Does Clutch Hitting Exist?

[luso2kx]

This is one of the topics that's usually discussed on the ESPN board. You get a few people saying that things like clutch hitting and protection for a hitter are myths (as well as a long discussion about closers).

To get your opinions (and see if a debate can be sparked), what do you think about the above topics?

[#1Patsfan_chica]

I do believe in clutch hitting but sometimes it's just bad pitching.

[Mikiemo83]

Yeah it does but it could be easier called hitting with runners in scoring position

[oldskool138]

Yeah it does but it could be easier called hitting with runners in scoring position

Well, there could be runner in scoring postion in a 17-3 game. Driving in runs in that situation isn't exactly clutch. Breaking a 0-0 tie in the second inning doesn't qualify either. It's important, to be sure, but not clutch due to the number of innings left to play.

I think the definition of clutch is limited to a tie game and getting the run or runs to put your team on top late in a game (7th inning on). Or I could be getting the runs needed to either tie or put your team ahead late in a game especially if it wins the game or sends it to extra innings.

Another definition of clutch is David Ortiz. :D

[Mikiemo83]

Another definition of clutch is David Ortiz. :D
this we all agree on

[SlumpBustR]

This is one of the topics that's usually discussed on the ESPN board. You get a few people saying that things like clutch hitting and protection for a hitter are myths (as well as a long discussion about closers).

To get your opinions (and see if a debate can be sparked), what do you think about the above topics?protection for a hitter is a myth when facing pitchers like Clemmons and Pedro (when healthy /in their prime) -- nobody had any protection

clutch hitting is a myth for those who like to argue for arguing's sake, IMO

Yaz was a clutch hitter for a good part of '67 but not his entire career; Manny for having chalked up so many years of consistent good hitting production in his career I still can't consider him clutch as much as I can say for David Ortiz (so far)

I mean I seem to recall on the fingers of one hand the number of times, late inning --important game breaking situation -- Ortiz looking at called strike three. Manny? a lot more

Who among Red Sox hitters of the past 20 years or so would you WANT at the plate in a clutch situation than D.O.?

Can you imagine how much Other-Worldly Ortiz would be considered throughout baseball if he had 1st basemen's mad skillz like say George Scott?

[Lord Papelbon]

Both are very situational based.

For clutch hitting, as mentioned earlier, I would think it would have to be a game tieing hit or game winning hit to be considered clutch. Getting the hit for the go ahead run in the 5th inning and the score finishing that way does not fall under clutch. And yes if there is a player to be identified with clutch, David Ortiz is it. It's almost to the point where you expect him to be up in those situations and get the hit.

Batter protection is very situational also. It depends on the pitcher, some pitchers don't care (because they are so good) Is the tieing or winning run on base, and yes who's batting behind this hitter that you are afraid of..so yes I do think it exists...

[Fully Tilted]

This could be a really in-depth debate. I used to think that there was but I'm not entirely sure there's really anything "tangible" that you can grab a hold of and say "THAT was clutch". It's semantics really.

My question is, (and I've mentioned this before), if a hitter goes 1-4 with 3 K's, each with runner's on and in scoring position, but in his 4th AB hit's a GW HR, is that a "clutch" performance? And if you don't believe in "clutch", is that a good day at the plate?

I don't think it is but this a very subjective matter. I think that the 3 plate appearances beforehand, in which a hitter could have drove in runs before it came to a late-inning comeback or tie-breaking hit, are just as important.

It's also tough to say guy's like Ortiz, Thome and Jeter are "clutch" because they are generally good hitter's in every other situation as well. If an argument can be made, you need to extract an average MLB hitter with stats that are far above his norm, in close and late situations or with runners on or in socring position or bases loaded etc.

[fightingdoxies]

My question is, (and I've mentioned this before), if a hitter goes 1-4 with 3 K's, each with runner's on and in scoring position, but in his 4th AB hit's a GW HR, is that a "clutch" performance? And if you don't believe in "clutch", is that a good day at the plate?

I'd say thats a good day at the plate... that one hit when it counted is the difference between a bad day and a good one. Clutch the way i see it is coming through is coming through when the game is on the line. Saying a person is a clutch batter is pretty much saying when the game is on the line... who do you want at the plate. I know if we are down by one run or tied in the ninth I know who i want at the plate...

[oldskool138]

Clutch is in the eyes of the beholder. It's hard, if not impossible to quantify. Some guys are and some guys aren't. Ortiz and Mariano Rivera are. A-Rod and others are not.

Let's use the previous senario. Ortiz goes 1-4 with 3K's one HR, one RBI and A-Rod goes 3-4 with three RBI but the Red Sox won the game on an Ortiz HR, he would be considered to be more clutch than A-Rod. It may be unfair but that's how most fans will look at it.

It's all up to the fans. I would say that 85-90% of baseball fans consider Ortiz to be clutch.

[EverettsTheoryOfEvolution]

I saw an article awhile ago (I'll try to find, but can't promise anything) where the physiological changes in athletes due to stress was measured. The conclusion was that there was, indeed, a remarkeable difference between the players who were known as being "clutch" and those who weren't, in regards to how they handled pressure situations. I think this falls in line with common sense, myself.

I think one problem with determining who is "clutch" is that the measruable statistical differences are small enough that they can be greatly swayed by luck or other circumstances, such that the clutchness becomes not so obvious. Anyone that deals in stats knows that the real differences between things are not that great - say a .275 average and a .300 average. One looks much more impressive, but only represents an extra hit per 40 AB's, which no one would ever notice just by watching games. This leads stat heads to struggle to find these "clutch" events, coming up with invented stats like "close and late" which are semi-meaningless. This leads to the other problem, of how to define a "clutch" situation. To me, it's kind of like what was said of pornography - I can't define it, but I know it when I see it. I think this is a problem unique to those who are so involved in statistical analysis that they are unable to pick their heads up and actually see the game and its human elements.

Don't get me started ranting, lol. I think stats are very important and useful, but I'll just say that a common problem with stat heads is that they tend to believe that it doesn't exist if they can't measure it.

[Fully Tilted]

Ortiz and Mariano Rivera are. A-Rod and others are not.

It depends on how you define it. Someone earlier had mentioned that clutch can be defined as "with RISP" in which A-Rod's numbers are very good. Check out the A-Rod thread, I posted his stats in various situations--looking at those numbers it's impossible to claim he's not a good hitter in said situations.

Let's use the previous senario. Ortiz goes 1-4 with 3K's one HR, one RBI and A-Rod goes 3-4 with three RBI but the Red Sox won the game on an Ortiz HR, he would be considered to be more clutch than A-Rod. It may be unfair but that's how most fans will look at it.

Which I don't agree with. If A-Rod drives in 3 runs for his team and Ortiz drives in 1--how did he have a better day than A-Rod? IMHumbleO, Walk-off's are only good for SC Highlight reels. Give me the guy who drives in 3 runs everyday over the guy who drives in only 1.

[EverettsTheoryOfEvolution]

Give you the guy with 3 RBI's sure, agreed. He had a better day, yes. But that's not the same as a clutch performance in a pressure situation. I think whether a player's performance throughout a game is good/better is a different discussion that what a "clutch" performance/moment is.

