No such thing as clutch?

by dvd1204 on Aug 7, 2006 3:48 PM EDT Comment 21 comments

There has been some discussion on this site about the fact that the 2006 Tribe is not "clutch". The discussion usually divides into those who have watched this team under-perform in tight situations and emotionally state they are not "clutch" and those that witness the same thing and say, it's bad luck since there is no statistical evidence of "clutch" performance.

So I have to ask, if there is no such thing as "clutch", why does a team need a closer?

Before the Wickman trade, there was a clamoring to let Carmona or even Davis close games to "see if they can do it". If there is no "clutch", there is no need to see if they can close because you would theoretically already know based on previous performance levels established in earlier innings than the 9th. You would suspect that they sustain those levels, but the need to see "if they can do it" is to test if those levels will sustain or drop. If they drop, isn't that "anti-clutch" performance?

The last few years have shown a tremendous amount of pitchers who were tried as closers and failed from the current tribe bullpen to Atlanta's to the failed closer by committee in Boston a few years ago.

Maybe there is no such thing as "clutch", but the need for a closer would seem to indicate that there is such a thing as "anti-clutch", and after all, isn't that the same thing?

0 recs | Comment 21 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Re: No such thing as clutch?

I don't subscribe to the idea of "clutch" hitting. I just think good players play good most of the time, in "non-clutch" situations as well as in supposed clutch situations. People tend to remember the timely hitting which wins a game in late innings rather than the times when you're up by 12 runs or down by 12 and good hitters get hits.

I don't have any statistical data on hand, but it would be interesting to make note of hitters who hit well with RISPs, but terrible with no one on base. (Aside from small sample sizes, but rather over their career.)

Closers are really just good pitchers who get outs when a team needs it. I think there's a certain emotional requirement involved, but I'm not sure I could classify that as "clutch" or "anti-clutch"

And isn't that always? Just like 8th-inning or 7th inning pitchers who now earn a hold for doing the same thing in those innings.

by emd2k3 on Aug 7, 2006 4:05 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: No such thing as clutch?

I don't believe in clutch hitting for all of the reasons that are usually cited and a few more that aren't.

But to speak to your larger question...

Statistically speaking what you say about how the performance in the first eight innings should provide an adequate baseline for predicting what a pitcher will do in the ninth inning is right, at least in theory. An inning is an inning. Three outs are three outs. Right?

Wrong. How managers manage in the last inning calls for an entirely different set of guidelines than in the first inning, for example. Early in the game you don't sacrifice outs to score a run--you play for the big inning even if doing so decreases your chances of scoring. So the potential circumstances of what happens in later innings is different from what happens in other innings. These new circumstances also have the potential to affect the pitcher. If a starter gives up two runs in the first inning that might not be a huge obstacle. If a pitcher gives up two runs in the ninth when his team leads by one run then the game is over. Two runs aren't always two runs. Pitchers are aware of this, and that can influence how well they pitch. The question is whether the difference between the first eight innings and the ninth is great enough to render the information gained about a pitcher in the first eight innings unusable.

I don't know the answer to this, but my gut says that the ninth inning is different enough that a manager cannot rely solely on the first eight innings.

If pitchers perform differently in the ninth than they do in the other eight innings I don't think it's proof of 'anti-clutch' performance. I think the difference between the two is qualitatively great enough that it is unfair to use the first eight innings as a baseline for evaluating the quality of the performance in the ninth. Which is how, if I understand you correctly, you arrive at the notion of a pitcher being 'anti-clutch.'

http://disappointmentzone.wordpress.com/

by osoc13 on Aug 7, 2006 6:25 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Re: No such thing as clutch?

The main problem with "clutch stats" is that if you submit to using them, you probably are condemned to giving them ten times more weight than is deserved. That is, ninety percent of what would be presented as "clutch" is probably just random variation. That doesn't mean there isn't any clutch in the world.

