..he dug them the hole and really threw away the shovel with INT to Polamalu that NFL later admitted was a INT) he has shown in playoff games before and after that Tampa game. OK, Brady had a horrid INT to CHAMP that costs the PATS last year. Did Brady look confused or get happy feet until Denver played prevent like Peyton did vs Pitt? Even in their losses last year where they both threw a costly Interception to a Pro Bowl Defender (Polamalu/Champ should get own credit for stepping up) ...I'd still say for majority of the game Manning did not look like himself at all...while Brady wasn't looking horrible except the interception.

To watch Bradys work under pressure and Mannings work under pressure neither succeeds everytime nor fails everytime ...but Brady looks good under pressure more often than Peyton. And in Football unlike Baseball we do see a good % of the games since there are only 10% as many played.

Bird was brought up...his comparison player in his generation was also undeniably Clutch.Magic did it his whole career but gave us a glimpse in Finals his very first season with Jabbar out he played Center and with no hesitation DOMINATED immediately.

Having the Big 2 of Larry and Majic both being CLUTCH guys is a reason NBA Boomed for a decade. If Peyton and Brady both raised or at least maintained their games under pressure we'd have more likely seen some great playoff games between them. Maybe it will be Big Ben joining them later sort of like Isaiah or Jordan joining the basketball party a little later?

 

[djcolts]

Let me make some points.

1. I think Brady is better than Manning - let me get that out of the way now.

2. However, let's think about where Brady excels and where Manning doesn't excel and see how it really has less to do with clutch than it appears.

3. What types of Ds does Brady really chew up and spit out? Answer - teams that plays zone Ds. Who plays zone Ds? The Colts certainly do (the Colts have NEVER stopped Brady - ever). Pitt played a soft zone against Brady and Brady tore them up. Brady torched the Bucs last season as I recalled (zone D). The first loss in the playoffs for Brady was against a team that plays a lot of man-to-man - that is just a worse matchup for him than, say, playing the Colts cover-2. That is just football - plain and simple.

4. What types of Ds does Manning (and the Colts) struggle against in the last few years? That is simple - 3-4 Ds. Pats, Chargers and Steelers all play them, and, gee, who have the Colts lost to in the playoffs, and who broke up their unbeaten season last year? The only time the Colts really torched a 3-4 for is occasionally the Texans and that one time the Pats had no one on D healthy last season. It isn't a coincidence that the 3 playoffs victories for the Manning-led Colts were against 4-3 defenses.

 

[Chase Stuart]

How many people remember Brady's awful INT against the Dolphins on Monday Night? We often forget lots of things, so going just on memory is not going to work.

Here's an interesting stat. "Approximately fifty percent of those wrongly convicted were convicted based on eyewitness identification evidence....The "forgetting curve" describes the uneven rate at which information is forgotten, with a severe decline in recall occurring quickly, followed by a slower decline. Post-event information has been found to distort the memory, permanently altering it to conform with the post-event information received. One study found that the accuracy of an identification of students seen several times a week for ten weeks fell to sixty-nine percent after just two weeks, and to only forty-eight percent after one year. The ability to accurately identify a stranger with whom a witness had a single encounter lasting a brief period has been shown to be essentially nonexistent in less than one year."

When I hear "what are you talking about, of course XYZ is clutch", that paragraph above comes to mind. What we think we've seen and what we've seen are often too different things.

Maybe someone can answer this for me. I hear that Brady is clutch, but that he won't be clutch all the time. I hear that Manning is not clutch, but he won't be not clutch all the time.

Then in 10 playoff games, Manning has looked bad in 3, average in 4, and excellent in 3. In 11 playoff games, Brady has looked bad in 2, average in 5, and very good in 4.

Isn't it very likely that PlayoffBrady is the exact same as RegularBrady, and PlayoffPeyton is the exact same as RegularPeyton, but because of pretty small sample sizes, we're going to see results that are a bit off? Why isn't that more likely than Brady getting a 10% boost (or whatever number it is you like) and Manning taking a 10% hit in the playoffs?

