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

[Lightning Fast Whip]

I'm not going to base all thoughts about this on just the Pitt game. But there's no way I can say Peyton lived up to even my lowered playoff expectations for nearly 3 quarters of that game. He looked bad up until the Referee reversed the Polamalu Interception. The game and Mannings Stats were headed for a blowout without that reversal. The reversal gave some life to Indy and took some concentration and Life out of the Pitt Defense (in shock) who was already playing prevent type stuff and that got burned immediately after that call. The game score and Peytons stats didn't look that bad with what happened after the Int was reversed...but in my mind Peyton looked awful for 2 1/2 quarters....I imagine Indy fans were disgusted to see another game with only 3 points for the Colts well into the 3rd quarter after they'd only got 3 in their previous playoff game. I also hear the if only Vanderjadt made the kick. Well that would have tied it. And I would have loved to see Peyton on the roll vs prevent then get to face Pitts regular defense in overtime. Maybe he would have figured it out but basically he'd only put up 3 points and had happy feet when Pitt was playing him normal. Would have enjoyed seeing OT though...to see how Peyton responded and if Big Ben could have put up more points if Pitt needed them as well.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I'm not going to base all thoughts about this on just the Pitt game. But there's no way I can say Peyton lived up to even my lowered playoff expectations for nearly 3 quarters of that game. He looked bad up until the Referee reversed the Polamalu Interception. The game and Mannings Stats were headed for a blowout without that reversal. The reversal gave some life to Indy and took some concentration and Life out of the Pitt Defense (in shock) who was already playing prevent type stuff and that got burned immediately after that call. The game score and Peytons stats didn't look that bad with what happened after the Int was reversed...but in my mind Peyton looked awful for 2 1/2 quarters....I imagine Indy fans were disgusted to see another game with only 3 points for the Colts well into the 3rd quarter after they'd only got 3 in their previous playoff game. I also hear the if only Vanderjadt made the kick. Well that would have tied it. And I would have loved to see Peyton on the roll vs prevent then get to face Pitts regular defense in overtime. Maybe he would have figured it out but basically he'd only put up 3 points and had happy feet when Pitt was playing him normal. Would have enjoyed seeing OT though...to see how Peyton responded and if Big Ben could have put up more points if Pitt needed them as well.

The happy feet might have had something to do with the best blitzing D in the league and an OL that looked like it hadn't played in about five weeks.

 

[Boston]

Honest question for those who think clutch ability is a myth. Not busting nads I'm curious to see if you believe in the following:

*Confidence

*Momentum

*Being in a zone

*Leadership ability

*Winning attitude

 

[Boston]

By the way if clutch ability is a myth does Reggie Jackson need to get a new nickname?

 

[CalBear]

Honest question for those who think clutch ability is a myth. Not busting nads I'm curious to see if you believe in the following:

*Confidence

*Momentum

*Being in a zone

*Leadership ability

*Winning attitude

What do you mean "do I believe in them"? My interest, from a fantasy football perspective is in whether by measuring someone's abilities or performance, I can predict future performance. I think the terms you list mostly are related to fairly nebulous feelings, and don't have statistical significance. "Being in a zone," in particular, has been fairly conclusively shown to be mythical; the fact that you got a hit (or made a basket, or completed a pass) the last N times in a row doesn't make it any more or less likely that you will get a hit (or make a basket or complete a pass) N+1 times. I have certainly felt, while playing sports, like I'm in a zone, but that's related to things going on inside my head, not necessarily anything with measurable external impact.

 

[Boston]

Honest question for those who think clutch ability is a myth.  Not busting nads I'm curious to see if you believe in the following:

*Confidence

*Momentum

*Being in a zone

*Leadership ability

*Winning attitude

What do you mean "do I believe in them"? My interest, from a fantasy football perspective is in whether by measuring someone's abilities or performance, I can predict future performance. I think the terms you list mostly are related to fairly nebulous feelings, and don't have statistical significance. "Being in a zone," in particular, has been fairly conclusively shown to be mythical; the fact that you got a hit (or made a basket, or completed a pass) the last N times in a row doesn't make it any more or less likely that you will get a hit (or make a basket or complete a pass) N+1 times. I have certainly felt, while playing sports, like I'm in a zone, but that's related to things going on inside my head, not necessarily anything with measurable external impact.

*Didn't realize this was a fantasy conversation.*So I guess the bottomline is emotion doesn't play a part in individual performances of athletes. Intangibles are BS. It's all about how you can statistically measure their performance. Sort of like Ivan Drago in Rocky IV.

 

[NEUPJ]

I define "clutch" as a player who isn't impacted by the situation. Many who are deemed chokers are guys who can't play to their normal ability in pressure situations, "clutch" guys are guys who simply play at their normal level.

The theory with clutch i believe is just the reverse. There are guys who a chokers and guys who aren't. The pressure just gets to some guys, its just how it is.

 

[radballs]

Honest question for those who think clutch ability is a myth.  Not busting nads I'm curious to see if you believe in the following:

*Confidence

*Momentum

*Being in a zone

*Leadership ability

*Winning attitude

What do you mean "do I believe in them"? My interest, from a fantasy football perspective is in whether by measuring someone's abilities or performance, I can predict future performance. I think the terms you list mostly are related to fairly nebulous feelings, and don't have statistical significance. "Being in a zone," in particular, has been fairly conclusively shown to be mythical; the fact that you got a hit (or made a basket, or completed a pass) the last N times in a row doesn't make it any more or less likely that you will get a hit (or make a basket or complete a pass) N+1 times. I have certainly felt, while playing sports, like I'm in a zone, but that's related to things going on inside my head, not necessarily anything with measurable external impact.

The basketball "hot hand" study pretty much debunked anything showing that you are more likely to make your next shot after having made a few in a row.

 

[Doug Drinen]

Honest question for those who think clutch ability is a myth. Not busting nads I'm curious to see if you believe in the following:

*Confidence

*Momentum

*Being in a zone

*Winning attitude

[i left out leadership because that seems like a different category to me for some reason]I'll take a stab at this:

1. I think these things are more often effects of winning, rather than causes of winning. That is, a team that is playing very well starts to develop a "winning attitude." It's real in the sense that they can feel it; I don't dispute that. But I'm not convinced it helps them win their next game.

