The myth of the big game player in pro sports...
Saberman
Posts: 677
in Sports Talk
It seems that every couple of years these boards need a pinch to wake up from their day dreaming, because guys are still holding tightly to the myth of the big game player in pro sports.
Folks, I agree that some common citizens fail under pressure, and some can handle it. But in the realm of pro sports those guys are almost all weeded out by little league. If you ever played college ball, those games are as pressure packed as can be, and if a guy can handle that at that tender age, then they most assuredly have what it takes to handle sports 'pressure'.
With all this nonsense talk about QB's and the number of rings they have, and how that means that they can play in the big game, while others can not, the board still needs a wake up call. The Bradshaw stuff should outline that stuff out well enough.
But there has been baseball references made in those QB talks, and guys say they would take the player wiht the good post season stats over the guy with the good regular season stats. What they do not understnad is that player who has good post season stats is just as likely the following post season to do as bad, as he did good. It happens all the time. In the end, the more plate appearances they get in the post season, the more their results will resemble what the thousands of regular seasn at bats tell us.
But I ask people, if you truly do believe in those guys as big game players, then you must also believe that they are either stupid, or psychic.
Take this guy for example. In the ALCS(which are pretty darn important and pressure packed games), here is what he did in his 181 career plate appearances...
Batting average .227
On base % .298
SLG % .380
41 strikeouts, 17 base on balls
This guy is one of three things actully
1) He is a choker and cannot handle the pressure of the big game
2) He is stupid
3) He is psychic
Well, since it is Reggie Jackson, he is known as one of the biggest big game players ever, almost universally...so I guess he can't be #1, a choker.
Is he stupid then? Since everybody 'knows' that he is a big game player, then why on earth is he not using that mythical trait to perform in those big games? He must be stupid, because if I had that trait, I would put it to use all the time. Stupid is kind of mean, maybe he isn't.
Maybe he is psychic? Why? Because since he has this 'trait' of being able to raise his game to the occasion, he must know that he does not need to perform well in these games, because he knows that his teammates will do good enough so that they win...and THEN he could pull out the cape and show how it is done in the big games. Yeah, maybe he is psychic.
Then there is Bernie Williams. This guy should have retired right after the 1996 ALCS. Why? Because afte that series, he had played in three career post season series... he batted .429, .467, .474. He had 7 home runs in 14 games, and an OPS hovering around 1.500...better than Ruth! Had he retired after those 70 career post season apperances, HE could have been the new Reggie. Heck, seven home runs in 70 plate appearances is about as good as Reggie's 10 in 116 WS plate apperances...and his OPS dwarfed Reggie's!
Luckily for Bernie, he did not retire because he had a fine career, but in the end his OPS for his post season career was .850, much the same as his .858 for the regular season.
How about Arod? This guy was excellent with Seattle in the post season, and was even very good in his first couple with the Yankees. Then he hit a stretch of series where he just didnt' hit. He got the worst choker moniker in the history of sports. But I guess Arod read some books or did some zen, because he suddenly 'remembered' how to hit in the post season again in 2009 wiith 18 RBI in 16 games, OPS off the charts, and batting average off the charts!
Ryan Howard. LOL, I just can't...that is too easy, and I think he just struck out again!
Guys, when you drool over these post season stats, it really isn't much different than drooling over Neifi Perez atop the batting leader board on May 1st
Hey, did Jack Morris just pitch another game to the score again
Folks, I agree that some common citizens fail under pressure, and some can handle it. But in the realm of pro sports those guys are almost all weeded out by little league. If you ever played college ball, those games are as pressure packed as can be, and if a guy can handle that at that tender age, then they most assuredly have what it takes to handle sports 'pressure'.
With all this nonsense talk about QB's and the number of rings they have, and how that means that they can play in the big game, while others can not, the board still needs a wake up call. The Bradshaw stuff should outline that stuff out well enough.
But there has been baseball references made in those QB talks, and guys say they would take the player wiht the good post season stats over the guy with the good regular season stats. What they do not understnad is that player who has good post season stats is just as likely the following post season to do as bad, as he did good. It happens all the time. In the end, the more plate appearances they get in the post season, the more their results will resemble what the thousands of regular seasn at bats tell us.
But I ask people, if you truly do believe in those guys as big game players, then you must also believe that they are either stupid, or psychic.
Take this guy for example. In the ALCS(which are pretty darn important and pressure packed games), here is what he did in his 181 career plate appearances...