[oldskool138]

It depends on how you define it. Someone earlier had mentioned that clutch can be defined as "with RISP" in which A-Rod's numbers are very good. Check out the A-Rod thread, I posted his stats in various situations--looking at those numbers it's impossible to claim he's not a good hitter in said situations.



Which I don't agree with. If A-Rod drives in 3 runs for his team and Ortiz drives in 1--how did he have a better day than A-Rod? IMHumbleO, Walk-off's are only good for SC Highlight reels. Give me the guy who drives in 3 runs everyday over the guy who drives in only 1.

Okay, let me ask you this. Runner on third, two out, bottom of the ninth, Sox down by a run. Who would you rather have at the plate? A-Rod or Ortiz? And to be sporting, lets say that whichever player you pick through the course of the game is 0-3 with 3K's.

[Steve-o]

This is one of the topics that's usually discussed on the ESPN board. You get a few people saying that things like clutch hitting and protection for a hitter are myths (as well as a long discussion about closers).

To get your opinions (and see if a debate can be sparked), what do you think about the above topics?

I'm not sure if there was a more clutch hitter in baseball last year than Craig Monroe of the Tigers.

Of all the clutch home runs Monroe has hit this year -- seven of his 23 home runs have come in the seventh inning or later with the Tigers tied, down a run or close enough to have the potential tying run on deck -- few of those shots have been as big as this one.

That's clutch.

[Lord Papelbon]

Okay, let me ask you this. Runner on third, two out, bottom of the ninth, Sox down by a run. Who would you rather have at the plate? A-Rod or Ortiz? And to be sporting, lets say that whichever player you pick through the course of the game is 0-3 with 3K's.

Hmmmmmmm.......tough one............gotta think about that one for a minute.........................let's see...............Arod or Ortiz................................ ok....Ortiz.

And I think you're right, that's probably the best way to look at it. Consider when Wade Boggs was on the team, seemed to win the batting title and get his 200+ hits all the time, but guess who I didn't want up in that 9th inning senario?

[Fully Tilted]

Okay, let me ask you this. Runner on third, two out, bottom of the ninth, Sox down by a run. Who would you rather have at the plate? A-Rod or Ortiz? And to be sporting, lets say that whichever player you pick through the course of the game is 0-3 with 3K's.

(Without looking at the numbers) I want Ortiz at the plate--but I'm not the ruling authority here, that's just my opinion. I could dig up stats to compare both of them in various situations which could be a part of the definition of "clutch". That way we would have something concrete to grab a hold of.

[Fully Tilted]

Give you the guy with 3 RBI's sure, agreed. He had a better day, yes. But that's not the same as a clutch performance in a pressure situation. I think whether a player's performance throughout a game is good/better is a different discussion that what a "clutch" performance/moment is.

Well we're discussing if "clutch" even exists though. Your statement is based on the opinion that it absolutely does and I'm not totally convinced of that. Until then, I take the guy with the better overall day, 10 times of 10.

[EverettsTheoryOfEvolution]

Well we're discussing if "clutch" even exists though. Your statement is based on the opinion that it absolutely does and I'm not totally convinced of that. Until then, I take the guy with the better overall day, 10 times of 10.

Okay, that's a perfectly valid way to evaluate the players you want, but I don't think it actually makes a case for whether clutch exists - it's basically saying, "clutch doesn't exist, so I'm going in another direction."

I think the difference was captured perfectly by Oldskool. You can say Arod had a better day at the plate if he had 3 RBI's versus Ortiz's 3K's, and that's one way to measure a player's effectiveness, but it measures overall performance in normal game situations.

Saying "who do you want up in the 9th down by a run" is a different way of evaluating a player's effectiveness. You might very well value the former method (the A-rod method) of evaluation, but there is still a different question to be asked about the value of a player in a given circumstance.

[oldskool138]

(Without looking at the numbers) I want Ortiz at the plate--but I'm not the ruling authority here, that's just my opinion.

The Defense rests, your honor. :D

[Fully Tilted]

Okay, that's a perfectly valid way to evaluate the players you want, but I don't think it actually makes a case for whether clutch exists - it's basically saying, "clutch doesn't exist, so I'm going in another direction."

I think the difference was captured perfectly by Oldskool. You can say Arod had a better day at the plate if he had 3 RBI's versus Ortiz's 3K's, and that's one way to measure a player's effectiveness, but it measures overall performance in normal game situations.

Saying "who do you want up in the 9th down by a run" is a different way of evaluating a player's effectiveness. You might very well value the former method (the A-rod method) of evaluation, but there is still a different question to be asked about the value of a player in a given circumstance.


I've alerady stated that I don't think "clutch" is anything tangible or definable to a commomn denominator--the point that was being made to me was disregarding that notion.

[Fully Tilted]

The Defense rests, your honor. :D

That really doesn't prove anything of course. We're getting off track anyway. The discussion began as "Does Clutch Exist?" not who would you rather have up in the 9th inning with the game on the line. Both Ortiz and A-Rod have great numbers in these situations and they are both great hitters in general.

I still maintain that if you are seeking out "clutch" you must consider that you are talking about someone who's performance exceeds that of their normal performance in every other situation. Both Ortiz and A-Rod have great numbers across the board. They are not "clutch". They are great hitters.

Steve-O brought up Craig Monroe. He could be an interesting case because, while a decent everyday MLB player, he's not Ortiz or A-Rod and his numbers more than likely never will be. Does he exhibit, statistically speaking, a significant increase in perofmrance in specific situations that may include but are not limited to: Close and Late, Bases Loaded, RISP, RISP w/ two outs, Runner on 3rd with less than two outs? I don't know but I think if it does exist, "clutch" starts when the norm is broken and becomes abnormal.

[EverettsTheoryOfEvolution]

Ok, I'll agree with that - in fact that's really my point, too, lol (yay).

In a nutshell - "clutch" can really only be determined subjectively. Some people are of the mindset that subjective determinations are not valid, and therefore will not accept the existence of "clutchness." I personally think that's a one-sided way of looking at anything, including baseball.


EDIT: And the reason it can only be a subjective determination, is because clutch situations are, by their very nature, defined subjectively. The idea that a person performs differently in a pressure situation, means that that person subjectively "feels" pressure. For the most part, we can all agree when we see a clutch situation in the making, but try to define it, and we get really bogged down. I think statistics doesn't really have an answer for this, at least not yet.

[Fully Tilted]

Ok, I'll agree with that - in fact that's really my point, too, lol (yay).

In a nutshell - "clutch" can really only be determined subjectively. Some people are of the mindset that subjective determinations are not valid, and therefore will not accept the existence of "clutchness." I personally think that's a one-sided way of looking at anything, including baseball.

You're right, it is one-sided but until someone definitively proves that "clutch" is real and can determine which player has it and which player doesn't, it's not something I put a lot of stock into.

I'm open to it but I think it's ridiculous to call hitters who perform at a consitsently high-level, "clutch". If they always perform at that level, it's not "clutch" or rather "extraordinary" might be a better term for my point. It's one of the world's greatest hitter's doing what they do best and quite often.