2. To the extent that these things actually do cause winning (which I'm not saying is impossible --- I'm just skeptical), they seem to be pretty fleeting. Momentum is great, right up until the point you lose it, which it seems can happen at any time and without warning. A winning attitude helps you right up until it stops helping you, and no one seems to know when that's going to happen.

Let me give an example:

Team A wins two straight games. In the locker room afterwards, everyone claims that the team has a winning attitude and that they are on a roll. Then they win three more games. Each of those wins solidifies the winning attitude and causes it to stick in everyone's mind.

Team B wins two straight games. In the locker room afterwards, everyone claims that the team has a winning attitude and that they are on a roll. Then they lose their next two games and the winning attitude is long forgotten.

Everybody remembers Team A's winning attitude and attributes some of their success to the winning attitude. But people forget about Team B's winning attitude. The Winning Attitude Effect was actually 1-1, but people remember it (or use hindsight to re-define it) as 1-0.

It's late and I don't think I'm making a lot of sense. I'll summarize real quick:

Players that go to bed with talent tonight will wake up with talent tomorrow morning.

Players that go to bed "in the zone" tonight might or might not wake up "in the zone" tomorrow morning.

I don't want to put words into CalBear's mouth, but I think his point might be something like this: "The Zone" may be real, but it seems to be so fragile that I don't really care if it is or not.

 

[bearsharks]

There is a great statisical analysis of QB 4th quarter comebacks at Football Outsiders.com. Interesting findings.

 

[CalBear]

Players that go to bed with talent tonight will wake up with talent tomorrow morning.

Players that go to bed "in the zone" tonight might or might not wake up "in the zone" tomorrow morning.

I don't want to put words into CalBear's mouth, but I think his point might be something like this: "The Zone" may be real, but it seems to be so fragile that I don't really care if it is or not.

Yes, I think that's a good summary, although I would go further and say that the idea that "the zone" exists is probably a result of the common gambler's fallacy that the likely result of the next event is dependent on the results of the previous events. That tendency in human behavior is pretty well understood.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Honest question for those who think clutch ability is a myth. Not busting nads I'm curious to see if you believe in the following:

*Confidence

*Momentum

*Being in a zone

*Leadership ability

*Winning attitude

All fair questions..1) confidence - this is more about how you have been playing and I don't think being clutch or unclutch have anything to do with this. Guys go through slumps and guys go through times where they are in the zone (answers one of your other questions). Sometimes it is during the season and sometimes it is in the postseason (Reggie comes to mind). That being said Reggie wasn't all that clutch in his other postseasons so he evened out, but at that moment he was in a zone.

2) Momentum in football is more real than in baseball because you can physically dominate a guy. But being clutch isn't momentum.

3) Zone addressed

4) Leadership ability is not being clutch it is about being a good leader for your team and showing confidence even if you don't have any. Leadership is not being afraid to make a decision so that you are CONFIDENT...again not clutch ability

5) winning attitude is within leadership for me, but again not clutch ability

 

[Liquid Tension]

Honest question for those who think clutch ability is a myth.  Not busting nads I'm curious to see if you believe in the following:

*Confidence

*Momentum

*Being in a zone

*Leadership ability

*Winning attitude

What do you mean "do I believe in them"? My interest, from a fantasy football perspective is in whether by measuring someone's abilities or performance, I can predict future performance. I think the terms you list mostly are related to fairly nebulous feelings, and don't have statistical significance. "Being in a zone," in particular, has been fairly conclusively shown to be mythical; the fact that you got a hit (or made a basket, or completed a pass) the last N times in a row doesn't make it any more or less likely that you will get a hit (or make a basket or complete a pass) N+1 times. I have certainly felt, while playing sports, like I'm in a zone, but that's related to things going on inside my head, not necessarily anything with measurable external impact.

I don't agree CalBear. You can be in a zone and you would be more likely to get a hit or get a basket your next time shooting if you are "feeling it." However, that is not clutch, that is being good as the better players are in a zone more often than the bad ones.

 

[CalBear]

I don't agree CalBear. You can be in a zone and you would be more likely to get a hit or get a basket your next time shooting if you are "feeling it."

Prove it.

 

[Liquid Tension]

I don't agree CalBear.  You can be in a zone and you would be more likely to get a hit or get a basket your next time shooting if you are "feeling it." 

Prove it.

Look at streaks? How do you explain them? Good players get in the zone more often than poor ones. I have played division I baseball and was drafted and you absolutely can get into a zone and you feel like you want to play a double header or every day. Of course you don't know how long it lasts, but within a game no question and sometimes it goes for weeks. A slump is when you can't get anywhere near a zone and hot streak is when you are in a zone (there are levels)Explain to me why a guy has a great month and then an average month and then a lousy month? Haven't you seen John Starks in teh basketball finals against Houston andthen seen a guy like Wade get into a zone?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I don't agree CalBear. You can be in a zone and you would be more likely to get a hit or get a basket your next time shooting if you are "feeling it."

Prove it.

Look at streaks? How do you explain them?

People have done this, and as far as I know have always concluded that streaks don't exist except in hindsight. That is to say, a 50% shooter who made is last six shots in a row is no more or less likely to make his next shot than is a 50% shooter who missed his last six shots in a row.The problem I have with the studies I've seen on this topic is that they didn't control for the difficulty of the shots. A guy on a hot streak might start hucking up three-pointers with hands in his face, while a guy on a cold streak might shoot nothing but wide open layups. If that's the case, the fact that the two have a similar shooting percentage would mean that the guy on a hot streak is actually shooting much better.

But the last time this topic came up, I mentioned this and somebody (CalBear, I think) pointed out that at least one study did control for this. But I never got around to reading the details.

In any event, I know as a player that having a hot hand certainly feels real. Sometimes the rim just looks bigger than normal, and it seems easy to put the ball in the middle of it. At other times, something feels off. And the results reflect this.

But subjective feelings aside, since they are good at fooling us, I know of no statistical evidence at all that streaks really do reflect hot hands or cold hands any more than coin-flipping streaks do.