Batting average .227
On base % .298
SLG % .380
41 strikeouts, 17 base on balls
This guy is one of three things actully
1) He is a choker and cannot handle the pressure of the big game
2) He is stupid
3) He is psychic
Well, since it is Reggie Jackson, he is known as one of the biggest big game players ever, almost universally...so I guess he can't be #1, a choker.
Is he stupid then? Since everybody 'knows' that he is a big game player, then why on earth is he not using that mythical trait to perform in those big games? He must be stupid, because if I had that trait, I would put it to use all the time. Stupid is kind of mean, maybe he isn't.
Maybe he is psychic? Why? Because since he has this 'trait' of being able to raise his game to the occasion, he must know that he does not need to perform well in these games, because he knows that his teammates will do good enough so that they win...and THEN he could pull out the cape and show how it is done in the big games. Yeah, maybe he is psychic.
Then there is Bernie Williams. This guy should have retired right after the 1996 ALCS. Why? Because afte that series, he had played in three career post season series... he batted .429, .467, .474. He had 7 home runs in 14 games, and an OPS hovering around 1.500...better than Ruth! Had he retired after those 70 career post season apperances, HE could have been the new Reggie. Heck, seven home runs in 70 plate appearances is about as good as Reggie's 10 in 116 WS plate apperances...and his OPS dwarfed Reggie's!
Luckily for Bernie, he did not retire because he had a fine career, but in the end his OPS for his post season career was .850, much the same as his .858 for the regular season.
How about Arod? This guy was excellent with Seattle in the post season, and was even very good in his first couple with the Yankees. Then he hit a stretch of series where he just didnt' hit. He got the worst choker moniker in the history of sports. But I guess Arod read some books or did some zen, because he suddenly 'remembered' how to hit in the post season again in 2009 wiith 18 RBI in 16 games, OPS off the charts, and batting average off the charts!
Ryan Howard. LOL, I just can't...that is too easy, and I think he just struck out again!
Guys, when you drool over these post season stats, it really isn't much different than drooling over Neifi Perez atop the batting leader board on May 1st
Hey, did Jack Morris just pitch another game to the score again
Are you sure about that five minutes!?
0
Comments
As for star players coming through in big games, I can remember time and time again George Brett coming through when the Royals needed him. '80 Championship series, the rocket shot against Gossage, the Goose saying later he didn't know how fast he threw it, but it went out a lot faster than it came in. '85 league race with the Angels when he put the Royals on his back and hit about .470 the last week of the season with 2 inside the park homers, two outside the park homers and nine RBIs. '85 Championship series against Blue Jays, Royals down two games to none, Brett hits two homers, a double to lead the Royals. Denny Matthews saying later he's never seen a position player completely dominate a game and refuse to lose the way George did that game. Also had a great 85 world series. Even the pine tar game, dramatic shot against Gossage again to put the Royals ahead.
I guess Brett is probably the exception, great regular season player who was able to step it up a notch in the postseason and become even better with all the pressure raining down.
You make far too much sense to be posting on these boards.
You remind me of a lawyer asking the right questions to get the answers he wants the jury to hear.
Reggie Jackson is a home run hitter, so what do you do, you give his batting average! You forget to mention the home runs and when he hit them and how many games he turned around.
Why do you think the call him Mr. October?
And a lot of players have worse post season stats than regular season and a lot have better post season stats than regular season.
Why do you think that is? Good it be that post season stats are based on a much smaller amount of at bats (or what ever) And the more at bats (or what ever) are used....then the more accurate the guage is on the person in question.
I am certainly not a Terry Bradshaw fan, BUT I will give him credit for what he accomplished in his career. He didn't win 4 super bowls by being a terrible QB.
I don't know what you have against him............but you need to let it go and move on.
I suppose you think Brett Favre and Payton Manning should be guaged on their last interception rather than all of their other career stats!
<< <i>Saberman-
You remind me of a lawyer asking the right questions to get the answers he wants the jury to hear.
Reggie Jackson is a home run hitter, so what do you do, you give his batting average! You forget to mention the home runs and when he hit them and how many games he turned around.
Why do you think the call him Mr. October?
I am certainly not a Terry Bradshaw fan, BUT I will give him credit for what he accomplished in his career. He didn't win 4 super bowls by being a terrible QB.
I don't know what you have against him............but you need to let it go and move on.
>>
I would bet that either:
#1 Saberman hates the steelers, and what better player to take out his frustrations than Terry Bradshaw? The 2-time super bowl MVP, that made all those great plays. or
#2 sabermans hero didnt fare very well in the post-season.