If a coin went 6 heads out of 15, would you think the coin was an uneven coin?

 

[Liquid Tension]

I think there really are differences in how people/players handle pressure packed situations. That they had huge talent to get to the level they are at is one thing. To have same or better ability at that level under pressure is another.

Let's say we'd never heard of Adrenaline from scientists/doctors...it would be easy to deny the " someone get a "burst" of strength or energy" tales we sometimes hear. Since Adrenaline is a well known thing we don't question it much...but is adrenaline the only chemical/substance that enhances/changes performance? Of course not. Do we know them all? Are some being developed all the time in labs? I expect there are a number of naturally occurring chemicals that are released in human body AND MIND under stressful/pressured situations and like most everything in differing amounts in each individual. Steroids can both enhance the physical but in other ways detract from clear thinking...that there are chemicals naturally occuring that effect peoples thinking under pressure is reasonable assumption. Example- under pressure some people eat excessively while others don't eat at all...opposite results under stress.

Peyton seems like the main reason this comes up in NFL Talk. Personally I rarely watch College Football so didn't have a strong opinion of him entering the NFL. Some Florida fans certainly did though. And That Tennessee won a National Title the year after he left is another argument against. My take on Peyton is from watching him under pressure in NFL ( after he had already been labeled by some college fans). In NFL he has looked different under pressure and it has seemed to be exaggerated the bigger the games importance is. There have been exceptions to this ...First time I said "WOW, he might be different now...he might turn the corner" is when he rallied Indy back from a huge deficit vs Tampa Bay on National TV. It was as good/even great a performance as you could ask for in a regular season comeback...completely different from the confused look or happy feet (he did not look good vs PITT despite any claims otherwise..he dug them the hole and really threw away the shovel with INT to Polamalu that NFL later admitted was a INT) he has shown in playoff games before and after that Tampa game. OK, Brady had a horrid INT to CHAMP that costs the PATS last year. Did Brady look confused or get happy feet until Denver played prevent like Peyton did vs Pitt? Even in their losses last year where they both threw a costly Interception to a Pro Bowl Defender (Polamalu/Champ should get own credit for stepping up) ...I'd still say for majority of the game Manning did not look like himself at all...while Brady wasn't looking horrible except the interception.

To watch Bradys work under pressure and Mannings work under pressure neither succeeds everytime nor fails everytime ...but Brady looks good under pressure more often than Peyton. And in Football unlike Baseball we do see a good % of the games since there are only 10% as many played.

Bird was brought up...his comparison player in his generation was also undeniably Clutch.Magic did it his whole career but gave us a glimpse in Finals his very first season with Jabbar out he played Center and with no hesitation DOMINATED immediately.

Having the Big 2 of Larry and Majic both being CLUTCH guys is a reason NBA Boomed for a decade. If Peyton and Brady both raised or at least maintained their games under pressure we'd have more likely seen some great playoff games between them. Maybe it will be Big Ben joining them later sort of like Isaiah or Jordan joining the basketball party a little later?

LFW, nobody is denying there is a such thing as adrenaline, but what would appear more factual in stats and less on what we think we see, would tell us that pro players deals with adrenaline about the same and it doesn't seem to have any meaningful significance.

 

[GregR_2]

I think "clutch" is more people getting caught up in drama than it is something real. There are some people who handle pressure better than others, and even at the NFL level there are some guys who have slight advantages. I mean face, if talent were equal it no one would choose a guy with Aaaron Brooks' demeanor over a guy with Elway's demeanor. No one would choose a Philip Buchanon over a Ray Lewis.

But that's a small part in what goes on. I mean, take Brady's drive in the Pats first Super Bowl. Pats have been stagnant on offense all day. Something like 2 or 3 for 11 on third down completions. 1 scoring drive that can be attributed to the offense, while the other 10 points came primarily from the defense (INT for a TD and a turnover that gave the O the ball practically in FG range IIRC).