 

[Spartans Rule]

I don't agree CalBear.  You can be in a zone and you would be more likely to get a hit or get a basket your next time shooting if you are "feeling it." 

Prove it.

Look at streaks? How do you explain them? Good players get in the zone more often than poor ones. I have played division I baseball and was drafted and you absolutely can get into a zone and you feel like you want to play a double header or every day. Of course you don't know how long it lasts, but within a game no question and sometimes it goes for weeks. A slump is when you can't get anywhere near a zone and hot streak is when you are in a zone (there are levels)Explain to me why a guy has a great month and then an average month and then a lousy month? Haven't you seen John Starks in teh basketball finals against Houston andthen seen a guy like Wade get into a zone?

Explain why players go on streaks in sports simulation games? Raymond Felton is on fire for my whatifsports basketball team. I don't think that has anything to do with Robo-Felton "feeling it".Random variance will produce streaks all the time.

 

[thesurfshop19]

*So I guess the bottomline is emotion doesn't play a part in individual performances of athletes.  Intangibles are BS.  It's all about how you can statistically measure their performance.  Sort of like Ivan Drago in Rocky IV.

Intangible = anything that we can't measure.If clutch ability is consistent (i.e. repeatable and predictive) and important (i.e. a significant impact on success), shouldn't it be measurable?

I'm pretty sure that's all people are arguing here.

Brady has had some clutch moments; no one in their right mind would deny that.

Does that mean that he has some inherent power to rise to the occasion, more often than the average player? Hard to say, because if that were the case we would be able to see it in the results. A "feeling" (which I believe is far more important to fans than to professionals) isn't nothing, but it's probably just not as important to team wins.

I personally think that Brady's simply the best QB on the planet all the time.

Another thing about the "clutch" argument is that we also don't consider that some QBs are good at avoiding close games. If a player goes 11-5, winning the 11 games by 21 points and losing the 5 games by 1 point, is clutch ability really that important? Would you prefer that player to the one who goes 10-6 with the 10 wins by 1 point and the 6 losses by 21 points (e.g. 1998 Cardinals)?

 

[Liquid Tension]

I don't agree CalBear.  You can be in a zone and you would be more likely to get a hit or get a basket your next time shooting if you are "feeling it." 

Prove it.

Look at streaks? How do you explain them? Good players get in the zone more often than poor ones. I have played division I baseball and was drafted and you absolutely can get into a zone and you feel like you want to play a double header or every day. Of course you don't know how long it lasts, but within a game no question and sometimes it goes for weeks. A slump is when you can't get anywhere near a zone and hot streak is when you are in a zone (there are levels)Explain to me why a guy has a great month and then an average month and then a lousy month? Haven't you seen John Starks in teh basketball finals against Houston andthen seen a guy like Wade get into a zone?

Explain why players go on streaks in sports simulation games? Raymond Felton is on fire for my whatifsports basketball team. I don't think that has anything to do with Robo-Felton "feeling it".Random variance will produce streaks all the time.

That is what I get for posting early in the morning after no sleep the prior night. Of course you are correct that random streaks will happen just as a coin flip will tell you. However, a coin flip IS a totally random event, hitting a baseball or shooting the ball, puck etc..are not random events. There are physical and mental actions going on and against each of those events to create the outcome. So the thought that it is the same a s coin flip is not accurate. There is a random factor in the outcome, lucky rolls, hits or bounces, but it is not 100% like a coin flip.

The question come back to whether you are more likely to do something good because you are on a streak and when you are seeing the ball coming to you like it is a beach ball, yes, you are more likely to get a hit. Another example is how some players hit certain pitchers well. There is some randomness to it, especially a small sample, but some pitchers release point is easier for YOU to pick up and therefore you are not filled as easy. Other pitchers you just don't get a good read on while the rest of your team could love facing them. Some could be psychological, but there is truth to seeing the ball out of the hands of certain pitchers better.

To summarize, a 100% random event such as flipping a coin is not a straight comparison to a physical act with many variables.

 

[Liquid Tension]

*So I guess the bottomline is emotion doesn't play a part in individual performances of athletes.  Intangibles are BS.  It's all about how you can statistically measure their performance.  Sort of like Ivan Drago in Rocky IV.

Intangible = anything that we can't measure.If clutch ability is consistent (i.e. repeatable and predictive) and important (i.e. a significant impact on success), shouldn't it be measurable? Yes, but in football there are many variables which cloud the situation. This is why I used baseball because you can focus on one stat that has over 200 events to measure anything.

I'm pretty sure that's all people are arguing here.

Brady has had some clutch moments; no one in their right mind would deny that.

Does that mean that he has some inherent power to rise to the occasion, more often than the average player? Hard to say, because if that were the case we would be able to see it in the results. A "feeling" (which I believe is far more important to fans than to professionals) isn't nothing, but it's probably just not as important to team wins. I guess if a guy could summon the power at a clutch moment wouldn't he be able to do so other times as well?

I personally think that Brady's simply the best QB on the planet all the time.

Another thing about the "clutch" argument is that we also don't consider that some QBs are good at avoiding close games. If a player goes 11-5, winning the 11 games by 21 points and losing the 5 games by 1 point, is clutch ability really that important? Would you prefer that player to the one who goes 10-6 with the 10 wins by 1 point and the 6 losses by 21 points (e.g. 1998 Cardinals)?

I take the team that wins by a larger margin because they are probably the much better team.Answers in blue bold

 

[CalBear]

The question come back to whether you are more likely to do something good because you are on a streak and when you are seeing the ball coming to you like it is a beach ball, yes, you are more likely to get a hit.

Once again: prove it. The studies which have been done have not been able to measure any effect of being on a streak.

 

[Liquid Tension]

The question come back to whether you are more likely to do something good because you are on a streak and when you are seeing the ball coming to you like it is a beach ball, yes, you are more likely to get a hit.

Once again: prove it. The studies which have been done have not been able to measure any effect of being on a streak.

First, remember that I am the one stating that there is not such a thing as clutch ability or if there is it is fairly non significant.Why don't you prove that it doesn't exist? Prove that when Reggie hit his 4th HR on 4 consecutive swings he wasn't seeing the ball like a beach ball???

