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

[Chase Stuart]

For those that believe in clutch player, I'd like a list of guys who were much better "clutch" performers than regular. Guys that really elevated their game when it mattered most. So if you go from below average to average, you're clutch. This way, we can eliminate the nonsensical talk about MJ, Montana and Unitas (who wasn't, but should have been mentioned).

 

[oddball]

I don't feel like reading this entire thread, but I think it does exist. As for my proof, I recommend the following book:

The Breakout Principle

by: Benson

This book will show, without a shadow of a doubt, the ability for individuals to call up peak performance upon command. The definition of clutch, no?

 

[Lightning Fast Whip]

"Was Lynn Swann not clutch when he caught 1 pass for 6 yards in a playoff lost to the Broncos? Were his 2 catches for 45 yards impressive in a 16-10 win in his first ever AFCC game?"

Clutch doesn't mean gauranteed. There will sometimes be a stinker thrown in i.e. the Bronco game...I was pretty young back then so I can't recall the game and whether Swann was 100% Healthy..or Double teamed the whole game or if He or Bradshaw just had a rare off game in playoff loss. A 2 for 45 wasn't that bad pre 1978 when DBs could maul WRs. A 50 yard per game pace made a 1976 WR nearly Top 10 in the league...so that wasn't a stinker at all as Pitt won and didn't need more out of the passing game to do it. The next game vs Cowboys they did need more and he delivered 161 yards in a time that 161 yards was equivalent to like 250 in todays game. Sort of like his 45 yarder back then was more like a 75 yard game today...not that bad when you consider the differing rules and how it effected passing games. WR weren't putting up 1000 yards year in year out and mediocre QBs weren't putting up 3000 yards seasons every year.

My question to you guys doubting whether clutch play exists is do you believe Lynn Swann was just Lucky in a flip of the coin way in Those Superbowls? If so I believe you underestimate differences that exist from one person to the next in how they respond under pressure. To deny some "Step up" under pressure is silly to me. Swanns level of play making/focus and concentration was at a special level in some of the biggest games possible...his play was at a higher level than normal..not only did he not choke but he didn't just make routine catches...he made multiple difficult catches with defense all over him...aka raising his game.

On this July 4th would you claim how every soldier reacts under pressure has been random? Is a flip of the coin type event. Or are their True "Heros" that are able to make decisions and take actions others are simply incapable of making/taking in same situations. Some actually believe true character is never revealed until under pressure. Do some Purple Heart or Congressional Medal of Honor winners have that extra something in "critical or crucial situations" that makes them special? Or were they just lucky? I strongly disagree on calling what many of these real life heroes do a matter of chance. Opportunity does not breed same responce from every individual...in Real War/Life or in the game some call " going to battle" either.

 

[Chase Stuart]

My question to you guys doubting whether clutch play exists is do you believe Lynn Swann was just Lucky in a flip of the coin way in Those Superbowls?

Do you think Timmy Smith was clutch? By almost any objective standard he elevated his own game a whole lot more than Swann in the Super Bowls. How about Doug Williams? One of the clutchest QBs ever?It seems to me that if you simulated 40 seasons on Madden including 40 SBs, you'd have some WRs that were normally great have stellar SBs. Maybe one time it would be Lynn Swann, another Don Maynard, another John Taylor, and a fourth Andre Reed. Nothing at all would have made them clutch, of course. It's computer Taylor, and computer Reed. So seeing real life Lynn Swann dominate in the post-season is hardly out of line with what we'd expect if clutch didn't exist. In fact, it's what we'd predict.

 

[radballs]

This book will show, without a shadow of a doubt, the ability for individuals to call up peak performance upon command. The definition of clutch, no?

No. It could be the definition of a contract year for some. I've never understood why someone is considered a better player for being able to step up his game, or like you say, "call up peak performance upon command". Why is the player not performing up to his peak levels all the time? Is he just jaking it or is it just the randomness that we see in all professional athletes and the ones who happen to have it happen in the spotlight all of a sudden become "clutch"?This should be a poll but who's more clutch? Adam Vinatieri or Tom Brady and why?