<< <i>Saberman-
You remind me of a lawyer asking the right questions to get the answers he wants the jury to hear.
! >>
I was thinking a politician. Politicians from both sides of the aisle can twist a story to their own perfection.
What Saberman fails to understand (and thus he needs a wake up call), is that health care...er...the Bradshaw
debate..... will always have two sides to the story. Both sides can give accurate facts as to why each side is correct.
And yes, George Brett was a monster in the postseason. Ted Williams stunk in All Star games. Dave Stewart rose to
another level when pitching in the postseason. Was this out of mere chance, or more a reflection of the ebbs and
flow of streaks.
Why could Joe Montana always lead his team to a comeback victory at Notre Dame and San Fransisco ?
Why would John Elway always lead his team to a two minute drill comeback victory ?
Was it because their stats would just lead them too ? Well, Peyton Manning has the same stats as those two guys,
but doesn't perform in the clutch the way they did.
One poster said that the reason why the results are skewed is because of the limited amount of games, i.e the sample size. That person would be very correct, and that is why it is funny when you guys proclaim guys as choker or clutch based on a handful of games or 100 at bats.
A player fails in a few series, and he is deemed a choker. As outlined above, the reality is that given time, that person will end up playing toward his established baseline he has produced in the THOUSANDS of regular season at bats.
Dimeman, I gave Reggie's key stats OB%, SLG%. Those are the telling elements of a hitter, and those include home runs.
Is reggie a choker, stupid, or psychic? Based on your guys rationale he has to be one of them.
Or is it that it is the same up and downs that occur all the time in baseball...both his cold streaks and hot streaks in the playoffs? This is why, it doesn't make him a choker if he ends up with more cold streaks than hot, nor vice versa.
Like I said, proclaiming a player as clutch based on a handful of games or 100 odd at bats, has about the same merit as saying Neifi Perez is the best hitter in the league when he is atop the batting chart on May 1st.
George Brett had some great series, mostly because he happened to be a great hitter, and then because luck,chance, circumstance, and randomness were on his side during those small amount of games. Some great hitters had the reverse happen, and that doens't mean they can't play in the big game, nor does it mean that Brett has a trait of playing better in big games.
If it truly were the truth that he did indeed have a clutch trait, then again, why didn't he do it all the time and call upon that trait in the regular season? Is he stupid, or psychic? After all his OPS in the Post Seasons was 1.027, and in the regular season .857. If he truly had a trait where he could call upon an ability to play better at his will when the games are of higher stakes, then he must be stupid because why didn't he call upon that ability in the regular season all the time SO THAT HIS TEAM COULD GET TO MORE GAMES OF HIGHER STAKES????
Some great hitters like Arod had the luck, chance, circumstance, and randomness on his side when he was with Seattle, then during that streak in New York, he was labled a guy that was a choker. Then all of a sudden in 2009 those elements were on his side again.
It isn't some trait that is producing these blips of performance better than the established baseline of a players performance, as you guys think it is.
None of you has made a valid argument to explain the examples posed in the original post regarding Reggie, Arod, or Bernie Williams...or Ryan Howard.
None of you could explain if Reggie was stupid or psychic.
The reason why you can't answer is because luck, chance, circumstance, and randomness play havoc with the results in the limited amount of opportunities in post season play, thus producing results that make people believe that a guy is clutch, or a choker. When the reality is that he is EXACTLY what he is based on the THOUSANDS of regular season performances he has produced to establish what kind of player he is.
Blacklabel,
My hero did not play pro sports. That is part of your problem you have a pro athlete as a hero, and it skews your thinking. No need to reply to your points, as it always is above your level of understanding.
Yes, those were my old ID's. I found one I like better now.
One of the reasons why people always cling to this clutch notion, and this choker notion, is that it has been force fed down everybody's throats by the media forever. Currently you hear this garbage all the time on ESPN(you even had somebody on here quote an ESPN clown about the 'Manning face'...I would be ashamed to quote one of those hype machine guys). Previous era's had the sportswriters doing it.
People have to understand that the media has to create stories or they don't have a job, and the hero/goat storyline is about as good an attention grabber as there is. Some are really good at it, and as a group they have made people believe truly in that stuff.
It is conventional wisdom so to speak, and it is very hard for people to look past it because that is all they have been told their whole life. When you are told the hero/goat tale your whole life, it is pretty hard to look past it. Some wise people have been able to overcome that, as they once were believer in such things, but now hold a different perspective on it.