 

[CalBear]

First, remember that I am the one stating that there is not such a thing as clutch ability or if there is it is fairly non significant.

Why don't you prove that it doesn't exist? Prove that when Reggie hit his 4th HR on 4 consecutive swings he wasn't seeing the ball like a beach ball???

The claim that something doesn't exist is weaker than the claim that it does exist; if you want to assert the existence of something, you have to provide some proof. (Hence Descartes' "I think, therefore I am," asserting that he exists based on the fact that his thought process exists). The question is, after Reggie hit three home runs in a row, do you think he was more likely to hit a fourth in a row? How much would you have bet on him hitting a fourth in a row? Statistical studies have shown that hitting streaks are about equally likely to end after each at-bat, which implies that "being hot" is an illusion. Do you have any real evidence to the contrary?

 

[Liquid Tension]

First, remember that I am the one stating that there is not such a thing as clutch ability or if there is it is fairly non significant.

Why don't you prove that it doesn't exist?  Prove that when Reggie hit his 4th HR on 4 consecutive swings he wasn't seeing the ball like a beach ball???

The claim that something doesn't exist is weaker than the claim that it does exist; if you want to assert the existence of something, you have to provide some proof. (Hence Descartes' "I think, therefore I am," asserting that he exists based on the fact that his thought process exists). The question is, after Reggie hit three home runs in a row, do you think he was more likely to hit a fourth in a row? How much would you have bet on him hitting a fourth in a row? Statistical studies have shown that hitting streaks are about equally likely to end after each at-bat, which implies that "being hot" is an illusion. Do you have any real evidence to the contrary?

Yes, I can get some of them but need to find them. I do know of a study that was done for betting that showed that playing the hot team is worth doing because of streaks by teams tend to last longer than expected both winning and losing. It had to do with if team a would win 55% of the games you would expect x amount of winning streaks of Y based on a % of likelihood, however, teams were much streakier than would be expected. Thus a team on a roll or a team in a slump was valid. I will try and find, but this is a busy weekend. Anyone else chime in?BTW, to ask if I would bet that he would homer in his 4th AB is a silly question. The odds of anyone hitting a HR are too low no matter how hot they are. As a ballplayer at a high level who is a study on SABR metrics, there is absolutely a such thing as being hot.

 

[PatsWillWin]

You seem like you like taking things to extremes

Quite the contrary. I'm not the one claiming that Brady has this supernatural power that he turns on sometimes that maybe one other player in the NFL has (Vinatieri); or that Manning has this odd kyrptonite that no other player has that seems to come around at inopportune times.

loltotally reasonable and sane points made by those that disagree with you, and you equte their opinions to SUPERMAN and KRYPTONITE.

no, you don't take things to the extreme at all.

 

[radballs]

I do know of a study that was done for betting that showed that playing the hot team is worth doing because of streaks by teams tend to last longer than expected both winning and losing. It had to do with if team a would win 55% of the games you would expect x amount of winning streaks of Y based on a % of likelihood, however, teams were much streakier than would be expected. Thus a team on a roll or a team in a slump was valid. I will try and find, but this is a busy weekend. Anyone else chime in?

I'd really like to see that study. Granted, if there's any truth to it then Vegas would find a way to strangle the arbitrage opportunity out of it. If true, the odds are adjusted for the "hot" team so that they don't pay off as much. Would like to hear more here, but my guess is that this most likely falls under Cal Bear's brilliant posts above regarding the gambler's fallacy.

 

[radballs]

This has been a great thread and all, but in the end there are people who don't believe in analytical deduction. They like to use their gut instinct to determine that their favorite players must be more "clutch" than others. No amount of discussion will sway their opinions. It's unfortunate that some people don't take the time to really think things through or at least view the results of scientifically significant studies that disprove that "gut instinct". This horse has been beaten enough imo but it's been an interesting discussion.

 

[Liquid Tension]

This has been a great thread and all, but in the end there are people who don't believe in analytical deduction. They like to use their gut instinct to determine that their favorite players must be more "clutch" than others. No amount of discussion will sway their opinions. It's unfortunate that some people don't take the time to really think things through or at least view the results of scientifically significant studies that disprove that "gut instinct". This horse has been beaten enough imo but it's been an interesting discussion.

First to your prior post Radballs...Vegas has taken that into account, in their betting lines, when a team has won many in a row. People get hammered when it ends. There is no question in my mind that people have selective memory when it comes to being clutch or what they see or think they see. This clouds their judgment significantly.

The one area I have a hard time getting my arms around is when people say there is no such thing as being in the zone. It is clear that they never played at a high level when that is said. You clearly get in a zone and you clearly will have a better chance at getting a hit the next time up. Yes, the zone can end at anytime, but it rarely is abrupt. What I mean from that is usually a guy starts to hit everything on the button as the zone begins and the opposite is true as it ends. The part that is hard to explain (for me) is do you chalk the zone up to randomness based on your talent level? What I mean by that is if you are a "good" player, it should be expected that you would be hitting at a normal pace for 80% of the season and 15% of the time you are in the zone and 5% you are in a slump (out of the zone)? Like I said the zone is real, could it be for a game, a week, a month, yeah, but is it just random when it comes to you?

I will try and look up some of the info as I don't know if I am getting on paper what I am trying to Say.

 

[Doug Drinen]

The one area I have a hard time getting my arms around is when people say there is no such thing as being in the zone. It is clear that they never played at a high level when that is said.

Don't play that card, Liquid. For all you know, someone involved in this conversation might have played at a higher level than you. Even if not, many, many people who played at a higher level than you believe in clutch ability. If they told that you hadn't played at a high enough level to understand, would you just accept it?Also, I don't think anyone has disputed the feeling of being in the zone. The question at issue is whether that feeling has any measurable impact on your performance. Many studies have shown that it does not.

I don't understand why you are so adamant about the superiority of systematic data analysis over gut feeling in one area (clutch ability) and so adamant about the opposite in another.

There is no question in my mind that people have selective memory when it comes to being clutch or what they see or think they see. This clouds their judgment significantly.

Don't you see that the same might apply to your "zone"? Day 1: you get two straight hits. Man, you're in the zone. Then you get two more hits. ZONE, BABY!.