 

[Lightning Fast Whip]

Timmy Smith had a moment in time. He obviously responded great that day. His place is sort of in the Frank Reich type of category to me. He wasn't a great player but he seized a moment. He deserves credit for that day but It was only one day. So yes for that day he showed something..but since he never really had starter type talent he did not get future chances to show if he could do it again. Doug Williams was a good QB and had a nice Superbowl he also helped make Tampa Bay Competitive when no other QBs Tampa had for 20 years could do it. His clutch track record is fine..I don't think anyone would say he had a problem dealing with pressure ..some would say he overcame the Black QB pressure way before that Superbowl ..overcame being an expansion team QB too..TAMPAS no less..Graveyard of Young talented QBs. So I would sayDoug Williams responded under pressure well even with his small sample.

Problem in just using Football opportunities is most players don't get a lot of chances in Big Games...especiallyif they aren't from a great team that appears frequently. Somethinglike the multiple incredible catches under pressure Swann made are still evidence... it's just to some unbelievers evidence will never be enough because of lack of quantity.

 

[Chase Stuart]

He wasn't a great player but he seized a moment. He deserves credit for that day but It was only one day.

Isn't that what your definition of clutch is? He wasn't that good, but when the pressure was on and it mattered most, he performed like a superstar.People like to think athletes are clutch (or more precisely, that athletes are chokers and some are clutch) for some reason that a psychologist coud probably tell you. But if you say Timmy Smith is the most clutch athlete of all time, that doesn't really do much for you. You want Joe Montana to be the clutchest guy ever, because he's already great: it makes your argument look stronger.

But consider this: If Barry Sanders made a SB and did what Smith did, we'd talk about how he was the best big game RB ever. Because it's Timmy Smith, we forget about it. And what Doug Williams did was maybe even more impressive IMO.

But this goes back to my point. What is clutch? Who is more clutch?

Player A who has a 70 overall rating but performs like a 90 in the clutch?

Player B who has a 85 overall rating but performs like a 95 in the clutch?

 

[thesurfshop19]

Problem in just using Football opportunities is most players don't get a lot of chances in Big Games...especiallyif they aren't from a great team that appears frequently. Somethinglike the multiple incredible catches under pressure Swann made are still evidence... it's just to some unbelievers evidence will never be enough because of lack of quantity.

If you flipped a possibly weighted coin 5 times and it came up heads 3, would you believe *for sure* that the coin is weighted towards heads based on these limited numbers?I seriously don't think you're arguing the same thing that others are here.

No one is denying clutch performances (Swann, Timmy Smith, etc.). Not a single person.

The question is, is there an inherent ability in some players to consistently raise their performance levels in clutch situations?

I personally think there is, but it's far less important than actual talents and skills. The problem with clutch as defined by most fans is that it's entirely memory-reliant. Jeter is clutch even though he hasn't had a true clutch, or even leadership, moment since he became the captain of the team.

A-Rod has had quite a few big moments, including virtually carrying the team to the 2004 ALCS, but every time he fails -- and in baseball the odds are against you -- it's remembered whereas only Jeter's few recent successes are remembered.

In this example, I'd rather have A-Rod at the plate, even with the game on the line, because while he may not rise to the occassion compared to Jeter (according to most fans) he's simply a better player overall by a pretty big margin. (As an aside, why is A-Rod's $25M a year so offensive but Jeter's $20M or whatever is fine? Talk about hypocrisy ....)

In the same vein, I'd prefer Tom Brady over Peyton Manning because I think their QB abilities are pretty much on the same level but Brady responds better in pressure situations -- more literally (pass rush) than figuratively (clutch), but for both reasons.

 

[Chase Stuart]

In the same vein, I'd prefer Tom Brady over Peyton Manning because I think their QB abilities are pretty much on the same level but Brady responds better in pressure situations -- more literally (pass rush) than figuratively (clutch), but for both reasons.

Would you prefer Tom Brady with the NE offense over Peyton Manning with Edge, Harrison and Wayne?

 

[thesurfshop19]

In the same vein, I'd prefer Tom Brady over Peyton Manning because I think their QB abilities are pretty much on the same level but Brady responds better in pressure situations -- more literally (pass rush) than figuratively (clutch), but for both reasons.

Would you prefer Tom Brady with the NE offense over Peyton Manning with Edge, Harrison and Wayne?