I do believe in clutch performances. Different people's minds react differently under different stimuli, that is not only a scientific fact, it's extremely basic and obvious. You got our fight-or-flight reaction, your adrenal glands, attention deficit and hyperfocusing ... there are many, many ways to explain this without getting into a player's mythic qualities and moral fibre.

So yes, some players focus better with men on base. Some with the game on the line, or later in the game generally. Some become animals when final victory is in sight, in the ninth, and some freeze. Fight or flight.

In general, this can only have a miniscule effect on performance over the long haul. In general, the effect will be much smaller than the usual random variance on balls in play. But there's a lot less random variance on home runs and strikeouts, now isn't there?

I think there's plenty evidence out there that some players are just constitutionally unsuited for the ninth inning, and some are quite well suited to it. We may eventually find that Papelbon and Carmona are not much different in their abilities as major league starters. But you can't tell me, seriously, that you think Carmona is just as good as Papelbon as a closer.

And if that isn't clutch, then what is? Isn't everything else just semantics?

by Jay on Aug 7, 2006 8:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: No such thing as clutch?

I think the problem is partly semantics as well. That is, 'clutch' is entirely dependant on something else--some baseline against which we can measure performance. But what is that baseline? Is it other players? When say a player is clutch, what, exactly, are we saying?

My main problem with the clutch debate is that David Ortiz can leave six men stranded in his first four at bats, going 0-4, in a 2-1 game but if he gets a single with men on second and third in the bottom of the ninth in his fifth at bat of the game that constitutes clutch hitting when, in fact, it is reasonable to assume that if Ortiz were able to summon some greater level of talent (however that talent manifests itself) the team would have benfitted more had he do so in one of his other four at bats.

In basketball no one talks about the player who goes 3-16 from the field and then hits the game winner as clutch (and if they do I don't listen to them). Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, Oscar Robinson...these players were clutch because they always performed, no matter the circumstance. That, to me, is far more impressive and worth much more fanfare and admiration than what we talk about when we talk about clutch hitting in baseball.

http://disappointmentzone.wordpress.com/

by osoc13 on Aug 7, 2006 9:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: No such thing as clutch?

All great points. Every great closer (what is called here a clutch pitcher) is just a great reliever. (I suppose other people have a different meaning for the dirty "C" word, but this one is mine - it drives me batty to even write it.)

And sorry, but I'm going to play logic cop here.

"Maybe there is no such thing as "clutch", but the need for a closer would seem to indicate that there is such a thing as "anti-clutch", and after all, isn't that the same thing?"

Simply enough, if there isn't a clutch, you can't have an anti-clutch. You can have a pitcher (good or bad) and he can perform poorly in what you label a clutch situation, arbitrarily enough the 9th inning of 9 - but he's not anti-clutch. He just pitched poorly, and you can't attribute it anything further - although it is within your right to call him anti-clutch, a non-closer, a fence post, or a jelly donut.

Anyway, I doubt in thier minds that the FO pulled Carmona out of the closer job because they believe he can't do it. I believe they yanked him to get his confidence back up so that later, given some healing and a greater sample size, that he can do it...if JD doesn't take it away first. (He was crazy good a week ago vs. Boston)

by Thommy on Aug 7, 2006 10:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: No such thing as clutch?

I agree all of this is semantics. After all, we can't adequately define clutch which ultimately is a problem. I don't believe a player can raise his level of play during a clutch situation, but I do believe that their level of play can decrease. To me clutch is staying consistent despite the circumstance.

You mention that the FO wants Carmona's confidence back up. I believe confidence is a very powerful thing (and the biggest reason this team under-performs). The more confidence you have the less pressure/stress you will feel and the more consistent you will be. We have all felt this be it competing in sports to interviewing for a job. You are aware of what is at stake and when those stakes change and your performance is affected.