A week later: you get two hits. Man, you're in the zone. Then you fan twice. Now your hindsight tells you, "eh, I really wasn't ever in the zone after all."

It is possible that you subconsciously define the zone retroactively.

 

[Liquid Tension]

The one area I have a hard time getting my arms around is when people say there is no such thing as being in the zone.  It is clear that they never played at a high level when that is said.

Don't play that card, Liquid. For all you know, someone involved in this conversation might have played at a higher level than you. Even if not, many, many people who played at a higher level than you believe in clutch ability. If they told that you hadn't played at a high enough level to understand, would you just accept it?Also, I don't think anyone has disputed the feeling of being in the zone. The question at issue is whether that feeling has any measurable impact on your performance. Many studies have shown that it does not.

I don't understand why you are so adamant about the superiority of systematic data analysis over gut feeling in one area (clutch ability) and so adamant about the opposite in another.

There is no question in my mind that people have selective memory when it comes to being clutch or what they see or think they see.  This clouds their judgment significantly.

Don't you see that the same might apply to your "zone"? Day 1: you get two straight hits. Man, you're in the zone. Then you get two more hits. ZONE, BABY!.

A week later: you get two hits. Man, you're in the zone. Then you fan twice. Now your hindsight tells you, "eh, I really wasn't ever in the zone after all."

It is possible that you subconsciously define the zone retroactively.

Doug, the highlighted section in blue. Not sure what your point was here in that I am positive many players in the major leagues today believe in clutch ability. A matter of fact, I bet most do. The distinction there is not about clutch ability it is about getting into the zone; two totally different concepts. being in the zone does not infer in any way that you have clutch ability. It only says that you have the ability to be hot (or cold) and that can happen in clutch spots or not.BTW, I agree that David Justice (he has recently made comments about ARod being unclutch while praising Jeter compared to ARod since he has been here - even though ARod has been better than Jeter in clutch spots over the previous 3 years to this year) would say to me I don't get it because I haven't played at a high enough level. But just like some may think about me, Justice is going on his feeling and I am going on cold hard facts. if someone can show me cold hard facts I would defer and claim that I was incorrect. I am not about being right, I am about searching for the truth. This is why my stance on clutch ability has taken a turn from "you can't tell me that every player reacts to pressure the same way" to If clutch ability exists it is rare and not that statistically significant for predicting the future.

The example of a few hits making you in the zone is too general.

 

[Liquid Tension]

The one area I have a hard time getting my arms around is when people say there is no such thing as being in the zone.  It is clear that they never played at a high level when that is said.

Don't play that card, Liquid. For all you know, someone involved in this conversation might have played at a higher level than you. Even if not, many, many people who played at a higher level than you believe in clutch ability. If they told that you hadn't played at a high enough level to understand, would you just accept it?Also, I don't think anyone has disputed the feeling of being in the zone. The question at issue is whether that feeling has any measurable impact on your performance. Many studies have shown that it does not.

I don't understand why you are so adamant about the superiority of systematic data analysis over gut feeling in one area (clutch ability) and so adamant about the opposite in another.

There is no question in my mind that people have selective memory when it comes to being clutch or what they see or think they see.  This clouds their judgment significantly.

Don't you see that the same might apply to your "zone"? Day 1: you get two straight hits. Man, you're in the zone. Then you get two more hits. ZONE, BABY!.

A week later: you get two hits. Man, you're in the zone. Then you fan twice. Now your hindsight tells you, "eh, I really wasn't ever in the zone after all."

It is possible that you subconsciously define the zone retroactively.

BTW, Doug, I acknowledged that I have a hard time getting my arms around the zone from a statistical standpoint. My comments indicate the precariousness of the comments as it relates to MY take. The % I gave show that I am not locked into my belief. Again search for the truth not being correct.

 

[Doug Drinen]

The one area I have a hard time getting my arms around is when people say there is no such thing as being in the zone. It is clear that they never played at a high level when that is said.

Don't play that card, Liquid. For all you know, someone involved in this conversation might have played at a higher level than you. Even if not, many, many people who played at a higher level than you believe in clutch ability. If they told that you hadn't played at a high enough level to understand, would you just accept it?

Doug, the highlighted section in blue. Not sure what your point was here in that I am positive many players in the major leagues today believe in clutch ability. A matter of fact, I bet most do. The distinction there is not about clutch ability it is about getting into the zone; two totally different concepts. being in the zone does not infer in any way that you have clutch ability.

I wasn't saying that clutch ability and the zone were related, except that they are sport-related concepts. I was only pointing something out about the rhetoric.You made the claim that you had a better understanding of a particular concept because you had played at a higher level. If you really believe that, then you also have to accept that anyone who played at a higher level than you has a better understanding of certain topics as well.

I think you got the gist of it: CalBear is to you as you are to David Justice. Just as you have seen enough facts to convince yourself that Justice is wrong (despite his higher level of experience), CalBear feels he has seen enough facts to convince himself that you are wrong (despite what I'm assuming is a higher level of experience).

Notice that I haven't taken a position on the zone in this thread. I am aware of the studies MT and CalBear are citing, but I haven't read them closely enough to know if I consider them "proof." I have a couple of articles on the topic in my file cabinet at the office. I'll look at them on Monday and report back. Like you, I'm just interested in knowing. And I find the argument interesting. It's been a good thread.

 

[DropKick]

I find it foolish to question that the ability to perform in clutch situations exists. Its simply human nature for some to maintain/elevate their game when the stakes rise and for others to fold like a tent. Players are not machines and there is little doubt that, player to player, they differ in how they respond to pressure.

Ironically, I see some parallels in fantasy football. How many people submit their line-up every week with complete confidence and then struggle over every play-off decision?

Does the "zone" exist? Yes. Many athletes have described their experience when they are "on". I've had the same experience myself playing basketball. Its a neat feeling; you're playing mostly on instinct and far less on thought; with everything just "working". The next time out... you just may not have it.

Mathematical proof? Can any math model or study really capture all the variables?And what's the point? It's obvious that different people respond differently to pressure situtations. It's also fairly obvious that same same player can be hot/cold for a variety of physical/mental reasons.