Ok, so what factors are most likely to play the largest role in the Pats final drive? That Brady suddenly becomes more accurate and makes better decisions when under more pressure? Or that the Rams dropped into prevent defense, allowing things like the 3 straight dump offs to RBs that let them move the ball? Or that Tom Brady is a very good QB and the last drive is the first one the handcuffs came off and he was allowed to play at his normal, non-clutch level?

I think a reasonable person who is not caught up in the drama of that game would have a hard time saying "Brady's game elevates" is more responsible for it than "Brady is normally very good" and "it was a prevent defense".

Speaking of which, I think it's an insult to Brady when people try to use that SB and the clutch argument. Frankly it was a poor game for a QB overall. The playoff loss to Denver showed a dozen times better Brady's skill as a QB than did the SB win. But a lot of people will focus on the 1 drive in the SB and the big INT to Bailey in the loss and judge everything on that, because that's where the drama lay. But watching the game, Denver had some of the most ferocious blitzing I can recall seeing in a long time. I was expecting time and again to see him flattened, but he seemed to continually read the 7 and 8 man blitzes and get the ball off in time, and actually make completions and move the chains.

Watching that game gave me more of an appreciation for Brady's QB skills. I knew he was very good at eluding the rush even if he isn't "fast", but he really showed a whole new level to me out there in that game. I think I'd even give him the edge over Peyton now as best QB in the NFL, because of that game and because at the same time Peyton was facing similar pressure against the Steelers and had more trouble handling it.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If a coin went 6 heads out of 15, would you think the coin was an uneven coin?

It depends on how rare I believe uneven coins to be. If I believed that 49% of all coins are uneven, I may certainly believe that the 6/15 coin is more likely than not to be uneven. But if I believe that only 0.1% of all coins are uneven, I will believe that the 6/15 coin is more likely to be even than not. (This is just a Bayes theorem application.)And that's the problem with the Brady/Manning thing as well. For people who already believe that lots of players are clutch or anti-clutch, even a small sample of games will convince them that Brady is clutch and Manning is anti-clutch. For people who already believe that true clutchness is very rare if it exists at all, the trivial sample of playoff games we've observed Brady and Manning play are wildly insufficient to establish that one or the other is more clutch.

 

[Lightning Fast Whip]

Let me make some points.

1. I think Brady is better than Manning - let me get that out of the way now.

2. However, let's think about where Brady excels and where Manning doesn't excel and see how it really has less to do with clutch than it appears.

3. What types of Ds does Brady really chew up and spit out? Answer - teams that plays zone Ds. Who plays zone Ds? The Colts certainly do (the Colts have NEVER stopped Brady - ever). Pitt played a soft zone against Brady and Brady tore them up. Brady torched the Bucs last season as I recalled (zone D). The first loss in the playoffs for Brady was against a team that plays a lot of man-to-man - that is just a worse matchup for him than, say, playing the Colts cover-2. That is just football - plain and simple.

4. What types of Ds does Manning (and the Colts) struggle against in the last few years? That is simple - 3-4 Ds. Pats, Chargers and Steelers all play them, and, gee, who have the Colts lost to in the playoffs, and who broke up their unbeaten season last year? The only time the Colts really torched a 3-4 for is occasionally the Texans and that one time the Pats had no one on D healthy last season. It isn't a coincidence that the 3 playoffs victories for the Manning-led Colts were against 4-3 defenses.

Valid points especially on 3-4 Defense. What about His 0 points vs Jets in 2002 playoffs with 2 Ints? If it is really just a 3-4 problem then being it has been 4 years since the Zero vs Jets shouldn't a great QB and Team have figured out how to look competent vs a 3-4 defense? 68 points in 6 playoff losses is less than 12 ppg average. Had at least 3 Hall Of Famers in the Triplets (Peyton,Edge,Harrison) out there in all 6 and average 12 points per. Is there any other Team in Superbowl ERA that has had a Hall Of Fame QB,RB and WR all on a team this long without even a conference title? With a 3-6 Playoff record? Granted facing the 3-4 is different and if Indy/Peyton just looked a little worse I'd buy that as the whole reason yet they've had years to work on improving vs 3-4 and still have looked bad when facing it in playoffs..(Yet in regular season they looked good vs NE a couple years ago and Good vs Pitt last year) I agree they'd look better vs 4-3 but Peyton looked so bad in those last 3 losses if we're going to blame it all on the 3-4 then someone has some explaning to do why they can't figure it out come playoff time in over 3 years ....Peyton didn't score 20 in first 3 playoff games (1999,2000,2002) either.