The evidence to support those archaic thoughts is pretty slim. The evidence to refute the myth is pretty strong...up above is just a mere sampling of it.
Why could Joe Montana always lead his team to a comeback victory at Notre Dame and San Fransisco ?
Why would John Elway always lead his team to a two minute drill comeback victory ?
Why did these QBs allow these teams to fall behind in the 1st place? That's not very clutch. When you referred to Dave Stewart's other wordly post season record, do you mean his 2-4 record in the WS, the biggest stage there is? Clutch is always measured after the fact. As a predictor, it means squat.
<< <i>
If it truly were the truth that he did indeed have a clutch trait, then again, why didn't he do it all the time and call upon that trait in the regular season? Is he stupid, or psychic? After all his OPS in the Post Seasons was 1.027, and in the regular season .857. If he truly had a trait where he could call upon an ability to play better at his will when the games are of higher stakes, then he must be stupid because why didn't he call upon that ability in the regular season all the time SO THAT HIS TEAM COULD GET TO MORE GAMES OF HIGHER STAKES????
Playoff purses ???
Every hear of hockey players playing soft at times during the regular season, and then crank it up for the playoffs.
It's called money. That's why Brett was called a "money" ballplayer. He played better when money was on the line.
Money is not on the line during the regular season. A player just earns his salary. There are bonuses in the playoffs,
and hence some players back in the 70's (not so much today), were driven by the financial rewards that came with
advancing.
. >>
<< <i>Saberman - have you ever gone by the username Hoopster or Skinpinch? >>
Yeah, it became just a tad too obvious.
So your stance is that Brett didn't play at his best in the regular season, but played harder when the money is on the line...hmmm.
So now we add another thing that the so called 'clutch' player could be
1)Stupid
2)Psychic
3) a Dog
If George Brett did indeed do that, then he is all three of them. Because if he brought his 'A' game all the time in the regular season, then he would have MORE money games for his team to play in, therefore that makes him pretty stupid! He should have brought that 1.200 OPS during all of his seasons. I bet he regrets that decision, LOL.
Then he is also psychic, because if he is not bringing his 'A' game during the regular season, then he must know that his team will get to the money games, therefore he has psychic abilities and knows he doesn't need to try as hard in the regular season.
Before the Brett fans get up in arms, you can substitute pretty much any name in that scenario, and Brett was indeed a best of the best in his game, and merited that distinction with his body of work(unlike other hero worshiper type players that have not).
Also, did Reggie Jackson not want the money for all the ALCS games? They do get a bonus just for making the World Series, you do know that don't you? Since Reggie hit so poorly in the ALCS games, I guess he didn't want that money from those 'money' games. Maybe he was psychic and knew his team would make it there anyway so he could save his best for the WS.
He proves that the "myth" is in fact "reality".
He played at a consistent high level in the regular season and played even better in the playoffs.
Do you think the Bulls would have won 6 championships in the 1990's if Jordan had not played on the team?
If he had not taken his break to play baseball, it is possible that the Bulls would have won 8 championships in a row with MJ at the helm.
<< <i>
<< <i>
If it truly were the truth that he did indeed have a clutch trait, then again, why didn't he do it all the time and call upon that trait in the regular season? Is he stupid, or psychic? After all his OPS in the Post Seasons was 1.027, and in the regular season .857. If he truly had a trait where he could call upon an ability to play better at his will when the games are of higher stakes, then he must be stupid because why didn't he call upon that ability in the regular season all the time SO THAT HIS TEAM COULD GET TO MORE GAMES OF HIGHER STAKES????
Playoff purses ???
Every hear of hockey players playing soft at times during the regular season, and then crank it up for the playoffs.
It's called money. That's why Brett was called a "money" ballplayer. He played better when money was on the line.
Money is not on the line during the regular season. A player just earns his salary. There are bonuses in the playoffs,
and hence some players back in the 70's (not so much today), were driven by the financial rewards that came with
advancing.
. >>
>>
Good points. Same thing happens in individual sports like pro Tennis. In every decade, there are players who are consistently ranked in the top 10 year in and year out. They can beat other top ranked players in smaller tournaments, then choke in big tournaments. A great example is Michael Chang. At one time he was the #2 player in the world and the fastest player in the game. The guy could run down any ball. One year in the 90's i went to watch Chang play at a tournament in cincinnati and he just destroyed Andre Agassi. Chang won 34 career titles but only 1 grand slam.