Do I get excited when Ortiz is up with the game on the line? Sure, but I'd be excited if it were anybody up with the game on the line because...the game was on the line.

Tangent Question: Who would you rather have up in a game-winning scenario: Manny or Ortiz?

[oldskool138]

Hey, man, I only know what I see with my eyes (as far as baseball goes). I believe there's such a thing as "clutch" situations and "clutch" players. It's hard to define. Is a relief pitcher that comes in with the bases loaded and no outs only to strike out the side (on more than one occasion) more clutch than the guy who hits walk-off HR after walk-off HR?

Like I said before, clutch is in the eye of the beholder. Matt Clement has been in clutch situations but is not a clutch player. Beckett thinks he's a clutch guy but really isn't...not yet at least. Papelbon, due to his record setting rookie year is on his way to being a clutch pitcher if his sucsess carries over to the rotation.

Of course, this is only my opinion. It's not based on rock solid stats. It's based off of watching Red Sox games. Tilted, you seem to be a cold numbers guy...nothing wrong with that. I go by what I see.

EDIT: Clutch is not synonymous with good. It's who cracks under the pressure of the game and who doesn't.

[EverettsTheoryOfEvolution]

I think that takes the discussion about as far as it goes. Bottom line, some people are inclined to include subjective valuations, and some people do not think they are realistically valid (the old stats vs. scouting debate). This is a personality issue, and not one that really has a "correct" answer. That's where problems lie, when people get so invested in their viewpoint that they try to validate how it is the only correct viewpoint.

As far as your question, Ortiz every time. I think someone pointed out already that Manny has a propensity for striking out with the game on the line (not alot, but let's say he performs the same in clutch situations as he does normally, while Ortiz steps it up a notch). I'm not sure I understand how your question is different from what we've been already discussing?

[Fully Tilted]

Of course, this is only my opinion. It's not based on rock solid stats. It's based off of watching Red Sox games. Tilted, you seem to be a cold numbers guy...nothing wrong with that. I go by what I see.

We are all entitled but answer me these questions:

You are basing theories of whether or not clutch exists, sticking with baseball, based on Red Sox games which account for a very small fraction of professional baseball in general, no?

How do you think scouts, GM's and Manager's evaluate player's performance, predominantly speaking?

Is it fair to say that your eyes cannot tell you everything and that it is possible that you can miss something important in judging a player's performance?

Do you think that you get more information from watching a game and evaluating it by memorization or by looking at statistics?


EDIT: Clutch is not synonymous with good. It's who cracks under the pressure of the game and who doesn't.

That is a dangerously vague definition, in my opinion.

[oldskool138]

Tangent Question: Who would you rather have up in a game-winning scenario: Manny or Ortiz?

Manny has the best overall stats and is a shoe-in for the Hall.

Ortiz has been tearing up the League for the last four years (and I expect him to do the same this year). If Ortiz stays consistent, he may have a shot at the Hall as well.

I'd take Ortiz. I know you'll probably tell me that Manny actually has more walk-off hits than Oritz. When 'Tiz come up to the plate in the ninth (at home especially), you can almost see him get locked in. He feeds off the energy and takes his game to another level.

Manny seems too cavalier when he's in a similar situation. But, I think his cavalier attitude is why he is so consistent. He drowns out everything and lets his natural talent take over.

Again, no stats here. Just what I've seen out of these two since '03.

[luso2kx]

Wow! good thread. I really wish some of the ESPNers took the bait and added their input. This topic generates some of the most heated arguments on that place.

[oldskool138]

We are all entitled but answer me these questions:

You are basing theories of whether or not clutch exists, sticking with baseball, based on Rd Sox games which account for a very small fraction of professional baseball in general, no?

How do you think scouts, GM's and Manager's evaluate player's performance, predominantly speaking?

Is it fair to say that you're eyes cannot tell you everything and that it is possible that you can miss something important in judging a player's performance?

Do you think that you get more information from watching a game and evaluating it by memorization or by looking at statistics?




That is a dangerously vague definition, in my opinion.

You can bash me for being a "homer" if you want but I only follow the Red Sox. Sure, I like the game as a whole but I take no enjoyment out of following the ebb and flow of the entire sport.

[Fully Tilted]

I think that takes the discussion about as far as it goes. Bottom line, some people are inclined to include subjective valuations, and some people do not think they are realistically valid (the old stats vs. scouting debate). This is a personality issue, and not one that really has a "correct" answer. That's where problems lie, when people get so invested in their viewpoint that they try to validate how it is the only correct viewpoint.

I hope I'm not coming off as "I'm right and here's why". I've stated my opinion and haven't budged is all. If someone wants to debate and say, "I see what I see" I'm sorry but I do not accpet that. Our eyes tell us what we want to see quite a bit and tend to stray from reality. It's called perception. If we want a "correct" answer, or objectivity, we need to define it on common ground and then formulate the answer for each individual the exact same way.

As far as your question, Ortiz every time. I think someone pointed out already that Manny has a propensity for striking out with the game on the line (not alot, but let's say he performs the same in clutch situations as he does normally, while Ortiz steps it up a notch). I'm not sure I understand how your question is different from what we've been already discussing?

It was just a question, I wasn't leading you anywhere or anything. Some might say that Manny is a better hitter in general and despite Orti'z propensity for a walk-off hit, they would want Manny up at the plate.

Maybe we're having two separate discussions then. I thought this was a "Does clutch exist?" debate, not "Who would you rather see at the plate?". Thus, in my eyes, my question is different than anything else we've been talking about, no?

[Fully Tilted]

You can bash me for being a "homer" if you want but I only follow the Red Sox. Sure, I like the game as a whole but I take no enjoyment out of following the ebb and flow of the entire sport.

Nobody called you a "homer". My point was that saying "Clutch exists" based on 162 baseball games a year doesn't provide enough information to base that on, in my opinion.

You claimed I was a "cold facts guy" as if it's a dubious way to determine performance. Instead of categorizing you, I asked you questions.

[EverettsTheoryOfEvolution]

I hope I'm not coming off as "I'm right and here's why". I've stated my opinion and haven't budged is all. If someone wants to debate and say, "I see what I see" I'm sorry but I do not accpet that. Our eyes tell us what we want to see quite a bit and tend to stray from reality. It's called perception. If we want a "correct" answer, or objectivity, we need to define it on common ground and then formulate the answer for each individual the exact same way.




Oo, sorry, I didn't mean to cast any aspersions on you, personally. I think this discussion is being very positive, so far, on the part of everyone involved. I was only trying to illustrate why this is such a hot button topic in general.

Re: perception vs. reality - yes your eyes can fool you, but they don't always. Numbers can be massaged to show just about anything you want, too. My point is that, while stats are valid, the fact that a phenomenon cannot be backed up statistically does not mean that it doesn't exist. Anything involving human beings will have a subjective element. And that's where we get back to the point I was making before - some people are simply predisposed to value one more than the other (subjective valuation vs. statistical valuation), and it's more of a personality difference than a question with a correct answer. If I was building a team, I would hire an equal number of scouts in both camps - I'd get some numbers guys, and some eyeball guys, as usually a compromise will more likely take everything into account. Certainly there are people who get very good results using either method.