 

[Lightning Fast Whip]

If a coin went 6 heads out of 15, would you think the coin was an uneven coin?

It depends on how rare I believe uneven coins to be. If I believed that 49% of all coins are uneven, I may certainly believe that the 6/15 coin is more likely than not to be uneven. But if I believe that only 0.1% of all coins are uneven, I will believe that the 6/15 coin is more likely to be even than not. (This is just a Bayes theorem application.)And that's the problem with the Brady/Manning thing as well. For people who already believe that lots of players are clutch or anti-clutch, even a small sample of games will convince them that Brady is clutch and Manning is anti-clutch. For people who already believe that true clutchness is very rare if it exists at all, the trivial sample of playoff games we've observed Brady and Manning play are wildly insufficient to establish that one or the other is more clutch.

It's great explaination how we differ in looking at same small samples of data. If you start out a non-believer in Clutchness there is not going to be enough data to change your mind. If you believe in Clutch ability then it's easier to believe the small sample. In Football teams aren't involved in that many clutch situations each season to get large samples. I don't think how people perform under pressure in critical or crucial situations is uniform so I believe ...and that's in general not just pro-football.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Let me make some points.

1. I think Brady is better than Manning - let me get that out of the way now.

2. However, let's think about where Brady excels and where Manning doesn't excel and see how it really has less to do with clutch than it appears.

3. What types of Ds does Brady really chew up and spit out? Answer - teams that plays zone Ds. Who plays zone Ds? The Colts certainly do (the Colts have NEVER stopped Brady - ever). Pitt played a soft zone against Brady and Brady tore them up. Brady torched the Bucs last season as I recalled (zone D). The first loss in the playoffs for Brady was against a team that plays a lot of man-to-man - that is just a worse matchup for him than, say, playing the Colts cover-2. That is just football - plain and simple.

4. What types of Ds does Manning (and the Colts) struggle against in the last few years? That is simple - 3-4 Ds. Pats, Chargers and Steelers all play them, and, gee, who have the Colts lost to in the playoffs, and who broke up their unbeaten season last year? The only time the Colts really torched a 3-4 for is occasionally the Texans and that one time the Pats had no one on D healthy last season. It isn't a coincidence that the 3 playoffs victories for the Manning-led Colts were against 4-3 defenses.

Valid points especially on 3-4 Defense. What about His 0 points vs Jets in 2002 playoffs with 2 Ints? If it is really just a 3-4 problem then being it has been 4 years since the Zero vs Jets shouldn't a great QB and Team have figured out how to look competent vs a 3-4 defense? 68 points in 6 playoff losses is less than 12 ppg average. Had at least 3 Hall Of Famers in the Triplets (Peyton,Edge,Harrison) out there in all 6 and average 12 points per. Is there any other Team in Superbowl ERA that has had a Hall Of Fame QB,RB and WR all on a team this long without even a conference title? With a 3-6 Playoff record? Granted facing the 3-4 is different and if Indy/Peyton just looked a little worse I'd buy that as the whole reason yet they've had years to work on improving vs 3-4 and still have looked bad when facing it in playoffs..(Yet in regular season they looked good vs NE a couple years ago and Good vs Pitt last year) I agree they'd look better vs 4-3 but Peyton looked so bad in those last 3 losses if we're going to blame it all on the 3-4 then someone has some explaning to do why they can't figure it out come playoff time in over 3 years ....Peyton didn't score 20 in first 3 playoff games (1999,2000,2002) either.