I might be in the minority and I dont care because I LOVE this guys threads
Did so-and-so give it all this-or-that game?
Only the player, and the player alone, will ever know.
There is no statistic that can account for that. They can guess and hope it equals out.
<< <i>"There was a lot more I could have done off the field and in the film room that could have elevated my game to a different level," Vick said. "I was complacent at the time, somewhat lazy, and I settled for mediocrity. I thought what I was doing was enough." >>
Ironic, isn't it?
<< <i>So now we add another thing that the so called 'clutch' player could be
1)Stupid
2)Psychic
3) a Dog
>>
The most likely scenario is that George Brett and Reggie Jackson are none of those things, rather the author is the one who is stupid
Brett and Jackson were Hall-of-Fame level hitters; when Reggie Jackson hit a homerun, whether against Dodgers in the World Series or against the Tigers in May, it was because he swung the bat well. When he struck out, whether in the regular season, LCS or World Series, it was because he was not swinging the bat well enough. Stupidity and psychic powers have nothing to do with that.
He hit .357 with 10 homeruns in the World Series; he hit 563 homeruns, though at a much slower rate, April through September. The primary reason being because he was pretty good at the sport of baseball, specifically the skill of being able to swing the bat better than almost anyone else. It is no more mythical or magical than any other great hitter. The reason he struck out thousands of times, including a few times in the postseason, is because his swing wasn't perfect -- and some of the pitchers were ok, too. There is nothing stupid or psychic about that
To come up with the reasons you did would require either a high degree of stupidity or a complete inability to understand the sport of baseball
<< <i>so why are you on your third ID. Seems pretty lame. >>
Which one are you on, Boba?
Those reasons(psychcic and stupid) that 'I' came up with are the only reasonable expectations one can come up with if somebody insists that clutch is a trait, and DOES NOT attribute clutch to being mere randomness at the elite level.
I know the reason why Reggie or those guys had such different results in those situations...it was randomness from within his ABILITY that he had already established in the thousands of regular season at bats.
If somebody thinks that randomness is not the major factor, adn that clutch is the major factor, then they must also think the player is either stupid or psychcic(I don't think they are),
Nobody has answered the questions...
If the player could alter his ability to make himself better in money games, then why didn't he do that all the time in the regular season, and GET HIS TEAM TO MORE money games???
If Reggie was such a money player, why did he withhold that ability during the ALCS games?
Nobody has answered either of those two questions. If the answer is that they raise the level of their game for the top games, then it is only logical that they also think those players are Stupid of psychic(as outlined previously). And TOmG, you are pretty stupid if you don't understand this. My seventh grader can grasp it, why are you having such a hard time?
The answer is, a player will establish his ability level during the thousands of at bats he gets in MLB. Once he is in the playoffs, that ability is still the same, but since the time frame is so short you will see skewed results all over the place because of the limited amount of games there are for that ability level to show what it really is.
If you are a first grader and can't grasp this, the easy thing to remember that the clutch claims are of same validity of Neifi Perez leading hte league in hitting on May 1st and thinking he is the best hitter.
Stown, the Vick example is different. That is practice time. They probably all loaf in practice time. But how does that exaplain Reggie Jackson taking the ALCS games 'off', if he were a clutch player?
<< <i>I know the reason why Reggie or those guys had such different results in those situations...it was randomness from within his ABILITY that he had already established in the thousands of regular season at bats >>
So why do you go on to insist that randomness is more of a major factor than ability. If it was truly random, why do more World Series MVP go to above average players so much more often than below average ones?
Reggie Jackson hit homeruns against the Dodgers on three straight pitches. The reason the balls went out of the park is immaterial and has nothing to do with why they were clutch hits. All that matters is that it was the World Series and he set homerun records. That is why they were clutch
Reggie Jackson did not have some magical trait that made him elevate his hitting in October. Since you see seventh graders who understand this, what reason do you have that other people believe in it? You are attacking with such ridiculousness a position that no one believes in
<< <i>If the player could alter his ability to make himself better in money games, then why didn't he do that all the time in the regular season, and GET HIS TEAM TO MORE money games???
If Reggie was such a money player, why did he withhold that ability during the ALCS games?
Nobody has answered either of those two questions. If the answer is that they raise the level of their game for the top games, then it is only logical that they also think those players are Stupid of psychic(as outlined previously). And TOmG, you are pretty stupid if you don't understand this. My seventh grader can grasp it, why are you having such a hard time? >>
I did answer the questions. You chose to ignore it because, perhaps because it didn't fit conveniently into your preconceived sarcastic response
You are missing the point completely.
It isn't randomness in the sense you are thinking that anybody could just perform like Reggie did.
It is randomness that strays from the established baseline of a players true ability.
In Reggie's case his true ability sits around the level he established based on the thousands of regular season MLB at bats. He outdistanced HIS established level to a high degree in the World Series.
He didn't do that because he was clutch, but it was more a random output from a stud hitter.
Stud hitters have moments like that all the time in the regular season where they hit 5 home runs in three games, etc...
Because his happened to occur in the World Series, he is given the label of a clutch player...somebody that elevates his game in the post season.
But he doesn't elevate his game, because if a player really could do that, then they would do that more...why only elevate it in the World Series?
The ALCS games are of extremely high importance, and he did bad in those games. Why? More randomness straying from HIS BASELINE OF ABILITY, only this time, it was randomness the other way.
Reggie may have had clutch moments, but that doesn't make him 'clutch'. Making him clutch would indicate a character trait, and as outlined above, it is a myth for elite competition.
It makes no difference if the population believes in the myth. They have been brainwashed for over 100 years by the media about the hero/goat story, and you seem no different.
<< <i>Stown, the Vick example is different. That is practice time. They probably all loaf in practice time. >>
No, it's not different. Do you think Vick put in more or the same effort during practice or even during the game in Week 4 against TB or the week before playing in GB during the playoffs?
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, nor am I making excuses for any players. Reality is athletes do not give 100% physically day in and day out during a season. Regardless of training, work ethics, etc.. The human body cannot NATURALLY run at absolute peak performance all of the time; it eventually needs to take a breather and rest.
For some/most/whatever, they give 95% throughout the season but can kick it up to 100% when one perceives that it's needed most.
Again, it comes down to effort, which cannot be labeled with a numerical value. You just have to assume it all equals out over the course of a career. Not saying it's right or wrong, just is what it is.
To say that one can give 95% during the season and kick it up to 100% in the post season...that may be possible, but when a guy does do better than normal in the post season, the predominant reason is the randomness that happens all the time, and not that the guy is 'clutch' and therefore better than a guy who is equal but had the misfortune of the randomness fall the opposite way in his post season.
Reggie in the ALCS is the perfect example of the randomness.
In fact, hitters in baseball highlight it the best because there are less outside factors on their performance (as opposed to say a football player).
Their post season performances are so all over the board, and randomness is the most reasonable cause, otherwise Reggie would still play full tilt in the ALCS and not do as poorly as he did.
But I would say so far, your claim that the body cannot run at 100% peak performance ALL THE TIME...has been one of the best at explaining ONE of the causes of a jump in performance in post season. Though I would think that applies more to a basketball player(mainly on defense), or some football players(mainly blocking)...places where coasting is easier to hide.
<< <i>It is randomness that strays from the established baseline of a players true ability. >>
So why do you emphasize the randomness so much more than the high baseline?
<< <i>Because his happened to occur in the World Series, he is given the label of a clutch player...somebody that elevates his game in the post season. >>
Close...but still wrong. Because his homeruns happened to occur in the World Series, he is given the label of a clutch player...somebody who had clutch hits
Clutch does not indicate a character trait, it describes a play or situation
When even seventh graders understand this, shouldn't that be a clue that you are attacking something that exists only in your own mind?
Reggie Jackson...World Series performance is well known, no need to retype
Willie Mays...In 71 World Series Plate Appearances, BA .239, OB%.308, SLG %.282
That is about as opposite of the spectrum one can get when comparing stud hitters in their post season results.
So far the main reasons given for those types of performances are
1) Reggie was a 'Big Game' player, and stepped it up when it counted. He only played at optimal level in the big game.
2) Mays was NOT a big game player. But I have to ask here...did he 'step it down' to do so bad then?
3) Reggie was clutch and was good at handling pressure
4) Mays was a choker and was NOT good at handling pressure.
5) During elite play, random fluctuations occur all the time, and sometimes they just happen during the post season, thus causing fans to think one of the four above examples is the cause for the rise or drop in play.
Which is most plausible?
The initial post I made in this thread sheds light on why #1 - #4 just don't make sense to explain the reason why, and thus unwise to label Reggie as clutch, and Mays as not, or as a big game player.