My original point is that there is a general consensus in all of baseball that a closer is a necessity, but that "clutch" is random act that is not a trait (or skill) of any individual. To me this is contradictory. I don't know how to measure the trait, and I do think it can be exaggerated by those who subjectively measure it (Papi), but it none the less exists in some manner.

by dvd1204 on Aug 8, 2006 12:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: No such thing as clutch?

pressure.

How well individual A and individual B handle a level of stress (in this case socially based stress, either completing a task in a manner that is deemed successful by the individual's social environment or failure by that individual's social environment).

Lets say individual A is rated a 9 (on a talent scale of 1=Mike Lavaliere 10=Babe Ruth) and Player B is rated at 8.

Lets say innings 1-8 the avg. socially based stress level (the pressure effecting a players emotions, neurochemimcal reactions, etc.) is Medium. And we'll give the ninth inning a stress level of High.

The only way Individual A will underperform Individual B on avg. (given a large enough sample size) would be if individual A's ability to perform the task (closing a game, getting a game winning RBI) was limited by his inability to cope with the higher level of stress/pressure.

Can individual B raise his ability under heightened pressure/stress? No (well maybe slightly). He can increase focus, attention, adrenaline, etc, better than individual A, but he will never be as capable as individual A, but individual A can be as incapable as individual B.

If you want to say clutch is the ability to maintian an avg. level of performance in a higher level of stress environment, than I can agree with that statment.

If you want to argue that capabilities are increased, (other than a slight increase in strength and focus due to adrenaline) I would have to disagree.

by hans on Aug 8, 2006 2:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: No such thing as clutch?

I'm just curious where this idea comes from: that some players "wilt" under the pressure but there aren't players that increase their ability. I've seen the studies that suggest that performance in key situations does not usually differ much from usual performance ability (although it appears so due to sampel size).

But is there a scientific for the choke-is-more-prevelant-than-clutch theory?

by dgcambridge on Aug 8, 2006 3:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: No such thing as clutch?

That's a great question.

Pressure/stress or how an individual feels stress is completely up to the individual. It is entirely accurate to say that two physically identical pitchers of equal ability (if such a thing existed) will feel different levels of stress with the bases loaded in the bottom of the ninth. Or Papi may feel the same amount of stress in the 1st inning of a 0-0 game as he does in the 8th inning of a 0-0 game. You and I may argue that the pressure is greater in the 8th, but Papi psychologically may not agree with our assessment.

This is a psychological and/or physiological problem that cannot be measured with game statistics and/or easily baselined, but nonetheless exists...thus the existence of lights out set-up men who fail as closers.

Another example is any player who is "pressing". Isn't that just admiting (albeit cliche) that the player is under pressure and his performance is suffering? Or is it an excuse? My guess is it is a little of both.

by dvd1204 on Aug 8, 2006 5:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: No such thing as clutch?

This might off of what points you guys have been trying to make, but I think the variance in ability to cope with the stress/pressure has alot to do with experience. Which is why a guy like Carmona should not have been allowed to learn how to close games in the Majors in Fenway park and Detroit while both those teams are in the hunt for the playoffs as opposed to the minors. Not to say Carmona may not be able to develop the ability to cope with that level of pressure. A guy like Ortiz, has been around for a while.

by hans on Aug 8, 2006 6:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: No such thing as clutch?

And what do you make of Papelbon who has just as much experience as Carmona? I think he's held his own this year for not having any experience.

by talonk on Aug 8, 2006 6:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: No such thing as clutch?

Well first off, Papelbon's success is the expection not the rule. And Actually Papelbon has had experience. I ripped this off some other guys post, so I claim no originality, but this points to the fact that Papelbon was drafted as a reliever and actually a closer.

Carmona was not.