Tougher call. Probably not. The thing that really bothered me was how both of them reacted to pressure in their playoff losses. Both QBs were getting absolutely hammered out there, but Brady never looked like it was affecting him although I'm sure it was.On the other hand, Manning was able to bring his team in position to tie the game while Brady made the error on the key play in the game, so maybe I'm just talking nonsense.

 

[Chase Stuart]

In the same vein, I'd prefer Tom Brady over Peyton Manning because I think their QB abilities are pretty much on the same level but Brady responds better in pressure situations -- more literally (pass rush) than figuratively (clutch), but for both reasons.

Would you prefer Tom Brady with the NE offense over Peyton Manning with Edge, Harrison and Wayne?

Tougher call. Probably not. The thing that really bothered me was how both of them reacted to pressure in their playoff losses. Both QBs were getting absolutely hammered out there, but Brady never looked like it was affecting him although I'm sure it was.On the other hand, Manning was able to bring his team in position to tie the game while Brady made the error on the key play in the game, so maybe I'm just talking nonsense.

If you don't believe much in clutch ability, then you're going to have to take Manning and the Colts. Manning's clearly been the better QB in the regular season. Over the last three years Brady ranked 8th each season in adjusted yards per pass while Manning has ranked in the top 3 each year.

 

[thesurfshop19]

If you don't believe much in clutch ability, then you're going to have to take Manning and the Colts. Manning's clearly been the better QB in the regular season. Over the last three years Brady ranked 8th each season in adjusted yards per pass while Manning has ranked in the top 3 each year.

Fair enough, I think Manning + Colts offense is the right answer here.But I think if you put them on teams with identical offensive talent, the two offenses will be close but Brady's offense will be better. I could definitely see how people could go either way here though.

 

[Lightning Fast Whip]

Chase quote "But this goes back to my point. What is clutch? Who is more clutch?

Player A who has a 70 overall rating but performs like a 90 in the clutch?

Player B who has a 85 overall rating but performs like a 95 in the clutch? "

Seems they would both be clutch to me. Both raised their games (at least statiscally in times defined as clutch)

But sometimes stats lie...the Tape doesn't. That's why I used Swann as an example...there exists Tape of what He did and how he did it. It was not routine play like a few dozen starting WR could make if in that situation. It was not just Stats..it was remarkable difficult clutch plays that have been acknowledged by most (including Hall of Fame voters) as something really special. Maybe a Deion Branch has stats in playoff games and hard to say he hasn't stepped up as well...but Branch has no where near the kind of catches that Swann made against Dallas in those Superbowls. Branch did what he had to do well. Swann did what he had to do in a manner that was stunningly beautiful perhaps close to incredible. Someone looking at just Stats might think Branch had better Superbowls than Swann until they watch the film and see how the catches were made, see the coverages and rules defensive backs played under . Then they might say they were both Clutch but magnitude after watching the film would sway most to saying Swann elevated his game more. Both their teams won and they both made the plays they needed to ..just Swanns had higher degree of difficulty so a more obvious elevation from normal play. For someone hell bent on measuring clutchness statiscally how do you assign values to magnitudes of play outside of those routinely made? Plays like Swanns or Vinatieris kick in the snow storm...they certainly should weigh more than just as stats if only for the degree of difficulty and likelihood that very few others ,even in NFL, could have made those plays under the pressure of those situations...in fact to me I think likelihood of Swann or Vina making those plays are less if they aren't in elimination game type situations. I think they raised their games,concentration,focus etc etc

Let's take another guy like Doug Flutie- He obviously could repeat performances year after year in the clutch in CFL when his talent matched up favorably with his competitions. Grey Cup after Grey Cup is a pattern. In College when he had competitive team he gained reputation as a great player because of some clutch moments. In NFL he was not overly talented (in contrast to CFL or College FB) and in some minds didn't even belong as a backup QB. Borderline NFL Starter/Backup in talent level/physical traits/abilities...Yet even in NFL he was Clutch. He may never have been a Top 10 QB in NFL but I think even those who doubted if he was Top 30 in NFL would say he was a guy they'd prefer in a final drive when trailing over many NFL Starters they rank higher in non-clutch situations.

 

[B-Deep]

So many people seem to say being "clutch" includes coming up big in a close game. I find that hard to fathom.

Troy Aiman completed over 70% of his super bowl passes, had a 5:1 TD to INT ratio, and was 3-0. Is he less clutch than Brady simply because he and his team played well enough to win those games by a large margin? Would anyone list Aikman as one of the all time clutch QBs?