Player reputations? Legends are made (broken?) based on how a player performs when it matters most. Fair or not... this is how it is and will always be. Fans perception of performance will be based on that small sample. And don't forget the dollars. Compare Jeter and ARod. Jeter has come up big in post season play while ARod has largely disappeared. As the highest paid player in the game, people expect ARod to live up to his salary. And Manning.... big losses at the collegiate and professional level... games where he has literally disappeared. Is there any doubt why people question his big game ability? The question will always be there until he answers it on the field.

For the record? The Yankees suxor!

 

[CalBear]

Mathematical proof? Can any math model or study really capture all the variables?And what's the point? It's obvious that different people respond differently to pressure situtations. It's also fairly obvious that same same player can be hot/cold for a variety of physical/mental reasons.

No, it's not obvious at all. It's obvious that people get reputations as clutch or not-clutch players, but it's not obvious that those reputations have any relation to reality. (John Elway never went to a bowl game in college, and lost three Super Bowls in a row before getting a 2000-yard RB on the team, yet most people would call him a clutch player, to take one example). Feeling hot or cold has to do with hindsight; when I've hit five shots in a row, I definitely feel hot. Again, it is not obvious that the feeling of being hot is related to any real phenomenon which makes my next shot more likely to go in.

One of the studies of streak shooting pointed out that NBA coaches talk about "feeding the hot hand," but when there's a technical foul, they always put the best free-throw shooter on the line, not the guy who's hit the most shots recently.

 

[Liquid Tension]

The one area I have a hard time getting my arms around is when people say there is no such thing as being in the zone.  It is clear that they never played at a high level when that is said.

Don't play that card, Liquid. For all you know, someone involved in this conversation might have played at a higher level than you. Even if not, many, many people who played at a higher level than you believe in clutch ability. If they told that you hadn't played at a high enough level to understand, would you just accept it?

Doug, the highlighted section in blue. Not sure what your point was here in that I am positive many players in the major leagues today believe in clutch ability. A matter of fact, I bet most do. The distinction there is not about clutch ability it is about getting into the zone; two totally different concepts. being in the zone does not infer in any way that you have clutch ability.

I wasn't saying that clutch ability and the zone were related, except that they are sport-related concepts. I was only pointing something out about the rhetoric.You made the claim that you had a better understanding of a particular concept because you had played at a higher level. If you really believe that, then you also have to accept that anyone who played at a higher level than you has a better understanding of certain topics as well.

I think you got the gist of it: CalBear is to you as you are to David Justice. Just as you have seen enough facts to convince yourself that Justice is wrong (despite his higher level of experience), CalBear feels he has seen enough facts to convince himself that you are wrong (despite what I'm assuming is a higher level of experience).

Notice that I haven't taken a position on the zone in this thread. I am aware of the studies MT and CalBear are citing, but I haven't read them closely enough to know if I consider them "proof." I have a couple of articles on the topic in my file cabinet at the office. I'll look at them on Monday and report back. Like you, I'm just interested in knowing. And I find the argument interesting. It's been a good thread.

The one part that may make the comparisons a little different would be that saying someone is clutch is describing what you think someone else is and being in the zone is describing what you think and feel. I do think that someone else may think I am in the zone when I am not. What I am describing about the zone is an amazing level of confidence because I am locked in. Can I say that I have done my own research about when I was in the zone...no, but I can tell you I know when I am locked in and the ball is coming in so slow I could see the rotation and identify the pitch similar to the matrix. I would bet money that David Justice would describe the same thing. Maybe (I am thinking on the fly here), people who are good players get into the zone sometimes while the greatest players on the planet are in the zone more frequently. Possibly that describes the type of hitter people become; the ones that have more zone time???

 

[Liquid Tension]

Mathematical proof?  Can any math model or study really capture all the variables?And what's the point?  It's obvious that different people respond differently to pressure situtations.  It's also fairly obvious that same same player can be hot/cold for a variety of physical/mental reasons.

No, it's not obvious at all. It's obvious that people get reputations as clutch or not-clutch players, but it's not obvious that those reputations have any relation to reality. (John Elway never went to a bowl game in college, and lost three Super Bowls in a row before getting a 2000-yard RB on the team, yet most people would call him a clutch player, to take one example). Feeling hot or cold has to do with hindsight; when I've hit five shots in a row, I definitely feel hot. Again, it is not obvious that the feeling of being hot is related to any real phenomenon which makes my next shot more likely to go in.

One of the studies of streak shooting pointed out that NBA coaches talk about "feeding the hot hand," but when there's a technical foul, they always put the best free-throw shooter on the line, not the guy who's hit the most shots recently.

I think shooting a free throw is different than feeding the hot hand in action. Shooting a free throw is more like golf and bowling, although it has no variables like golf and bowling, while shooting in action is more of a "sport" where the competitor can make you adjust what you are doing on the fly. I don't think it is the same.BTW, I agree about Elway as I have had many Elway Marino debates and if Marino had any running attack even close to TD, Marino would have won a few SB's. A better defense would have helped as well. That being said, making 3 SB's and losing does not make someone unclutch. There have been some mediocre QB's who won SB's because the team around them was excellent. I think people look too much at titles when comparing players.

 

[Spartans Rule]

Compare Jeter and ARod. Jeter has come up big in post season play while ARod has largely disappeared.

Selective memory in action.Derek Jeter has a playoff career OPS of .842. Alex Rodriguez has a playoff career OPS of .927. Both are lower than their respective overall career OPS, but not by much.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Compare Jeter and ARod.  Jeter has come up big in post season play while ARod has largely disappeared.

Selective memory in action.Derek Jeter has a playoff career OPS of .842. Alex Rodriguez has a playoff career OPS of .927. Both are lower than their respective overall career OPS, but not by much.

Excluding this year, the prior 3 years ARod has been better in late and close situations as well. Interestingly, they are both under their career marks in those spots over the 3 years. ARod gets hammered incorrectly even if this year he has been really bad in late and close spots.Ortiz is the one of the only people I could find that appears to have clutch ability over the past 3-4 years. If not, it has been an amazing aberration.