You're ignoring the fact that Marvin Harrison has forgot to show up in almost every playoff game the Colts have played.

 

[djcolts]

Let me make some points.

1.  I think Brady is better than Manning - let me get that out of the way now.

2.  However, let's think about where Brady excels and where Manning doesn't excel and see how it really has less to do with clutch than it appears.

3.  What types of Ds does Brady really chew up and spit out?  Answer - teams that plays zone Ds.  Who plays zone Ds?  The Colts certainly do (the Colts have NEVER stopped Brady - ever).  Pitt played a soft zone against Brady and Brady tore them up.  Brady torched the Bucs last season as I recalled (zone D).  The first loss in the playoffs for Brady was against a team that plays a lot of man-to-man - that is just a worse matchup for him than, say, playing the Colts cover-2.  That is just football - plain and simple.

4.  What types of Ds does Manning (and the Colts) struggle against in the last few years?  That is simple - 3-4 Ds.  Pats, Chargers and Steelers all play them, and, gee, who have the Colts lost to in the playoffs, and who broke up their unbeaten season last year?  The only time the Colts really torched a 3-4 for is occasionally the Texans and that one time the Pats had no one on D healthy last season.  It isn't a coincidence that the 3 playoffs victories for the Manning-led Colts were against 4-3 defenses.

Valid points especially on 3-4 Defense. What about His 0 points vs Jets in 2002 playoffs with 2 Ints? If it is really just a 3-4 problem then being it has been 4 years since the Zero vs Jets shouldn't a great QB and Team have figured out how to look competent vs a 3-4 defense? 68 points in 6 playoff losses is less than 12 ppg average. Had at least 3 Hall Of Famers in the Triplets (Peyton,Edge,Harrison) out there in all 6 and average 12 points per. Is there any other Team in Superbowl ERA that has had a Hall Of Fame QB,RB and WR all on a team this long without even a conference title? With a 3-6 Playoff record? Granted facing the 3-4 is different and if Indy/Peyton just looked a little worse I'd buy that as the whole reason yet they've had years to work on improving vs 3-4 and still have looked bad when facing it in playoffs..(Yet in regular season they looked good vs NE a couple years ago and Good vs Pitt last year) I agree they'd look better vs 4-3 but Peyton looked so bad in those last 3 losses if we're going to blame it all on the 3-4 then someone has some explaning to do why they can't figure it out come playoff time in over 3 years ....Peyton didn't score 20 in first 3 playoff games (1999,2000,2002) either.

Simple. Peyton was only an above-average NFL QB until 2003. Period.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Can someone give me a list of the top 10 clutchest active players, and the 10 top least clutch players?

 

[radballs]

Can someone give me a list of the top 10 clutchest active players, and the 10 top least clutch players?

There'd be a lot of kickers on both lists. Or, at least there should be if someone believes in that sort of thing.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Can someone give me a list of the top 10 clutchest active players, and the 10 top least clutch players?

There'd be a lot of kickers on both lists. Or, at least there should be if someone believes in that sort of thing.

Well we know Doug Brien is the least clutch player in the history of sports. So who are the 10 clutchest and 9 least clutch?

 

[radballs]

Least clutch

Norwood

Vanderjagt

Buckner .. oops wrong sport

.

.

.

 

[Lightning Fast Whip]

Let me make some points.

1.  I think Brady is better than Manning - let me get that out of the way now.

2.  However, let's think about where Brady excels and where Manning doesn't excel and see how it really has less to do with clutch than it appears.

3.  What types of Ds does Brady really chew up and spit out?  Answer - teams that plays zone Ds.  Who plays zone Ds?  The Colts certainly do (the Colts have NEVER stopped Brady - ever).  Pitt played a soft zone against Brady and Brady tore them up.  Brady torched the Bucs last season as I recalled (zone D).   The first loss in the playoffs for Brady was against a team that plays a lot of man-to-man - that is just a worse matchup for him than, say, playing the Colts cover-2.  That is just football - plain and simple.