JONATHAN PAPELBON...was ranked by Baseball America as the No. 3 prospect coming out of the state of Mississippi after going 9-6 with 13 saves and a 2.90 ERA in 61 relief appearances over 3 seasons at Mississippi State, where he studied Educational Psychology...his 13 saves are 7th-most in school history...as a junior, posted a 6-2 record with 7 saves and a 2.28 ERA in 25 games out of the bullpen...led the MSU staff with 22 appearances as a sophomore in 2002...lettered in baseball and football at Jacksonville's Bishop Kenny High School...tossed 2 no-hitters as a senior to earn All-City honors for the 3rd straight year...Jonathan's mother played softball at Louisiana State University...he was drafted by the Oakland Athletics out of high school in the 40th round in 2002.

by hans on Aug 9, 2006 1:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: No such thing as clutch?

sorry ment to write "exception not the rule"

And point being Carmona had little to no experience in the role of closer, where Papelbon has had experience in that role.

They may both have the same level of experience in being players at the highest level of professional baseball, but they do not share the same level of experience in the roles they have been asked to fill.

by hans on Aug 9, 2006 1:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: No such thing as clutch?

Carmona also had no experience as a setup man, and he was brilliant in that role.

by Jay on Aug 9, 2006 8:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: No such thing as clutch?

That is correct, but the degree of difficulty of the two roles (set up and closer) is enough to warrant Carmona needing to have experience (specifically the mental experience) of closing games before.

The expectations of the closer is that of your best relief pitcher, the one who person in that bullpen who can finish off games at the most important part of the game, the end.

There's no guarantee that if a set-up man blows the lead that his team will lose the game.

But I can guarantee that Carmona giving up the lead in the bottom of the ninth inning will always lose the game.

Truth is, for such a specialized role (I mean they call these guys "closers" for god sake), that anyone is going to convince me that if you cloned Carmona at the begining of the season, had one Carmona spending time at AAA as the closer for a half a season and the other Carmona spending time in the bigs as a starter and bullpen guy, that the first Carmona wouldn't be better prepared to handle to role of closer.

Whats done is done, if they want to make him into a closer, they are going to have to stay positive and work with Carmona to learn from the experiences he has had in the majors so far this season. I have no problem with that. I am just not an advocate for the "throw your child into the water and see if he can swim" technique they used on him this year.

by hans on Aug 9, 2006 11:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: No such thing as clutch?

I just don't believe that you have to close in the minors to be a closer. There are plenty of relievers who have become closers at the ML level, mostly by need (injury, other guys' ineffectiveness).

Heck the best closer of our generation (maybe ever) Mariano was a starter in the minors (he had one save in Rookie league, I don't think that qualifies it as a pressure situation). Heck even Wicky was a starter in the minors, he never even pitched in relief.

Just because you want them to train as a closer in the minors doesn't mean they are guaranteed to have success at the major league level in the same role. Many closers in the minors become set-up guys in the pros.

If Carmona can show he can do it, great. If he can't we'll try someone else in that role. If you can pitch, you can pitch. The mentality of the role won't be the same in AAA to the pros anyways.

by talonk on Aug 9, 2006 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: No such thing as clutch?

I'm sure we can go back and forth throwing success stories and failure stories.

Maybe the problem I have with this FO in this situation is that they repeatedly seem to disagree on what the best roles are for some of thier prospects. (bouncing guys between reliever then starter, then back to bullpen, then to closer, then to starter), We've seen it with Baez, J.Davis. and now Carmona.

I personally liked Carmona as a starter, if they want to make him into a reliever than fine. Stick with it. I just don't know what they expected, Of course he's going to struggle, the guy doesn't have the make-up to be a closer (at least not yet, for god sake he's 22, what were you doing when you were 22, I am pretty sure I was getting drunk and cooking Ramen nooodles for dinner in college)., But fine, teach him how to be a closer and stick with it.

by hans on Aug 10, 2006 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: No such thing as clutch?

I agree the coaching staff hasn't been the best in determining roles, but I don't really think this is so unusual when it comes to bullpen guys.