If so the key to being clutch may be playing just well enough to need to pull the game out at the end.

 

[Lightning Fast Whip]

B-Deep- Superbowls and playoffs are always big as it's do or die if you lose. So I'd count any playoff stats as relevant. I'd discount some late in a blow out and increase others that happened in a tight game with even more pressure. But Aikman like Bart Starr has the Playoff track record and Stats to call them Clutch performers. Aikman had relatively easy Superbowl wins but he still had to come through when expected...and he had some real battles with NFC opposition especially San Fran in playoffs too. Aikman was better in playoffs against better competition than he was in less meaniful less pressure packed regular season games against medium competition. I can't see arguing against Aikman as clutch...if he'd been in tougher Superbowls perhaps his name would have been mentioned earlier in this thread because the Magnitude of his clutch play may have been even more evident and outstanding for purposes of arguing. But he falls in Clutch category to most that believe clutch play does exist imo and estimation anyways.

 

[B-Deep]

B-Deep- Superbowls and playoffs are always big as it's do or die if you lose. So I'd count any playoff stats as relevant. I'd discount some late in a blow out and increase others that happened in a tight game with even more pressure. But Aikman like Bart Starr has the Playoff track record and Stats to call them Clutch performers. Aikman had relatively easy Superbowl wins but he still had to come through when expected...and he had some real battles with NFC opposition especially San Fran in playoffs too. Aikman was better in playoffs against better competition than he was in less meaniful less pressure packed regular season games against medium competition. I can't see arguing against Aikman as clutch...if he'd been in tougher Superbowls perhaps his name would have been mentioned earlier in this thread because the Magnitude of his clutch play may have been even more evident and outstanding for purposes of arguing. But he falls in Clutch category to most that believe clutch play does exist imo and estimation anyways.

Then Phil simms MUST be clutch too. completed 88% of his passes in the super bowl with 3 tds and no ints.Again, no one would ever say he's one of the all time clutch qbs though.

My point is I think there is an "I know it when I see it" quality to this, which tends to bring it in to qeustion for me.

Also, I think the label can switch SO quickly that it tends to be meaningless. I've pointed out before when people say Manning "isn't clutch" or "couldn't beat new england" that if you look back on Favre, for a long time it looked like he was not capable of beating the cowboys or winning a super bowl. He was "anti-clutch"

one superbowl win changed it all

Likewise Elway was "non-clutch" with his multiple super bowl losses, and now is a prime example of clutch.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Chase quote "But this goes back to my point. What is clutch? Who is more clutch?

Player A who has a 70 overall rating but performs like a 90 in the clutch?

Player B who has a 85 overall rating but performs like a 95 in the clutch? "

Seems they would both be clutch to me. Both raised their games (at least statiscally in times defined as clutch)

What if Player B, with an 85 overall rating and a 95 rating in the clutch, happens to go 15/25, 150 yards, 2 INTs, 0 TDs in the AFCC game and his team loses 10-6? Is Player B clutch or not clutch? (Assume that the odds of a player with a 95 rating in the clutch having numbers similar to those posted are about 150-1.)

 

[Liquid Tension]

But this goes back to my point. What is clutch? Who is more clutch?Player A who has a 70 overall rating but performs like a 90 in the clutch?

Player B who has a 85 overall rating but performs like a 95 in the clutch?

Interesting thought. Forgetting about clutch ability or not, if you had these players which performance would you like? I guess I would take the 70 guy who performed at the 90 level because my expectations would be that the 85 guy would perform close to the 85 level.

 

[GregR_2]

My point is I think there is an "I know it when I see it" quality to this, which tends to bring it in to qeustion for me.

I agree. And the "it" that they see is drama. If Tom Brady losing the ball gets ruled a fumble instead of a tuck, followed by the Pats poor showing the next year, he would be viewed by many as a choker, not clutch, going into 2005. Yet his ability either way does not change. Elway's ability didn't change. Marino had more comeback wins than Elway, yet I don't think I've even seen his name mentioned in this thread?Why? They weren't as dramatic of wins.

 

[Liquid Tension]

So many people seem to say being "clutch" includes coming up big in a close game. I find that hard to fathom.