[Lord Papelbon]

We are all entitled but answer me these questions:

You are basing theories of whether or not clutch exists, sticking with baseball, based on Red Sox games which account for a very small fraction of professional baseball in general, no?

How do you think scouts, GM's and Manager's evaluate player's performance, predominantly speaking?

Is it fair to say that your eyes cannot tell you everything and that it is possible that you can miss something important in judging a player's performance?

Do you think that you get more information from watching a game and evaluating it by memorization or by looking at statistics?




That is a dangerously vague definition, in my opinion.


Let me bring up my example again. Wade Boggs, one of the best hitters in baseball, batting titles, etc. He was not considered one of the "clutch hitters". He would more often than not fail when the game was on the line. And yes I am basing this on from watching the games.

[Fully Tilted]

Let me bring up my example again. Wade Boggs, one of the best hitters in baseball, batting titles, etc. He was not considered one of the "clutch hitters". He would more often than not fail when the game was on the line. And yes I am basing this on from watching the games.

I think we're missing each other entirely here. Your views on "clutch" are valid for you but it's not I how I feel about "clutch", whether it exists or not and if it does, who is and is not "clutch".

The reason I have brought up 'perception vs. reality' is because many Red Sox and Yankee fans feel that A-Rod is not "clutch" or whatever. I have posted his stats and not one person has disputed them. Yet, people still fall back on the old adage that he's not based on how they feel about him or what they see.

I'm not claiming this is or isn't your position, just a general misconception that starts and ends with, "This is what I saw" or some variation.

[Fully Tilted]

Oo, sorry, I didn't mean to cast any aspersions on you, personally. I think this discussion is being very positive, so far, on the part of everyone involved. I was only trying to illustrate why this is such a hot button topic in general.

No apology necessary, I was hoping I wasn't coming off that way is all.

Re: perception vs. reality - yes your eyes can fool you, but they don't always. Numbers can be massaged to show just about anything you want, too. My point is that, while stats are valid, the fact that a phenomenon cannot be backed up statistically does not mean that it doesn't exist. Anything involving human beings will have a subjective element. And that's where we get back to the point I was making before - some people are simply predisposed to value one more than the other (subjective valuation vs. statistical valuation), and it's more of a personality difference than a question with a correct answer. If I was building a team, I would hire an equal number of scouts in both camps - I'd get some numbers guys, and some eyeball guys, as usually a compromise will more likely take everything into account. Certainly there are people who get very good results using either method.

I think you tried to get these points across to me before and I missed it. I agree with these points, 100%.

[EverettsTheoryOfEvolution]

Yeah, agreed. From my point of view, statistical analysis completely misses the boat on clutchness, so I don't really feel any need to examine the stats.

I do actually have a solution to propose, that will probably make no one happy, lol, but that combines both worlds. I don't think this has ever been done, either, so just hear me out.

I contend that a "clutch" situation is completely subjective in nature, in that it relies on a person "feeling pressure" once they've subjectively determined that they are in a "clutch" situation. However, actual performance can certainly be quantified. So, I propose that someone who watches alot of baseball could do the following:

Subjectively determine when a clutch situation comes up in the game they are watching, then record what happens statistically. This avoids the problem of defining numerically a "clutch" situation, but it does create a dataset wherein performance can be compared. The domain of this dataset is one that will probably (though I can see the arguments already) be more acceptable to everyone than the rough attempts that have formerly been made to define a clutch situation, when you look at the actual situations that are chosen. This combines both worlds, and looks at things as what they are, rather than trying to fit everything into one box. I think it would create a very interesting, if not useful, set of data.

Edit: this could work for defense, too. Rather than having weird things like zone ratings, just have a guy going "man, he should've caught that," and then marking it down.

[Fully Tilted]

Subjectively determine when a clutch situation comes up in the game they are watching, then record what happens statistically. This avoids the problem of defining numerically a "clutch" situation, but it does create a dataset wherein performance can be compared. The domain of this dataset is one that will probably (though I can see the arguments already) be more acceptable to everyone than the rough attempts that have formerly been made to define a clutch situation, when you look at the actual situations that are chosen. This combines both worlds, and looks at things as what they are, rather than trying to fit everything into one box. I think it would create a very interesting, if not useful, set of data.

But semantics comes into play here. What one person may define as a "clutch" situation, another may not, including the hitter which would render the entire datapiece useless.

On the other hand if we collectively, here at SP, want to attempt at defining it ourselves, we would then at least have black and white statements on whether or not someone is or isn't "clutch". Of course, this would only be ourdefinition in our own vacuum, so to speak.



Edit: this could work for defense, too. Rather than having weird things like zone ratings, just have a guy going "man, he should've caught that," and then marking it down.

Much more difficult than judging hittiers in my opinion. You have to take into account where they line up defensively into this as well as each person's range. We can defnitively define a batter's box, a strike zone (though umpires seem to change this from a constant to a variable), fair/foul territory as well as specific distances that are already in place to define HR's (for example).

It's much harder to say "X" fielder was in "Y" position correctly (or incorrectly) and should have taken "Z" route to get to the ball/play etc. based on the fact that they have (objectively speaking) the entire field of play to work with and (subjectively speaking) specific zones for each individual player to defend (i.e SS, 2nd Base, LF, RF, CF). Am I making sense here or is this babble-speak?

[EverettsTheoryOfEvolution]

Ok, you've put forth exactly the objections I would've expected - which is to be....well...expected. I realize no one who likes stats wants any part of it to be muddied up with subjectivity, but I am banking on the idea that the majority of people really do subjectively judge these situations very similarly, and that the ones on the fringe that fall into question will be a small enough sample to not really affect the bulk of the data too much. I am also willing to bet that if the dataset was created, most people would not have a problem with it when they saw what data points were taken (apart from any general philosophical persuasions). I am willing to bet the datapoints would be more acceptable to people in general than any statistcial formulations that have thus far been advocated.

In any event, if the same person or group of people was to do the evaluation for everybody, you would at least have a consistent definition of a clutch situation, even though said definition can't be formulated. Obviously, it raises certain logistical problems, but they are soveable, if you have good people that are trained well and consistently. I think the theory is sound, and potentially realistic, too.

[Lord Papelbon]

Maybe we're having two separate discussions then. I thought this was a "Does clutch exist?" debate, not "Who would you rather see at the plate?". Thus, in my eyes, my question is different than anything else we've been talking about, no?[/quote]

I don't think they are different discussions. Based on most of the responses, most people would prefer to have Ortiz up in that situation rather than Manny although Manny for the most part will put up better statistical numbers.

So you can draw a conclusion that there is something relative to "clutch" that exists if you are hoping a different player than the one with the best (hitting) stats (in this case) comes up in that crucial situation.

And if that is not something to measure it by then what would be a measurement of what clutch is?