Usually a starter has a few chances at a starting role (or the club breaks him in as a RP). If he succeeds great, but if he doesn't he gets thrown in the pen. If he succeeds in the pen, he gets moved to a set-up role, and so on to closer. If he doesn't pan out in the pen, they try him back in the rotation. This really isn't that uncommon around the league.

Is it a good thing? Probably not, but plenty of guys have made the transition in the ML, so there isn't any real precedence that they have to achieve it in the minors either. It depends on the player I guess.

by talonk on Aug 10, 2006 5:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I like Carmona as a starter too!

Hello hans,

I too like him as a starter, and at the very least, think he could fit into Westbrook's spot if he is traded this offseason. Plus, I think he could at least duplicate Westbrook's efforts, if not dominate more, since he has better velocity than Westbrook and has had pinpoint command throughout most of his Minor League career when his velocity was comparable to Westbrook's.

Now that his velocity and K rate has increased, I don't think it's a stretch to say he could be a very good #3 or even a solid #2 in the future. In other words, he would be an upgrade for the starting rotation, and like I said before, we need to upgrade the rotation if this team is going to compete for a playoff spot in the near future.

Plus, when you have so many other notable relief prospects in the Minors, wouldn't it be better to make sure these guys can't fill the bullpen and closer's role first before attempting to turn solid starting prospects into relievers? It's not like our rotation is that superior that we shouldn't think about upgrading the rotation if possible.

Go Tribe! :-)

by indiansfan on Aug 10, 2006 5:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re: No such thing as clutch?

I think this is another "trait" of the organization that has become exaggerated. The Indians have used some 70-75 pitchers in the majors since 2002, including Tim Laker, and this "role confusion" has only come into play for a handful of them -- Baez, Davis, Carmona, Guthrie and Tadano.

Carmona was put into the bullpen because that's what the team needed, and he thrived there -- 1.00 ERA in 20 appearances, that's thriving.

The other four were all struggling to develop as starters and were shifted into the bullpen to see if they could do better there. Some struggled in the bullpen and were tried again as starters. These pitchers have demonstrated a lot of talent but have struggled to be effective in any role.

The Baez situation was an unusual one. He was signed out of Cuba as a free agent before the 2000 season, but he turned out to be much more raw than advertised. He was a prospect, but he was getting paid like a veteran -- $3.6 million per season, including his first just-okay season in the minors.

Desperate to recoup the most out of his investment, Hart freaked out a little and pushed Baez into a relief role, thinking it would get him to the majors faster. It worked, he reached the majors just two months into the 2001 season and was a very effective reliever that year.

So now Hart's got a reliever making $3.6 million a year for the next two years. Well, he doesn't like that either, so now that he's in the majors, it's time to make him a starter again. Well, he was pretty good as a starter in 2002, but nowhere near how good he was as a reliever, and now Bob Wickman is out for the season. So they made him a reliever again for 2003.

But all of this was about money. Had Baez been a "normal" prospect making peanuts, they would have been more patient with him in the minors. Or maybe they would have done everything the same, as they basically did with Mujica or Cabrera, and enjoyed his success as a reliever and not cared, because they'd have only been paying him the minimum.

I'm not defending any of the decisions, just saying it was a looney situation that can't really be compared to other prospects.

by Jay on Aug 10, 2006 6:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

What if Davis establishes himself as the closer?

Hello Thommy,

You bring up an interesting point with your last sentence.

I know this is probably unlikely, probably because the Indians likely won't have enough save chances over the next few weeks to get a good barometer of Jason Davis, but let's say he goes on a tear, saving 10 straight and dominating along the way.

Would the Indians' FO make him the primary closer and reconsider making Fausto a starter again or would they still hold a tryout for the rest of the season? And if so, would they still give Fausto the majority of the save opportunities or would Davis get most of them if he consistently proves himself over the next 2-4 weeks?

Just curious.

Go Tribe! :-)

by indiansfan on Aug 8, 2006 12:20 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs