It's how the next pass at attempting to measure "clutchness" will be better than current efforts to quantify it.
I think fangraphs has a good start on this - measuring shifts in WPA (win probability added) but of course it's far easier to measure stuff like that in baseball.
And after that work, all that we are going to figure out is that "clutchness" is random. That has already been proven by baseball stat nerds.
If that's true, then why haven't all teams who subscribe to sabermetrics not gone to closers by committee?
There a few possible reasons that don't include any concept of handling the pressure of the 9th inning.1. Managers and GMs are afraid not to name a closer because it is that kind of out of the box thinking that gets you fired quick if it doesn't work.
2. It is assumed players are more comfortable with defined roles. Naming a closer is the 1st time in defining those roles.
3. Mitch Williams says hitters behave differently in the 9th and a specific type of pitcher is needed to get strike one and then get them to chase.
4. I am sure they are even more non-clutch reasons.
And lastly, I don't think clutch exists. If you use a pitcher for 1000 innings in non-clutch situations and use the same pitcher for 1000 innings in clutch situation, chances are he his performances will be similar. Same goes for any sport and any player. We fall in love with clutchness simply because small sample sizes fool us.
Now, I do think that choking occurs (although probably on a much smaller scale than most). However, that doesn't prove clutchness since 90%+ of players are who they are in clutch situations. They are not being clutch, they are being normal.