[Fully Tilted]

I don't think they are different discussions. Based on most of the responses, most people would prefer to have Ortiz up in that situation rather than Manny although Manny for the most part will put up better statistical numbers

In a vacuum, that's a silly notion though isn't it? Why would we want a guy at the plate who has worse numbers, than the guy who has better numbers? (And I'm not specifically talking about Manny or Ortiz at this point)

So you can draw a conclusion that there is something relative to "clutch" that exists if you are hoping a different player than the one with the best (hitting) stats (in this case) comes up in that crucial situation.

Again, I want the guy with the better stats up 10 times out of 10.

And if that is not something to measure it by then what would be a measurement of what clutch is?

I wish I knew ;)

[oldskool138]

Nobody called you a "homer". My point was that saying "Clutch exists" based on 162 baseball games a year doesn't provide enough information to base that on, in my opinion.

You claimed I was a "cold facts guy" as if it's a dubious way to determine performance. Instead of categorizing you, I asked you questions.

I didn't mean to come off like I was being condesending. I'm just not a big stats guy outside of the basic stuff. And since the Sox are focusing more on OPS/OBP I've started to follow those stats.

To answer your question, clutch situations exist. Clutch players come through in those situations more often than not. Non-clutch players don't more often than not.

Peace, Tilted. Great debate!:)

[Fully Tilted]

Ok, you've put forth exactly the objections I would've expected - which is to be....well...expected. I realize no one who likes stats wants any part of it to be muddied up with subjectivity, but I am banking on the idea that the majority of people really do subjectively judge these situations very similarly, and that the ones on the fringe that fall into question will be a small enough sample to not really affect the bulk of the data too much. I am also willing to bet that if the dataset was created, most people would not have a problem with it when they saw what data points were taken (apart from any general philosophical persuasions). I am willing to bet the datapoints would be more acceptable to people in general than any statistcial formulations that have thus far been advocated.

Hey man, A+ for effort and everything but my point still stands. You're assuming a lot in saying that you think most people would agree on a general amount of data sets used to define "clutch".

I do understand your point though and I do think that every individual can define "clutch" on their own terms, rank and rate every player and present their findings accordingly. I do not expect it to be accepted by the masses though without some people disagreeing with the data included as "clutch".

We alos need to clear up something. When you say, "a person who watches a lot of baseball can define "clutch", we need to leave it at that. It is that person's viewpoint and it might not even be the hitter's viewpoint.
What if Ortiz (for example) is really nervous and feels the most pressure in his first AB of the day in every game? His last AB would whne he would be in a "comfort zone". I guess my point is, who defines "clutch" or "clutch situations"? The hitter or the observer?

In any event, if the same person or group of people was to do the evaluation for everybody, you would at least have a consistent definition of a clutch situation, even though said definition can't be formulated. Obviously, it raises certain logistical problems, but they are soveable, if you have good people that are trained well and consistently. I think the theory is sound, and potentially realistic, too.[/quote]

[Lord Papelbon]

In a vacuum, that's a silly notion though isn't it? Why would we want a guy at the plate who has worse numbers, than the guy who has better numbers? (And I'm not specifically talking about Manny or Ortiz at this point)

True, but I think that explains this situation.



Again, I want the guy with the better stats up 10 times out of 10.

We'll just have to agree to disagree because in this case I'd rather have Ortiz over Manny and wouldn't want Boggs up regardless of the numbers he put up yearly.



I wish I knew ;)

Question- How did you separate the quotes to answer that way? I tried the multiquote but didn't work.

[EverettsTheoryOfEvolution]

But this isn't about being in a vacuum. It's about a very specific situation. I think the point is that Manny has the better stats overall, not in that situation. I think most of us feel that Ortiz would have the better stats in that situation, if there was a reliable way to measure those stats. In the absence of any such way, we still feel strongly enough that Ortiz is better in that situation to hand him the bat.

[Fully Tilted]

I didn't mean to come off like I was being condesending. I'm just not a big stats guy outside of the basic stuff. And since the Sox are focusing more on OPS/OBP I've started to follow those stats.

To answer your question, clutch situations exist. Clutch players come through in those situations more often than not. Non-clutch players don't more often than not.

Peace, Tilted. Great debate!:)

No worries--but I order you and Lord Papelbon to change your fargin avatars!! I can't tell you two apart!

I respect your opinion OS-Great debate indeed :)

[oldskool138]

No worries--but I order you and Lord Papelbon to change your fargin avatars!! I can't tell you two apart!

I respect your opinion OS-Great debate indeed :)

I was here first! But since he has Paps in his name I'll be a good sport and change mine.

[Fully Tilted]

But this isn't about being in a vacuum. It's about a very specific situation. I think the point is that Manny has the better stats overall, not in that situation. I think most of us feel that Ortiz would have the better stats in that situation, if there was a reliable way to measure those stats. In the absence of any such way, we still feel strongly enough that Ortiz is better in that situation to hand him the bat.

Well I think the situation is the question at hand and if it is defined, what's the sample size?

Who would you rather up in the 9th inning with the bases loaded, down by 3 runs, at home? Ortiz or Manny?

Based on GW HR's, Ortiz has the edge but based on Grand Slams, Ramirez is second all-time in that category. There's a rub.

The "situation" needs to be defined before we can evaluate if an objective answer can be reached.

[oldskool138]

I was here first! But since he has Paps in his name I'll be a good sport and change mine.

It doesn't get any more oldskool than Wake. :D

[EverettsTheoryOfEvolution]

Yeah, I didn't expect my idea to go over too well, but I think it's more about what you said, getting people to accept it, than about any true inconsistencies. A good example is March Madness selection committee. There is always controversy over which "bubble teams" should be included, but when is the last time these issue really affected who won the title (I odn't know the answer to this becuase i don't watch basketball, lol).

I guess I have faith that human subjective impressions tend to be similar enough, and that people should be open minded enough to try it, but who knows, I could be dead wrong. Just thought it might be interseting.

[Fully Tilted]

Question- How did you separate the quotes to answer that way? I tried the multiquote but didn't work.


Just add "quote" (in brackets) at the beginning of whatever you want to put in quotations and put "/quote" (also in brackets at the end)

[Fully Tilted]

Yeah, I didn't expect my idea to go over too well, but I think it's more about what you said, getting people to accept it, than about any true inconsistencies. A good example is March Madness selection committee. There is always controversy over which "bubble teams" should be included, but when is the last time these issue really affected who won the title (I odn't know the answer to this becuase i don't watch basketball, lol).

I hate that argument about the selection committee and "bubble teams". If you make the bracket more than the current 64 teams, you'll still have teams on the bubble. Enlarging the bubble doesn't solve the problem.

And your point makes sense to me, it more than likely wouldn't effect the outcome of the entire tournament.

I guess I have faith that human subjective impressions tend to be similar enough, and that people should be open minded enough to try it, but who knows, I could be dead wrong. Just thought it might be interseting.

Hey man, I don't mean to sound rejectionary. If you want to try and define it, I'm on board. But my main point from before is that we need to at least agree that the observers are creating the boundaries even though a hitter might not feel that he is in a clutch situation or pressure situation.

