Clutch hitting is a myth

[QuaoarsKing]

Multiple mathematical studies have shown that clutch hitting is all a coincidence. There aren't players that hit better in "clutch" situations than in "non-clutch" situations. Any player who appears to is just a statistical illusion.<div>
</div><div>For example, the is no correllation from year to year of the best clutch hitters, like there would be if "clutch hitting" were really a skill.</div><div>
</div><div>Our problem is just that our hitting isn't that great to start with, and we've been very unlucky.</div>

 

[QuaoarsKing]

Multiple mathematical studies have shown that clutch hitting is all a coincidence. There aren't players that hit better in "clutch" situations than in "non-clutch" situations. Any player who appears to is just a statistical illusion.<div>
</div><div>For example, the is no correllation from year to year of the best clutch hitters, like there would be if "clutch hitting" were really a skill.</div><div>
</div><div>Our problem is just that our hitting isn't that great to start with, and we've been very unlucky.</div>

 

[saltslugs]

Multiple studies have been unable to prove that clutch hitting is fact. There is a big difference between proving it is a myth and not being able to prove it is real.

In reality, there is no way to statistically disprove such a thing.

 

[QuaoarsKing]

Multiple studies have been unable to prove that clutch hitting is fact. There is a big difference between proving it is a myth and not being able to prove it is real.

In reality, there is no way to statistically disprove such a thing.

Yes there is. If you can't provide any examples of players hitting differently in clutch situations with statistical significance, or that any player consistently leads in the category from year to year, that means that it does not exist. <div>
</div><div>The sameprincipleapplies to the "hot hand" in basketball.</div>

 

[MSDawg34]

Mr. Unclutch himself


2011 BA with no runners on 26-95 .274
2011 BA with RISP 14-73 .192

 

[shotgunDawg]

For the most part QuaoarsKing is correct. There is no such thing as clutch hitting as long as the players are putting the ball in play at the same rate they normally do. If you have a player that is consistently striking out looking, or taking too many pitches in clutch situations then that could mean that the player is nervous or scared. However, as long as the player is putting the ball in play at the same rate that he normally does in non-clutch situations, then there is no such thing as clutch hitting.

If you want proof then look at the Major League Baseball stat BABIP (Batting Average on Balls in Play). In Major League baseball on average 30% of balls that are put in play are hits. Many teams use this stat to project how a pitcher or position player willperform the following year. If the hitters BABIP strays to far above 30%, then the players stats are likely to regress. However, if the BABIP is to far below 30% then the players stats arelikely to get better. Same thing for pitchers, if hitters BABIP against a certain pitcher is well above 30% then the pitcher can be said to be unlucky and is likely to get better, and vice versa.

The good thing about BABIP is that is natuarally regresses towards the mean. So basically if someone can find the BABIP with runners in scoring position for our baseball team thus far then we could predict whether or not we are going get "more clutch".

 

[saltslugs]

I work in statistics and you cannot prove it does not exist. You say "if you can't provide any examples," which does not make sense. There are always players who shoot better than average in crucial situations every single year just as there are players who hit much better than average when they are in clutch situations. The point is, statisticians cannot statistically show that these players are doing any different from average. That is, they cannot prove that it is not randomness causing these results. That <span style="font-style: italic;">certainly</span> does not guarantee that the hot hand or clutch hitting is myth. That is, within millions of iterations (at bats or shots) it may very well show that clutch hitting does exist. Millions of iterations are impossible however.

I don't know anything else to say other than trust me, I have a terminal degree in the subject.

 

[smootness]

And what were Ryan Collins' numbers in those situations in other years? There is such a thing as 'being hot', and to some degree someone can be better at managing nerves and such in 'clutch' situations, but over time, a player generally is going to perform similarly regardless of situation.

 

[smootness]

Under that logic, you can never prove that it doesn't exist. But the same players don't lead the league in 'BA w/ RISP' or 'clutch hits', etc. every year. That's all I need to know. It fluctuates, like everything else.

 

[gravedigger]

What it most certainly stemms from is the idea that there are players who play constistantly all their careers.

And then there are those who raise their level of play when it matters most.

If you think those people dont exist, there is no 17ing computer that will prove to you otherwise. You have to pickup a glove, basketball, football or whatever and be there.

These people exist. They love the ball when the pressure is on.

They are clutch.

</p>

 

[saltslugs]

You can't prove it. That's my point. That's not my logic, that is the basis of statistics. Even in the case where a player leads league in clutch hits one year and does not the next, you cannot statistically prove that he did not simply lose his clutch ability. You're not disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with statistics, which is not an easy battle.

 

[saltslugs]

Not arguing as a statistician here...

Uggla batted sub-.200 for the first half of the season last year, then went on an extremely long hitting strength. No one would attribute this to randomness, he was cold, then improved. How do you account for this?