4.  What types of Ds does Manning (and the Colts) struggle against in the last few years?  That is simple - 3-4 Ds.  Pats, Chargers and Steelers all play them, and, gee, who have the Colts lost to in the playoffs, and who broke up their unbeaten season last year?   The only time the Colts really torched a 3-4 for is occasionally the Texans and that one time the Pats had no one on D healthy last season.   It isn't a coincidence that the 3 playoffs victories for the Manning-led Colts were against 4-3 defenses.

Valid points especially on 3-4 Defense. What about His 0 points vs Jets in 2002 playoffs with 2 Ints? If it is really just a 3-4 problem then being it has been 4 years since the Zero vs Jets shouldn't a great QB and Team have figured out how to look competent vs a 3-4 defense? 68 points in 6 playoff losses is less than 12 ppg average. Had at least 3 Hall Of Famers in the Triplets (Peyton,Edge,Harrison) out there in all 6 and average 12 points per. Is there any other Team in Superbowl ERA that has had a Hall Of Fame QB,RB and WR all on a team this long without even a conference title? With a 3-6 Playoff record? Granted facing the 3-4 is different and if Indy/Peyton just looked a little worse I'd buy that as the whole reason yet they've had years to work on improving vs 3-4 and still have looked bad when facing it in playoffs..(Yet in regular season they looked good vs NE a couple years ago and Good vs Pitt last year) I agree they'd look better vs 4-3 but Peyton looked so bad in those last 3 losses if we're going to blame it all on the 3-4 then someone has some explaning to do why they can't figure it out come playoff time in over 3 years ....Peyton didn't score 20 in first 3 playoff games (1999,2000,2002) either.

Simple. Peyton was only an above-average NFL QB until 2003. Period.

2003 was the Tampa Comeback game. So I totally agree with you on this. I thought he took a step up watching him play in 2003 even after that Tampa game until he faced NE (3-4 Def). I think he needs to take one more step up again..especially without Edge. He jumped in 2003 in my book...he needs a similar jump in 2007 to keep Colts where they were from 2003-2005 with Edge.

 

[djcolts]

Let me make some points.

1.  I think Brady is better than Manning - let me get that out of the way now.

2.  However, let's think about where Brady excels and where Manning doesn't excel and see how it really has less to do with clutch than it appears.

3.  What types of Ds does Brady really chew up and spit out?  Answer - teams that plays zone Ds.  Who plays zone Ds?  The Colts certainly do (the Colts have NEVER stopped Brady - ever).  Pitt played a soft zone against Brady and Brady tore them up.  Brady torched the Bucs last season as I recalled (zone D).   The first loss in the playoffs for Brady was against a team that plays a lot of man-to-man - that is just a worse matchup for him than, say, playing the Colts cover-2.  That is just football - plain and simple.

4.  What types of Ds does Manning (and the Colts) struggle against in the last few years?  That is simple - 3-4 Ds.  Pats, Chargers and Steelers all play them, and, gee, who have the Colts lost to in the playoffs, and who broke up their unbeaten season last year?   The only time the Colts really torched a 3-4 for is occasionally the Texans and that one time the Pats had no one on D healthy last season.   It isn't a coincidence that the 3 playoffs victories for the Manning-led Colts were against 4-3 defenses.

Valid points especially on 3-4 Defense. What about His 0 points vs Jets in 2002 playoffs with 2 Ints? If it is really just a 3-4 problem then being it has been 4 years since the Zero vs Jets shouldn't a great QB and Team have figured out how to look competent vs a 3-4 defense? 68 points in 6 playoff losses is less than 12 ppg average. Had at least 3 Hall Of Famers in the Triplets (Peyton,Edge,Harrison) out there in all 6 and average 12 points per. Is there any other Team in Superbowl ERA that has had a Hall Of Fame QB,RB and WR all on a team this long without even a conference title? With a 3-6 Playoff record? Granted facing the 3-4 is different and if Indy/Peyton just looked a little worse I'd buy that as the whole reason yet they've had years to work on improving vs 3-4 and still have looked bad when facing it in playoffs..(Yet in regular season they looked good vs NE a couple years ago and Good vs Pitt last year) I agree they'd look better vs 4-3 but Peyton looked so bad in those last 3 losses if we're going to blame it all on the 3-4 then someone has some explaning to do why they can't figure it out come playoff time in over 3 years ....Peyton didn't score 20 in first 3 playoff games (1999,2000,2002) either.