If Reggie did indeed step it up only for the big games, then I said "isn't he stupid for not stepping it up in the regular season so that they could get to MORE meaningful games?" But the nail in the coffin to refute #1 and #3 is that the ALCS games ARE extremely big games, and Reggie did basically as poor as Mays did in the World Series. Why did he NOT step it up or handle the pressure in those huge games?
Also...
During Reggie's career his OPS in Late/Close games is .804
During Reggie's career his OPS when the score is greater than four runs is .888
Aren't at bats in late/close games the time to step it up as well? Aren't those pressure packed too? Why didn't he do it there?
Also, why did Arod step it up with Seattle and early on with NY in the post season, step it down for NY for four series, and then step it up big time again in 2009?
After answering all these questions, doesn't it become clear that Reggie just happened to get hot a few times in the post season...and Mays cold a few times? That happens all the time during the season.
If we found out that on every Tuesday in Reggie's career his OPS was .900, and every Wednesday his OPS was .820, would people then proclaim that he steps it up on Tuesdays?
TomG, I agree with your last post. They were clutch moments, but that doesn't mean he is clutch or has that trait.
<< <i>
<< <i>It is randomness that strays from the established baseline of a players true ability. >>
So why do you emphasize the randomness so much more than the high baseline?
<< <i>Because his happened to occur in the World Series, he is given the label of a clutch player...somebody that elevates his game in the post season. >>
Close...but still wrong. Because his homeruns happened to occur in the World Series, he is given the label of a clutch player...somebody who had clutch hits
Clutch does not indicate a character trait, it describes a play or situation
When even seventh graders understand this, shouldn't that be a clue that you are attacking something that exists only in your own mind? >>
I disagree. Most people use the term 'clutch' not only to describe something that already happened. Instead, the term is embedded with some predictive value. For example, if a player like Ortiz (who was once considered 'clutch') average 1 HR in ever 11 AB's, people who insist that Ortiz is 'clutch' will argue that his chances of hitting a HR in a meaningful moment in a game will exceed 1/11. Hoopster is arguing that this is nonsense, and that a player's performance in high-pressure situations will eventually regress to their performance in non-pressure situations, given a large enough sample size.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>It is randomness that strays from the established baseline of a players true ability. >>
So why do you emphasize the randomness so much more than the high baseline?
<< <i>Because his happened to occur in the World Series, he is given the label of a clutch player...somebody that elevates his game in the post season. >>
Close...but still wrong. Because his homeruns happened to occur in the World Series, he is given the label of a clutch player...somebody who had clutch hits
Clutch does not indicate a character trait, it describes a play or situation
When even seventh graders understand this, shouldn't that be a clue that you are attacking something that exists only in your own mind? >>
and that a player's performance in high-pressure situations will eventually regress to their performance in non-pressure situations, given a large enough sample size. >>
I disagree. Even great talented players dont mentally regress to their performance in non-pressure situations in big games. Favre had perhaps his best season ever this year, but his mistake against the saints cost his team the game.
Again no one can say for an absolute fact that a player was running at 100%, jaking it, or even saving a little something for the next game/series/season/contract/whatever, regardless of the circumstances. Seriously, it's all guesses, assumptions, and hoping at the end, it all evens out. Maybe some HOFers, regardless of sport, were happy with a fat paycheck rather than a shiny ring and vice-versa. Not saying it's right, just reality and at the end of the day, no one will ever truly know.
I'm only relaying my personal experiences and conversations with other casual and professional athletes. I know it's completely different when one gets paid for a sport but the similarities are there (ie training, constant grinding, major events vs casual strolls, etc). While I will never, ever know what it's like to get compensated for participating in a sport I enjoy; I do know what it's like to have people spend their hard earned money on an event that I'm busting my rear in. Again, I know it's not the same but the expectations and pressures are there (albeit on a much, much, much smaller scale). It's not comparing apples to oranges; more like blueberries to raspberries
Anyway, maybe Reggie didn't give two flips about making it to the WS. Perhaps he figured "Hey, I got P-A-I-D! If we make it, great. If not, my grandchildren are still taken care of." Then maybe when they did make it, he said, "All right, now maybe if I go really nuts, my great-great grandchildren will be set for life." You can use the same hypothetical for any athlete in any sport.
Does that always happen? I doubt it but wouldn't be surprised if it happened more often than not.