How can you prove to me that Collins did not simply get worse at being clutch last year just as Uggla had a hitting slump? As you stated people "perform similarly regardless of situation." I don't agree (but I can't prove you're incorrect).

 

[Hump4Hoops]

[No message]

 

[BoDawg.sixpack]

A statsprofessor I hadwould never allow us to conclude that the null hypothesis is always true,but rather that you"fail to reject the null". If I had put "accept the null" or "the null is true" I would have had points deducted.

In this case the null hypothesis would be that the batting averages do not show statistically significant differences between clutch and non-clutch situations. If we found thealternative hypothesis to be true (there is a statistically significant difference), we would simply conclude "reject the null". Now if we could sample every instance on record, then we would perfectly describe the population parameter and an absolute conclusion would be valid at any confidence interval.

The caveat we are left with is that even if we could analyze every batting statistic for every single batter that has ever played the game, new data is being generated every day. If we stopped our analysis today, eventually the sample size we retainedwould be insufficient to describe the new future population parameter.

 

[RonnyAtmosphere]

..the most athletic batters in the game of baseball are the most consistent clutch hitters.


That's why Albert Pujols is walked 90% of the time if 1st base is open...because Albert Pujols is a superior athlete who is great at clutch hitting.


You trying to parse clutch hitting down to a mathematical equation is fun for nerds, but has no real life application to the sheer athletic aspect of hitting the baseball.

MSU just doesn't have the athletes that can deliver clutch hits when they are needed most.


There is nothing mathematical about that reality.

 

[smootness]

I'm not disagreeing with statistics. I understand that based on the statistics, it can technically never be proven either way. Statistics don't say 'Player X is a good player,' either. I can take the stats and form an opinion. My opinion, and I think it is well-supported, is that, while there are some players who are better at handling pressure, 'being clutch', especially in baseball, is largely myth.<div>
</div><div>Anyone who argues that stats can prove anything one way or another is fighting a losing battle. You could argue that someone who hit .330 over a 10-year career is not a better hitter than someone who hit .260 over the same time period; they just got a ton more lucky bounces....but you'd also be an idiot. Stats can show probability, and they seem to indicate in this case that there's really no such thing as being clutch in baseball. Certain players don't seem to perform better or worse over the long haul in clutch situations than they do in any other situation.</div><div>
</div><div>But a simple 'technically, the statistics don't proveanything,' would have done the trick just fine. We all understand your point, but you're arguing it way too hard. I think you would agree with most who don't believe there is anything special to 'being clutch.'</div>

 

[smootness]

I would argue instead that clutch hitting is a feat of hitting, period.<div>
</div><div>Albert Pujols is 'great at clutch hitting' because he is great at hitting, period. He is the best hitter in baseball, so he is probably going to hit better in clutch situations than almost everyone.</div><div>
</div><div>I would like to see the numbers on how we've hit in so-called 'clutch' situations versus how we've hit in all other situations, and then compare that to other teams. I imagine that we'd find our players are performing pretty consistently across the board.</div><div>
</div><div>I don't know why people point out the 'clutch' situations. I think what people mean, instead of 'we stinkat clutch hitting' is, 'we stinkat hitting.' If your hitters aren't great, they probably won't magically become great hitters in critical moments. It's as if people think there are 2 separate times to hit, and they have nothing to do with each other and should be evaluated differently...as though hitting in innings 1-8 is a totally different skill than hitting in inning 9; or hitting with runners on 2nd and 3rd with 2 outs is a totally different skill than hitting with the bases empty and no outs. So then a .250 hitter has the capability of constantly driving in runs in huge moments because he has a 'clutch gene.' I would guess that .250 hitter will get hits in big moments about 1/4 of the time, while a .400 hitter will do it about 40% of the time. It's not because they're a better clutch hitter; they're just a better hitter.</div>

 

[patdog]

Looks like nobody in the NBA was really a clutch shooter when the game was on the line from the 02/03 season through partway through the 08/09 season.

Link

Was looking for Michael Jordan's percentage and didn't find it quickly.

 

[jb1020]

But I agree, clutch hitting is a myth.

 

[Bulldog Bruce]

If there is Choking, such as Alex Rodriguez, There is not choking, such as Reggie Jackson. Not Choking in a pressure situation is clutch hitting.

There have always been players who can handle pressure much better than others. That is a clutch player. I also think there are times when your concentration level can peak due to pressure. So if there is a negative reaction to pressure, there has to be a positive reaction to pressure.

I will give you one example from my career. 1981 We are facing Kentucky in the SEC tournament. Jeff Keener, Kentucky's closer and the SEC era leader that year had like a .120 batting average against him. He threw this underhand sidearm curveball that started behind your back and came across the plate at about a 40 degree angle. Definitely a type of pitcher you never see and since Kentucky was in the East we never saw him before the tournament. There is no way I should have hit this guy. We are down one in the 8th and I come up with a runner on 1st. I had to say to myself to "stay in there if the ball is behind you". I had to get into a positive mindset. One thing was you knew this pitch was coming. Not sure what the count was but he throws the pitch and it looks like it is going behind me out of his hand. I force myself to step in as I normally would and wait for it to curve over the plate. I reached for it and hit it down the line over the left field fence. That was clutch hitting.