[EverettsTheoryOfEvolution]

yeah, that's exactly my point - no matter what, you can't remove that subjective element involved with the bubble teams. However, with the given format, I think it doesn't make a difference enough times to be statistically significant. Same thing here - I think people would argue about what is clutch, but there would enough agreement when push comes to shove to make a meaningful set of data.

[EverettsTheoryOfEvolution]

Ok, Fully Tilted, I have another idea. Let's reduce the definition of "clutch situation" to a small set of circumstances that no one would disagree with. This will leave out alot of things people might see as clutch, but we could move forward on the assumption that this reduced definition represents a reasonable subset of all clutch situations, and therefore, if we can find enough events that match the criteria, we can reasonably claim to make a distinction between clutch and non-clutch performance. The risk we would run with this method is that it might exaggerate the results a bit, though you could also argue that if there is no difference TO exxagerate, then it won't show up anyway. The only problem would be finding enough events to make it statistically significant. Entire careers might have to be analyzed. My suggestion for the reduced definition of "clutch" would be, batting in the 9th inning, where the batter could potentially tie or or win the game in that at-bat.

[Lord Papelbon]

I was here first! But since he has Paps in his name I'll be a good sport and change mine.

Thank you sir. I saw you in another post and wondered why your Avatar was different. I'm sure I could find something different, you were here first.

[Fully Tilted]

My suggestion for the reduced definition of "clutch" would be, batting in the 9th inning, where the batter could potentially tie or or win the game in that at-bat.

I would suggest that we open it up to a few more innings, other than the 9th. I tend to fall in to the category of people that feel that every inning and thus, every at bat holds importance--not just the last one. But in the spirit of creating our own "clutch", I can live with it only including AB's that occur late in a game.

How about '7th inning on, with the ability to tie or take the lead'?

This would take into account that the last 3 innings are sometimes the pivot point in games as SP's are removed and bullpens are often left to seal a win or keep their offense in the game to stage a late-inning rally. It would also include extra-innings which I figured you meant to include but technically didn't

[EverettsTheoryOfEvolution]

Yes, I extra innings of course. I'll go with your 7th inning on, even though I worry it starts to tread into the gray area a little. I agree that every at bat is important, but to try and grasp that elusive "clutch" we need to identify the at bats that make you sit on the edge of your seat while you're watching. Any bases-loaded at bat might do that, for example, though it would do it more so at the end of the game than the beginning. These are the gray areas I was trying to avoid by narrowing the definition down to something that is decidedly non-inclusive, but thereby making everything that IS included not subject to doubt by anyone. So, yeah 7th +, including extras, where the batter has the ability to tie or take the lead in that at bat. I'll start trying to pull some stats and see what happens - I've never really done anything like this before, so we'll see what happens, lol.

[Fully Tilted]

Yes, I extra innings of course. I'll go with your 7th inning on, even though I worry it starts to tread into the gray area a little. I agree that every at bat is important, but to try and grasp that elusive "clutch" we need to identify the at bats that make you sit on the edge of your seat while you're watching. Any bases-loaded at bat might do that, for example, though it would do it more so at the end of the game than the beginning. These are the gray areas I was trying to avoid by narrowing the definition down to something that is decidedly non-inclusive, but thereby making everything that IS included not subject to doubt by anyone. So, yeah 7th +, including extras, where the batter has the ability to tie or take the lead in that at bat. I'll start trying to pull some stats and see what happens - I've never really done anything like this before, so we'll see what happens, lol.

Neither have I, up until a few years ago, I wasn't really a stats guy but it can pretty interesting. Baseball, moreso than any other sport in my opinion, is a game based on individual statistics. It's the only sport where an individual gets his own turn at something (Bill James quote). It's also the only sport that does not operate by a game clock and theoretically speaking, could go on to infinity if no outs are ever recorded (also Bill James). Obviously, that would never happen but the game can be measured by it's "control" which is the "outs" and numerous sets of statistics can be derived from that.

I'll check out some stats and stuff too. Tonight and tomorrow are out but Saturday I should have some time to dig. I also owe some effort to the "Pitching Staff" thread which I said I would look up stats on all of our guys (may have bit off more than I could chew there!) so I got some research to do.

It's all good though, it gets me prepared for Fantasy Baseball...:D

[EverettsTheoryOfEvolution]

I have to make myself an avatar! *hurries off*

[Lord Papelbon]

I would suggest that we open it up to a few more innings, other than the 9th. I tend to fall in to the category of people that feel that every inning and thus, every at bat holds importance--not just the last one. But in the spirit of creating our own "clutch", I can live with it only including AB's that occur late in a game.

How about '7th inning on, with the ability to tie or take the lead'?

This would take into account that the last 3 innings are sometimes the pivot point in games as SP's are removed and bullpens are often left to seal a win or keep their offense in the game to stage a late-inning rally. It would also include extra-innings which I figured you meant to include but technically didn't

Not sure if that would really qualify. There is too much of the game left and at that point you're relying on pitching to hold it....

[Undertaker #59]

Question- How did you separate the quotes to answer that way? I tried the multiquote but didn't work.

But this isn't about being in a vacuum. It's about a very specific situation. I think the point is that Manny has the better stats overall, not in that situation. I think most of us feel that Ortiz would have the better stats in that situation, if there was a reliable way to measure those stats. In the absence of any such way, we still feel strongly enough that Ortiz is better in that situation to hand him the bat.

The multi-quote should work as I point out above. Just hit the " button and turn it orange for each post, then hit post reply. If you are talking about sperating quotes from a single post, you need to manually add the [ quote] [ /quote ] tags on each section.

[Lord Papelbon]

The multi-quote should work as I point out above. Just hit the " button and turn it orange for each post, then hit post reply. If you are talking about sperating quotes from a single post, you need to manually add the [ quote] [ /quote ] tags on each section.

Thanks. The latter was what I meant.

[JD10367]

Haven't read this whole thread, but of course clutch hitting exists. Being "clutch" exists in all sports. With DJ's passing, people were mentioning how his PPG went up in the playoffs; that's clutch. Bird was clutch. Peyton Manning has the pretty numbers, but up until this season Brady had him beat hands-down in "clutch". Vinatieri's been a clutch kicker. On the Bruins, um... okay, well, I can't think of a good example for them, LOL, but I'm sure SOMEONE has been clutch.

When you say it over and over, clutch is a weird word. Clutch. Clutch. Clutch, clutch, clutch, clutchclutchclutch. Sounds like a chicken with a speech impediment.

[oldskool138]

Haven't read this whole thread, but of course clutch hitting exists. Being "clutch" exists in all sports. With DJ's passing, people were mentioning how his PPG went up in the playoffs; that's clutch. Bird was clutch. Peyton Manning has the pretty numbers, but up until this season Brady had him beat hands-down in "clutch". Vinatieri's been a clutch kicker. On the Bruins, um... okay, well, I can't think of a good example for them, LOL, but I'm sure SOMEONE has been clutch.

When you say it over and over, clutch is a weird word. Clutch. Clutch. Clutch, clutch, clutch, clutchclutchclutch. Sounds like a chicken with a speech impediment.