Simple. Peyton was only an above-average NFL QB until 2003. Period.

2003 was the Tampa Comeback game. So I totally agree with you on this. I thought he took a step up watching him play in 2003 even after that Tampa game until he faced NE (3-4 Def). I think he needs to take one more step up again..especially without Edge. He jumped in 2003 in my book...he needs a similar jump in 2007 to keep Colts where they were from 2003-2005 with Edge.

Yep.

 

[aposulli]

If someone is "clutch" in that they perform better in key or important game situations, then why are they dogging it when it is not a "clutch" situation? Doesn't seem too professional to not be trying or performing your best at all times.

I'm dumbfounded as to why you do not beleive there is such a thing as "clutch"Clutch (adj.) cl-uch: The ability to maintain one's nerves in a situation of extreme pressure.

The fact is, and anyone who has been in any pressure packed game or situation can tell you, is that it's very common to get nervous. It really is no more complex than that IMO.

I believe some people for whatever reason just have the ability to "stay cool" and not to get nervous in these situations.

This attribute is evident in many athletes (Brady, Ortiz, today).

And I won't take it to the extreme and say you "either have it or you don't" (it's more of a sliding scale)...

but clealry this attribute is evident when you see guys like A-Rod constantly stirking out in pressure situations (save yesterday) and David Ortiz constantly coming through in tight games.

 

[WhoDat]

I have written a couple of replies but I cannot get past the following example. If you played competitive team sports, then this should make sense.

You are playing your favorite team sport. The end of the game is drawing near and you have one last chance to win. Enter Player A. You have intimate knowledge of Player A's character and ability both inside and outside the lines. Player A ends up with the ball and or puck. As a person; player and team mate, your initial reaction is either going to be :X or Based on what you know about Player A you will have an inner reaction that is either negative or positive.

Dollars to donuts most everyone reading and posting has encountered this for themselves at some point. If there is no such thing as having clutch ability, then why would you have flinched from time to time if and when Player A came up to the plate; got the ball for a shot; had the puck; was thrown the ball, etc. and you knew he was not the man for the job?

 

[GregR_2]

If there is no such thing as having clutch ability, then why would you have flinched from time to time if and when Player A came up to the plate; got the ball for a shot; had the puck; was thrown the ball, etc. and you knew he was not the man for the job?

If there's no such thing as the Easter Bunny, why should kids get excited on Easter?Because someone believes a thing exists doesn't mean it exists. That's the point of the conversation. Does it really exist, or is it just a fabrication of selective memory?

 

[Chase Stuart]

If someone is "clutch" in that they perform better in key or important game situations, then why are they dogging it when it is not a "clutch" situation? Doesn't seem too professional to not be trying or performing your best at all times.

I'm dumbfounded as to why you do not beleive there is such a thing as "clutch"Clutch (adj.) cl-uch: The ability to maintain one's nerves in a situation of extreme pressure.

The fact is, and anyone who has been in any pressure packed game or situation can tell you, is that it's very common to get nervous. It really is no more complex than that IMO.

I believe some people for whatever reason just have the ability to "stay cool" and not to get nervous in these situations.

This attribute is evident in many athletes (Brady, Ortiz, today).

And I won't take it to the extreme and say you "either have it or you don't" (it's more of a sliding scale)...

but clealry this attribute is evident when you see guys like A-Rod constantly stirking out in pressure situations (save yesterday) and David Ortiz constantly coming through in tight games.

You named three athletes. Can you show us some of the other many athletes in which this attribute is present?Is Curtis Martin clutch? How about Jamal Lewis? Terrell Owens? Tim Brown? Trent Dilfer? Kerry Collins?