 

[Shiver44]

Joe Montana

Michael Jordan

It does exist.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Joe Montana

Michael Jordan

It does exist.

From The Superinvestors of Graham-and-Doddsville, by Warren Buffett:

I would like you to imagine a national coin-flipping contest. Let's assume we get 225 million Americans up tomorrow morning and we ask them all to wager a dollar. They go out in the morning at sunrise, and they all call the flip of a coin. If they call correctly, they win a dollar from those who called wrong. Each day the losers drop out, and on the subsequent day the stakes build as all previous winnings are put on the line. After ten flips on ten mornings, there will be approximately 220,000 people in the United States who have correctly called ten flips in a row. They each will have won a little over $1,000.

Now this group will probably start getting a little puffed up about this, human nature being what it is. They may try to be modest, but at cocktail parties they will occasionally admit to attractive members of the opposite sex what their technique is, and what marvelous insights they bring to the field of flipping.

Assuming that the winners are getting the appropriate rewards from the losers, in another ten days we will have 215 people who have successfully called their coin flips 20 times in a row and who, by this exercise, each have turned one dollar into a little over $1 million. $225 million would have been lost, $225 million would have been won.

By then, this group will really lose their heads. They will probably write books on "How I turned a Dollar into a Million in Twenty Days Working Thirty Seconds a Morning." Worse yet, they'll probably start jetting around the country attending seminars on efficient coin-flipping and tackling skeptical professors with, "If it can't be done, why are there 215 of us?"

Even if athletic performance were totally random (as with coin-flipping), some people would have much better records than others in clutch situations. The existence of several apparently clutch performers like Joe Montana and Michael Jordan, therefore, is not persuasive evidence for clutchness.

 

[Lightning Fast Whip]

Robert Horry....guy had a weighted coin until he was practically in a walker. Even in basketball where there are more opportunities to show clutch plays in more critical playoff contests he was phenomenal for a middle of the road not super star type player. CONFIDENCE builds everytime in both the player ,his team mates and his coaches to where they wanted him to get that last shot even over better players than him. His and others belief in him contributes to his future successes. Arguing that he is no more likely to succeed because you can't measure his make up under pressure does not change it.

If we were to predict his chances of getting the opportunities to TAKE the final shot while ignoring what his previous track record did to influence his coaches designing plays and his team mates setting him up it wouldn't be so different than ignoring what his previous track record and his own internal design did to increase his chances to execute under pressure as well.

In football do I want a Lynn Swann in a Superbowl? Are the Steelers the Team of the 70s without beating the Cowboys by 4 points in 2 Superbowls where Swann absolutely raised his game? Is Swann in Hall of Fame for any reason beyond an acknowledgement that he was Clutch?

Are those doubting if there is even such a thing as clutchness saying Swann should not be in the Hall of Fame because he just got lucky a couple times and any NFL WR could have elevated and made those acrobatic beautiful catches?

Myself I think we saw something special out of Swann on those days..I'll call it clutch play and yes I believe he was more likely to be able to raise his game and himself higher up (and maintain his composure and concentration) in play and in the Air than normal ...I do not believe it was anything like a flip of the coin that gave us the chance to see it from him. I think it was his confidence,his ability, his concentration, his seizing the moment and not letting it swallow him up and later make excuses it wasn't a well thrown ball etc etc

Peyton gets happy feet in a playoff game and some (including Peyton himself in post game conference) make excuses that there was a Pass Rush. It is true there was ...but..What about all the QBs that see a pass rush week in week out because of poor line play...do we make excuses for them not coming through in the face of the rush? Or do we admire when someone like Big Ben or Brady step right into the pass rush to delivery the throw off their front foot to make the big play and take the big hit? Do we ignore the fact team mates see these guys do these things and maybe give a little extra on their ends too?

Did Peytons/Vandy cat fight add pressure to tense situation and touchy subject. Contribute to Vandy having even extra on his mind in critical situations knowing he was on thin ice? Vandys fault for speaking his mind about Choking....but certainly an example of how level of belief starts affecting teams if you lose their confidence. Peyton lost confidence in his O-Line..they lost confidence in him setting them into the right pass protections (something they are use to him getting right at least when facing normal 4-3). imo It snowballs quicker the more failure you're expecting (theyall had read the 3-4 arguments and worries and seed of doubt had to exist)...something goes wrong and if you don't have the confidence in your team mates it is that much harder to turn it around. The "zone" sort of parrallels this on a personal level...if you believe you're Hot you'll play better and more instinctively and stop thinking too much...if you start doubting yourself you begin hesitating, Doubt starts creaping in worrying about if you miss/fail, you don't just play your game you start worrying about what could go wrong.

 

[CalBear]

Joe Montana

Michael Jordan

It does exist.

Joe Montana and Michael Jordan were two of the best performers at their sports in history. On an every day, every play basis. It is no surprise that they performed well in the clutch; they performed well all the time.

 

[GregR_2]

Joe Montana

Michael Jordan

It does exist.

So how much above his career FG% does Jordan's FG% on potential game-winning shots have to be for him to be clutch?Or does he just have to have made one or more of them in a dramatic enough fashion it stands out in our memories?

 

[DropKick]

Mathematical proof?  Can any math model or study really capture all the variables?And what's the point?  It's obvious that different people respond differently to pressure situtations.  It's also fairly obvious that same same player can be hot/cold for a variety of physical/mental reasons.

No, it's not obvious at all. It's obvious that people get reputations as clutch or not-clutch players, but it's not obvious that those reputations have any relation to reality. (John Elway never went to a bowl game in college, and lost three Super Bowls in a row before getting a 2000-yard RB on the team, yet most people would call him a clutch player, to take one example). Feeling hot or cold has to do with hindsight; when I've hit five shots in a row, I definitely feel hot. Again, it is not obvious that the feeling of being hot is related to any real phenomenon which makes my next shot more likely to go in.

One of the studies of streak shooting pointed out that NBA coaches talk about "feeding the hot hand," but when there's a technical foul, they always put the best free-throw shooter on the line, not the guy who's hit the most shots recently.