I think what it boils down to is that there are clutch (or late-in-the-game game changing) situations. Since we are dealing within the narrow focus of clutch hitting, there are clutch hitters and players who get a clutch hits but are not considered by most to be clutch. Ortiz is a clutch hitter, meaning that he consistently produces when there's an opportunity to get a game changing hit. Loretta is not a clutch player, but he got a clutch hit (walk-off homer) on Patriots Day last year.

IMHO, it's really a subjective thing. People apply the "clutch" tag on players and situations differently. The bottom line is that clutch exists but is defined differently by different people. That's what makes baseball the greatest sport in the world. We all see the same game but interpret it differently. :D

[JD10367]

I think what it boils down to is that there are clutch (or late-in-the-game game changing) situations. Since we are dealing within the narrow focus of clutch hitting, there are clutch hitters and players who get a clutch hits but are not considered by most to be clutch. Ortiz is a clutch hitter, meaning that he consistently produces when there's an opportunity to get a game changing hit. Loretta is not a clutch player, but he got a clutch hit (walk-off homer) on Patriots Day last year.

Well, like anything else in life, "once is an anomaly, twice is a pattern". This applies to many things, such as your car stalling on the road, your wife catching you trying on her panties, and athletes producing in key situations. :D

One clutch hit does not a clutch player make. Repeated clutch hits do.

I guess you'd also have to differentiate between players who are clutch but not typically "great" players (i.e. Hall of Fame first-ballot All-Star type guys whose names are always the first ones uttered when discussing their sport and position) vs. players who are clutch AND clearly great players. Brady, Vinatieri, and Ortiz would be in the latter category, while someone might argue that DJ (at least in his older, Celtic years) was more of the former.

Vrabel might be a good example: he's clutch, but I don't know if he'd blow you away with his stats and physicality and how he performs all the time; he doesn't have the natural athletic gifts of a lot of linebackers, but he always seems to be there when most needed. His linemate, Bruschi, is another good example. Troy Brown, another.

The Sox have had a few guys who were occasionally clutch (e.g. Kapler, Youkilis) but I don't know if anyone has fallen into the clutch category consistently. Ortiz is clutch but he's also clearly established himself as a superstar. Schilling was clutch when needed, as was Pedro.

Perhaps Wakefield could be considered clutch? Dunno.

[oldskool138]

Perhaps Wakefield could be considered clutch? Dunno.

I love Wake but he's not clutch. The knuckler is too wild of a pitch to be throw with effectiveness. A lot of it depends on weather conditions, in-game pressure and just the plain wackiness of the pitch.

Look at the best game he ever threw. It was a 1-0 loss to the Yankees at The Stadium. He struck out 12 batters and only gave up (something like) three hits over nine innings...but he let one pitch hang a bit and that cheater Giambi got a crap solo shot off it.

If you told me to describe Wake in one word, I'd say "consistent" because you know about what his win/loss record and ERA are going to be by the end of the year. Clutch for a pitcher means that you consistently stop a team's losing streak or pick up big save after big save. Wake doesn't do that but he will give you quality innings.

[Lord Papelbon]

Along these lines, would a good closer have to be considered clutch? I'd say no, because they're in that position all the time. They can be a great closer and save all the games but since that is their role on the team I would not qualify them as clutch....

[Fully Tilted]

Not sure if that would really qualify. There is too much of the game left and at that point you're relying on pitching to hold it....

To hold it from......?? If you finish that statement you have your answer my friend :D

There really isn't that much of the game left though IMO. In a game you are given 27 outs, when it's your turn to bat in the 7th inning, you only have 9 left. Plus it very well could be said player's last AB in the game.

[oldskool138]

Along these lines, would a good closer have to be considered clutch? I'd say no, because they're in that position all the time. They can be a great closer and save all the games but since that is their role on the team I would not qualify them as clutch....

There are plenty of crap "closers" out there. Look at that kid the Tribe tried to use in Fenway last year. He gave up two walk-off hits in two back-to-back games the Indians could have won. Same thing with "Everyday" Eddie Guardado with Seattle.

<O:p</O:pThat's the problem with finding a closer. They have to mentally and physically tough. Dick “The Monster” Radatz was one of the first modern day closers because he was so tough. Eck took it to the next level and Mariano perfected the science of closing. I think just about anybody could get one of those 3 run saves. It's the one run saves (especially in a big market or during a pennant race) that really test your mettle.


So, yeah, I'd say a prerequisite for the Closer is "clutchness". Then the question becomes, can you learn to be clutch or is it something your born with?

[EverettsTheoryOfEvolution]

I wanted to say closers are chosen as closers because they are clutch, but I'm not so sure now. If you go by the theory that any good pitcher can get 3 outs most of the time, then the primary quality you would want in a closer is consistency. Maybe there is some clutch in them, since the game is always on the line, but I think it is maybe not the biggest factor for them.

I kind of agree about the 7th inning, too, which is why I had reservations before. If you are leading off the 7th inning, you know that it is very likely you will get another hack before the game ends. There's no doubt a game can get tense in the 7th, but the same situation is that much more tense in the 9th. Obviously it's not black and white, there are varying degrees, which is why I it's so hard to define. The 9th inning though there is no doubt there is that undefinable "electric" feeling. Anyhow, I started looking at some stats, and I will look at both 7th plus, and 9th plus.

[Fully Tilted]

I kind of agree about the 7th inning, too, which is why I had reservations before. If you are leading off the 7th inning, you know that it is very likely you will get another hack before the game ends. There's no doubt a game can get tense in the 7th, but the same situation is that much more tense in the 9th. Obviously it's not black and white, there are varying degrees, which is why I it's so hard to define. The 9th inning though there is no doubt there is that undefinable "electric" feeling. Anyhow, I started looking at some stats, and I will look at both 7th plus, and 9th plus.

The thing is though, if you only use 9th inning AB's where a current player has the opportunity to tie or take the lead in a game, you're data set will be a sample size. Numbers tend to be skewed to extremes under sample sizes.

[EverettsTheoryOfEvolution]

The thing is though, if you only use 9th inning AB's where a current player has the opportunity to tie or take the lead in a game, you're data set will be a sample size. Numbers tend to be skewed to extremes under sample sizes.

Agreed. That's one reason I decided I was ok with 7+. Over the course of a career, the 9th inning stats might be significant though.

[Fully Tilted]

Agreed. That's one reason I decided I was ok with 7+. Over the course of a career, the 9th inning stats might be significant though.

It may also be interesting to compare 9th Inning+ to 7th Inning+ to see if there is in fact a significant difference in stats one way or the other. Though I imagine that the 9th Inning+ stats will weigh heavily on what the 7th Inning+ stats are because the data sets may not be very large.

[nomars_girl]

I agree completely. There is certainly such a thing as a clutch hit. We have all seen it. There is no evidence that there is any such thing as a "clutch hitter", however. Most of the players that you can think of who always seem to come up with the big hit when you need it most also come up with the big hits when they aren't as important. They are simply good hitters. There are no hitters in the game who do statistically BETTER in these situations than they do overall as hitters. If any appear to, it is most likely related to the small sample size as only a small % of the hitters at-bats will be in these crucial situations.