Our reliever gave up two runs in the next inning and we lost the game.

 

[saltslugs]

you cannot statistically show that it does not exist. Rejecting the null means that (statistically) clutch hitting exists. Failing to reject means that you cannot statistically show a difference. Failing to reject still does not prove there is a difference, it's just that we cannot show that there is a difference.

<span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="font-style: italic;"></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span>

 

[saltslugs]

"You could argue that someone who hit .330 over a 10-year career is not a
better hitter than someone who hit .260 over the same time period; they
just got a ton more lucky bounces....but you'd also be an idiot."

Statistical analysis would almost certainly show that there is a difference in this example. However, claiming that clutch hitting does not exist would be quite similar to claiming that the .260 hitter is a better hitter than the .330. For the player batting very well in clutch, you can't prove he is not better in tight situations compared to the player who is 0-5 or something.

I agree otherwise, but statistics isn't some novelty that can't show anything to be true. Statistical significance is extremely common, even for small data sets. These studies "showing" that clutch hitting does not exist are downright ridiculous if truly phrased in this way. For example, suppose player A bats 7-8 and player B bats 2-8. In this case, you cannot statistically show that player A is better. But the arguments made in this thread are that player A and B are PROVEN to be equal hitters. That's effing silly and these studies are far too casual about tossing around definitives.

 

[MSDawg34]

I know as a former player that your nerves and approach are much different with a 10 run lead than they would be down by 1 with the bases loaded. If you think baseball hitters have the same approach and mindset for every single AB then you are a fool.

I have shown how this works, with statistics over an entire season, for Ryan Collins. There are in fact clutch and unclutch hitters and it all boils down to focusing in pressure situations. Anyone who has ever played knows this.

 

[QuaoarsKing]

I concede the point that you can't conclusively prove that clutch hitting doesn't exist. I can't write QED after the statement. However, we have a HUGE sample size of over 100 years and can't show that there's any remote evidence that it does.<div>
</div><div>This is contrary to popular opinion, especially when it comes to our baseball team, so I just wanted to bring up the point. Cohen needs to recruit better hitters maybe, but not necessarily ones who had "clutch" moments in high school.</div>

 

[smootness]

Ok, I think I've found the problem. No one is saying that all batters hit the same in clutch situations. We're saying that players don't become better than themselvesin clutch situations. So, sure , players like Albert Pujols are better in clutch situations than other hitters...but they don't magically become better hitters in these moments. We're saying it's because they're just better hitters, not because they have something inside them that allows them to hit better in the clutch than normal.<div>
</div><div>And I think this is the problem with the whole 'clutch vs. not-clutch' argument. You're assuming all hitters are equal when they enter these critical moments. Like I said, it's as if you're saying that Jack Wilson should be measured similarly to Babe Ruth in clutch situations. Well, Babe Ruth has a higher batting average and more extra-base hits consistently than Jack Wilson in clutch situations; therefore, he is a better clutch hitter, and 'being clutch' is a reality. When the only reality is that Babe Ruth is just a better hitter than Jack Wilson, and they shouldn't be compared on the same scale.</div><div>
</div><div>You should compare hitters to themselves, not other hitters, in clutch situations to find out if being clutch is an actual thing. 'Clutch' hitters should outperform themselves in clutch moments; 'non-clutch' hitters should get worse. Over time, though, this hasn't been shown to happen; that's why we're saying it doesn't exist.</div>

 

[lazlow]

was a myth.

but for a .240ish-.250ish hitter, he always seems to play over his head in october.

 

[tcdog]

that you can't drive a 10 penny nail up it with a sledge hammer, then you chances of a clutch hit are slim to none with ole Slim leaving town last night. It is easier to hit with no pressure. Some people thrive under pressure some don't. Statistics are for losers, blah, blah blah, Clutch hitting is a fact.And the fact is We don't have any.

 

[lxadawg]

Say, what?

 

[BiscuitEater]

What it most certainly stemms from is the idea that there are players who play constistantly all their careers.

And then there are those who raise their level of play when it matters most.

These people exist. They love the ball when the pressure is on.

They are clutch.

</p>

Reginald Martinez "Reggie" Jackson, nicknamed "Mr. October" for his clutch hitting in the postseason with the New York Yankees. He helped win three consecutive World Series titles as a member of the Oakland Athletics in the early 1970s and also helped win two consecutive titles with the New York Yankees in the late 1970s. He is perhaps best remembered for hitting three consecutive home runs in the clinching game of the 1977 World Series. Jackson was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame in 1993.