We're talking two different things. Reputations, or general fan opinion, can easily be off the mark. What I'm saying is obvious is that different people will respond to pressure in different ways. Some people are simply more likely to have nerves impact their game than others. I think this is common sense.It's also common sense that player (human) performance fluctuates. Whatever the set of psychological/physical/biological variables are that affect performance, sometimes an athlete is simply on top of his game. And, yes, I imagine they know it. At these times, I expect their performance to exceed the career averages just as I would expect lower than average numbers at other times.

 

[DropKick]

Compare Jeter and ARod.  Jeter has come up big in post season play while ARod has largely disappeared.

Selective memory in action.Derek Jeter has a playoff career OPS of .842. Alex Rodriguez has a playoff career OPS of .927. Both are lower than their respective overall career OPS, but not by much.

I don't think you can boil this down into a single number. I have seen Jeter's contributions - offensive, defensive and leadership - be a major factor for his team's success. Granted, ARod hasn't had the same opportunities to produce as Jeter but his play-off performances for the Yankees has been below expectations for the HIGHEST PAID PLAYER IN THE HISTORY OF THE GAME.

I can't give much weight to the the late game and "close" stats either. I simply don't think games in April/May have the same degree of pressure as late season games.

 

[Lightning Fast Whip]

"(John Elway never went to a bowl game in college, and lost three Super Bowls in a row before getting a 2000-yard RB on the team, yet most people would call him a clutch player, to take one example)."

College he went to Stanford when Stanford was non-competitive..he flashed his abilities in college when given the chance but Stanford wasn't 2006 Texas or USC where he had an opportunity to be Vince Young in a National Championship Game (Talking about Clutch play..Vince was off the charts). I don't think he'd have been able to VY it but we'll never know. I don't know that any College QB could have done what VY did though. Elway really had a bad team around him in college...no one player can make a football team win by himself if rest of the team isn't at least somewhat competitive.

Conveinient to leave out that he had lots of playoff wins well before TD arrived. He had multiple AFC Championship pre -TD...some in very competitive tight games where he did show Clutchness without TD (ask Cleveland Fans). Being a fan who followed the AFC West back in 80s and 90s I knew he was one of the best performers in close games in the league...he had a knack..if his team wasn't completely out talented he came through more often than not. There were plenty of instances of him flashing clutch play before his team ever won a Superbowl. And that is actually a good argument that it exists without the Hindsight of winning a league Championship first. IMO a lot of the "Win one for John" sentiment stemed from all he had PREVIOUSLY done ...a lot of Football fans even non-bronco fans knew what type of QB he was even if he hadn't won a Superbowl up to that point and thought it would be appropriate for him to get one. I think MOST would say he had proven himself before that Superbowl.

 

[Lightning Fast Whip]

Just thinking about Cutler on a bad Vanderbilt team never getting chances in college....sort of Elwayish in another way. How many QBs get taken in first round without ever going to a bowl game in College? I'm not recalling too many off hand. Denver does it twice? oops Forgot Elway drafted by Colts...

 

[CalBear]

Just thinking about Cutler on a bad Vanderbilt team never getting chances in college....sort of Elwayish in another way. How many QBs get taken in first round without ever going to a bowl game in College? I'm not recalling too many off hand. Denver does it twice?

Denver didn't take Elway; he was chosen by the Colts and he whined like a baby until he was traded to Denver.But I'm not going to get into another Elway discussion; I'm just pointing out that the public perception of someone's clutch ability is often not related to any kind of reality.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Compare Jeter and ARod.   Jeter has come up big in post season play while ARod has largely disappeared.

Selective memory in action.Derek Jeter has a playoff career OPS of .842. Alex Rodriguez has a playoff career OPS of .927. Both are lower than their respective overall career OPS, but not by much.

I don't think you can boil this down into a single number. I have seen Jeter's contributions - offensive, defensive and leadership - be a major factor for his team's success. Granted, ARod hasn't had the same opportunities to produce as Jeter but his play-off performances for the Yankees has been below expectations for the HIGHEST PAID PLAYER IN THE HISTORY OF THE GAME.

I can't give much weight to the the late game and "close" stats either. I simply don't think games in April/May have the same degree of pressure as late season games.

Hmm, so you don't give into the OPS, the clear best offensive indicator, you don't take credence in 250+ plate appearances in close and late situations because they are regular season (and of course not clutch???) and then when given the playoff numbers you dismiss them because Jeter has better leadership and defensive abilities even though EVERYONE knows ARod is a better defensive SS than Jeter. Maybe it was that ONE play where Jeter shuffled the ball to Posada that makes up for all this irrelevant fact? BTW, a win is a win; the games in August/September don't count anymore than the ones in April. Remember the WhiteSox last year? Huge lead from their great start then folded like a tent in those so important games and were only able to hold on because of the huge lead they had. Then they JUST squeak in playing poorly and then win the WS?

 

[Chase Stuart]

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?

Since his only multiple TD playoff game came in a 26 point blowout, does that mean he was just padding his stats?

And where was Montana and his clutchness when the 49ers scored 13 points at home against the Giants in Jan. 1991, ending their chance for a threepeat? (I know Montana got hurt, but that was the 4th Q IIRC). How about 8 for 15 with 0 TDs and 2 INTs against the Giants to end the 49ers bid to repeat? Montana must have forgotten to be clutch against the Bills when he went 9/23, 125, 0, 1 INT, after Montana's Chiefs beat the Bills that year in the regular season. Win against the team in the regular season, lose in the post-season, that sure sounds like a choker to me.

No one has even given me a satisfactory definition of what's clutch. And how it changes over time. Would you rather have a great player that's not clutch or a good player that is clutch? What about a bad player that is clutch? I mean Timmy Smith (114 YPG, 0.7 TD/G) has been a much better post-season performer than Barry Sanders (64 YPG, 0.2 TD/G).

And what about old age? Does a player lose his clutchness at the same rate as his regular skills? Faster? Slower?

How does college performance factor in? Can we ever say Vince Young isn't clutch? How about Chris Weinke -- is he clutch? Mike Vick seems clutch if you combine his FSU game with his Packers game. The guy that always stumps me is Doug Flutie. Yeah, yeah, we know: he saw some success in college and maybe up North. But he was 0-2 in NFL playoff games? What happenned?