It is mostly a perception. Sure, it does seem like Papi is always getting the big hit in the biggest situations. It also seems like ARod is always failing in those same situations. Sure, I can remember plenty of great Papi moments and can also remember plenty of situations when ARod didn't get the big hit. But I think our memories are selective. We want to remember Papi's big moments because we are Sox fans and because you just can't help liking the guy. No one likes ARod - including his teammates. It is only natural that we focus more on his failures while minimizing his successes. When he has a great game and drives in a bunch of runs, the reaction is always - so what? It was 10-3 (even if he drove in 6 of those personally).

[EverettsTheoryOfEvolution]

There is no evidence that there is any such thing as a "clutch hitter", however.

I aim to prove there is :icon_supe

Then I will prove that team chemistry affects a team's W/L record

Then I will prove that the gyroball really exists

Then I will show mathematically that Johnny Damon is, literally, an idiot

:icon_supe:icon_supe:icon_eyes

[nomars_girl]

Then I will show mathematically that Johnny Damon is, literally, an idiot

:icon_supe:icon_supe:icon_eyes


Well that part will be easy. :)

[Fully Tilted]

I agree completely. There is certainly such a thing as a clutch hit. We have all seen it. There is no evidence that there is any such thing as a "clutch hitter", however. Most of the players that you can think of who always seem to come up with the big hit when you need it most also come up with the big hits when they aren't as important. They are simply good hitters. There are no hitters in the game who do statistically BETTER in these situations than they do overall as hitters. If any appear to, it is most likely related to the small sample size as only a small % of the hitters at-bats will be in these crucial situations.

What she said :D

Welcome aboard--and I agree with you 100%.

It is mostly a perception. Sure, it does seem like Papi is always getting the big hit in the biggest situations. It also seems like ARod is always failing in those same situations. Sure, I can remember plenty of great Papi moments and can also remember plenty of situations when ARod didn't get the big hit. But I think our memories are selective. We want to remember Papi's big moments because we are Sox fans and because you just can't help liking the guy. No one likes ARod - including his teammates. It is only natural that we focus more on his failures while minimizing his successes. When he has a great game and drives in a bunch of runs, the reaction is always - so what? It was 10-3 (even if he drove in 6 of those personally).

Also agreed, one situation where A-Rod did come through was in the game a few years back where Schilling tested out his "closer" legs for the first time. A-Rod promptly smacked a HR that must have carried 420+ feet at Fenway.

[oldskool138]

Also agreed, one situation where A-Rod did come through was in the game a few years back where Schilling tested out his "closer" legs for the first time. A-Rod promptly smacked a HR that must have carried 420+ feet at Fenway.

I was at that game. I have NEVER heard Fenway get that loud before or since. It stayed ear shatteringly loud until the A-Rod bomb. But seeing Schilling come out of that bullpen is a moment I won't soon forget even though it didn't work out.

[Lord Papelbon]

I was at that game. I have NEVER heard Fenway get that loud before or since. It stayed ear shatteringly loud until the A-Rod bomb. But seeing Schilling come out of that bullpen is a moment I won't soon forget even though it didn't work out.

I was at that game too...it was one of the best experiences.

Some others,
Trot came off the bench and hit the game winning home run in the 11th or 13th inning in the playoffs.

I was also there for one of Papi's walkoffs against the Yankees extra innings very cold night, I only remember because I was standing in line getting my wife hot chocolate when it happened....everyone ran out of the park screaming.

[nomars_girl]

I was at Schilling's second bloody sock game.

I should have been at the Johnny Damon "And he can keep running all the way to New York" game, but I was traveling for work. My brother had a connection for playoff tickets, but lives in Arizona. I traded him a plane ticket for a playoff ticket. The game we had tickets for (Friday night) was rained out. The tickets would be honored on Monday for Game 5 (if necessary). He went home on Sunday and I was away on a business trip. Our sister got to use the tickets. They were 4 rows behind the Red Sox dugout too. I never even saw the game.

[oldskool138]

I was at Schilling's second bloody sock game.

I should have been at the Johnny Damon "And he can keep running all the way to New York" game, but I was traveling for work. My brother had a connection for playoff tickets, but lives in Arizona. I traded him a plane ticket for a playoff ticket. The game we had tickets for (Friday night) was rained out. The tickets would be honored on Monday for Game 5 (if necessary). He went home on Sunday and I was away on a business trip. Our sister got to use the tickets. They were 4 rows behind the Red Sox dugout too. I never even saw the game.

You should get the '04 Sox postseason DVD set! The only thing that sux about it is that it doesn't have the Angels series. It'll get you through the long baseball-less winter months. :)

[nomars_girl]

I just know that if I watch that game I will keep thinking that I should have been there. You can see my brother in law in the World Series video.

My brother and I were there for the rainout screaming "Play Ball!!" At the top of our lungs.
The only player who came out and acknowledged the fans was Johnny Damon. He signed my hat.
Traitor.

[oldskool138]

I just know that if I watch that game I will keep thinking that I should have been there. You can see my brother in law in the World Series video.

My brother and I were there for the rainout screaming "Play Ball!!" At the top of our lungs.
The only player who came out and acknowledged the fans was Johnny Damon. He signed my hat.
Traitor.

Well, at least a lot of Damon fans can become Dice-K fans this year. :D

[nomars_girl]

I've been trying to find a good way to change the lettering on my t-shirt. (Bought it the night he signed my hat ....)

[#1Patsfan_chica]

I can't stand Damon.

But that reminds me. I need a new jersey. This season I'm going to get a Big Papi jersey and I might invest in a Dice-K.

[oldskool138]

I can't stand Damon.

But that reminds me. I need a new jersey. This season I'm going to get a Big Papi jersey and I might invest in a Dice-K.

Any Damon t-shirt or jersey can be made into a Dice-K one with a little red, gray or white duct tape. :D

[nomars_girl]

Any Damon t-shirt or jersey can be made into a Dice-K one with a little red, gray or white duct tape. :D

I'm surprised some enterprising fan isn't marketing conversion kits.

[#1Patsfan_chica]

Any Damon t-shirt or jersey can be made into a Dice-K one with a little red, gray or white duct tape. :D

I have 2 jerseys: a home Nomar and an away Pedro but I love both guys so I leave them the way they are.

[oldskool138]

I'm surprised some enterprising fan isn't marketing conversion kits.

During the season, we should go out to Yawkey Way and set up a table labeled "Johnny Damon Jersey Conversion Kits $1". When people come up to us, we whip out some duct tape and tape over the name on the back. We'd make a killing! Take that Rem Dawgs!

Seriously, that's not a bad idea. Plus we could put "Sponsored by SoxPlanet.com" sign as well. Who wants to organize it? :)

[nomars_girl]

I have 2 jerseys: a home Nomar and an away Pedro but I love both guys so I leave them the way they are.


I have a home Nomar jersey and still wear it all the time. But I'm Nomar's Girl. :D

Besides, it's a home jersey - no name.