Troy Aiman completed over 70% of his super bowl passes, had a 5:1 TD to INT ratio, and was 3-0. Is he less clutch than Brady simply because he and his team played well enough to win those games by a large margin? Would anyone list Aikman as one of the all time clutch QBs?

If so the key to being clutch may be playing just well enough to need to pull the game out at the end.

I agree that having clutch performance is as important at the beginning of the game as at the end many times. I always had an issue with people who said they didn't like the game winning RBI in baseball. I mean talk about one of the few stats that was ALWAYS important at the time it happened, the GWRBI was all of that. People used to say well if you knocked in the 1st run of a game in the 1st inning and you went on to win 20-1 how clutch was that? Well, it was probably the most clutch hit of the game. Let's not forget all the times the GWRBI happened much later in the game as well. That was a good stat because the game was always close in the people were stupid to get rid of it.

 

[Liquid Tension]

My point is I think there is an "I know it when I see it" quality to this, which tends to bring it in to qeustion for me.

I agree. And the "it" that they see is drama. If Tom Brady losing the ball gets ruled a fumble instead of a tuck, followed by the Pats poor showing the next year, he would be viewed by many as a choker, not clutch, going into 2005. Yet his ability either way does not change. Elway's ability didn't change. Marino had more comeback wins than Elway, yet I don't think I've even seen his name mentioned in this thread?Why? They weren't as dramatic of wins.

As a Dolphin fan, there wouldn't be a QB I would want behind center other than Marino if I needed a drive to win the game.On that thought, I brought this up earlier in the thread and nobody commented on it, but it is EASIER to take your team down for the final game winning kick or TD when you have 4 downs to play with. So having that opportunity could make you look better in fans eyes.

In regards to clutch, I read the previous comments about Lynn Swann that he saw a few good catches. The truth is that in football there are so many less "chances" that you could see large swings in clutch performances. for example for all the "proof" about Manning that is probably the equivalent to one playoff series in baseball and we have seen the same guy dominate in one series and then choke in the next. The MANY baseball opportunities lend itself so much better to get perspective on whether clutch ability exists that we should use that to make judgment. I would venture that the ability to be clutch would be the same for each sport.

 

[Liquid Tension]

My point is I think there is an "I know it when I see it" quality to this, which tends to bring it in to qeustion for me.

I agree. And the "it" that they see is drama. If Tom Brady losing the ball gets ruled a fumble instead of a tuck, followed by the Pats poor showing the next year, he would be viewed by many as a choker, not clutch, going into 2005. Yet his ability either way does not change. Elway's ability didn't change. Marino had more comeback wins than Elway, yet I don't think I've even seen his name mentioned in this thread?Why? They weren't as dramatic of wins.

As a Dolphin fan, there wouldn't be a QB I would want behind center other than Marino if I needed a drive to win the game.On that thought, I brought this up earlier in the thread and nobody commented on it, but it is EASIER to take your team down for the final game winning kick or TD when you have 4 downs to play with. So having that opportunity could make you look better in fans eyes.

In regards to clutch, I read the previous comments about Lynn Swann that he saw a few good catches. The truth is that in football there are so many less "chances" that you could see large swings in clutch performances. for example for all the "proof" about Manning that is probably the equivalent to one playoff series in baseball and we have seen the same guy dominate in one series and then choke in the next. The MANY baseball opportunities lend itself so much better to get perspective on whether clutch ability exists that we should use that to make judgment. I would venture that the ability to be clutch would be the same for each sport.

Final comment (today) surrounds when people use soldiers and high school to talk about being clutch. My opinion is that there is probably more of a such thing as clutch ability on the lower levels because people probably do choke more. At the elite level, all these guys are much less pressure sensitive because they are the elite of the eliteEdited to say less pressure sensitive

 

[Liquid Tension]

I was cleaning out my inbox and came across a nice email from Doug Drinen where he said I disagree with you LT, but I hope I wasn't too harsh and it made me go back and review this. Anyway, after last year ARods OPS in the post season is better than his regular season OPS. How could someone who was a choker be better in the postseason?

Bottom line is people wrongly use the word choker or clutch for that matter and they use a very small sample size to prove their point. Time and time again the numbers show that you basically are who you are and the more "clutch" situations that present themselves, the more you will be closer to your normal level.