Long story short (too late, I know): The body/mind break down and regardless of one's strength, sometimes extra motivation is required to get that extra pop. Doesn't matter if you're getting paid billions or paying $30 to enter a softball league; we are all human afterall. Unless, of course, you're taking PEDs but that's a totally different topic.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>It is randomness that strays from the established baseline of a players true ability. >>
So why do you emphasize the randomness so much more than the high baseline?
<< <i>Because his happened to occur in the World Series, he is given the label of a clutch player...somebody that elevates his game in the post season. >>
Close...but still wrong. Because his homeruns happened to occur in the World Series, he is given the label of a clutch player...somebody who had clutch hits
Clutch does not indicate a character trait, it describes a play or situation
When even seventh graders understand this, shouldn't that be a clue that you are attacking something that exists only in your own mind? >>
and that a player's performance in high-pressure situations will eventually regress to their performance in non-pressure situations, given a large enough sample size. >>
I disagree. Even great talented players dont mentally regress to their performance in non-pressure situations in big games. Favre had perhaps his best season ever this year, but his mistake against the saints cost his team the game. >>
While I respect and admire you for picking a handle that pays homage to the axe-slinging madman who wrote 'Stronger Than Death', which in my opinion is one of perhaps five decent metal albums released in the last 10 years or so, I have to say that 75% of the time I have no idea what you're talking about. 'Mentally regress'? Again- not be snide, but I have zero idea what you're disagreeing with.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
'87 is not good example because Morris pitched in only game and he did go 8 innings in it (albeit giving up 6 ER). You say he was long in the tooth in '92 but he went 21-6 that season leading the AL in victories and was only one year removed from a brilliant postseason performance in '91, and the '92 postseason included a more sizable sample of four starts.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Braves were too good to have won just one Series during that era...and I empathize with you completely, even as a Mets fan..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>saberman,
Anyway, maybe Reggie didn't give two flips about making it to the WS. Perhaps he figured "Hey, I got P-A-I-D! If we make it, great. If not, my grandchildren are still taken care of." Then maybe when they did make it, he said, "All right, now maybe if I go really nuts, my great-great grandchildren will be set for life." You can use the same hypothetical for any athlete in any sport.
Does that always happen? I doubt it but wouldn't be surprised if it happened more often than not.
Stown, that is about a big a reach I have ever seen, come on now. If he did have it in his power to just decide to go really, really nuts, it would not be any more strain on his body whatsoever to do that in the ALCS too. He is swinging a bat. And besides, how would an extra 30K set his grandchildren for life? If he really wanted to set his grandchildren for life, he would have used that mythical power and hit 70 home runs a year, and he would truly have been set for life both financially and in imortality.
So a Mike Schmidt fan's defense would be, "Schmidt already dominated a World Series in 1980, so he decided that he didn't have to hit the ball in the 1983 World Series, because he had already established his greatness."
So when Reggie has those same slumps and hot streaks in the regular season, it must be because he is choosing to do that.
Again, if that is your claim that he decided to take those ALCS games off, just so he can be superman in the WORLD SERIES, then it goes back to what I said earlier, you are calling him either Stupid or psychic. If so, then it would negate any 'bonus' he received for being perceived 'clutch' when determining how good he is.
BUt there is plenty enough strong evidence to show that the DOMINANT reason for these blips is basic randomness from the small sample sizes.
<< <i>Braves were too good to have won just one Series during that era...and I empathize with you completely, even as a Mets fan.. >>
That year has never really bothered me. The better team won. If Reardon had closed out G2, they may have been able to steal it, but it's not one that sticks in my craw.
As good as Cox was at running the ship and keeping everyone on the same page, he's a dreadful tactician. Much like Earl Weaver.
<< <i>I'm okay with you bringing up '92. The game Glavine pitched againt him in G1 was a fabulous effort on Tom's part and was deeply satisfying to me. The second game Morris lost was quite enjoyable, too.
Braves were too good to have won just one Series during that era >>
If they were, then they wouldve won more than one. LIKE ALWAYS, you're wrong again
Braves were too good to have won just one Series during that era >>
If they were, then they wouldve won more than one. LIKE ALWAYS, you're wrong again
So says the board CLOWN, LOL, I mean, ALT, LOL...
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>
<< <i>saberman,
Anyway, maybe Reggie didn't give two flips about making it to the WS. Perhaps he figured "Hey, I got P-A-I-D! If we make it, great. If not, my grandchildren are still taken care of." Then maybe when they did make it, he said, "All right, now maybe if I go really nuts, my great-great grandchildren will be set for life." You can use the same hypothetical for any athlete in any sport.
Does that always happen? I doubt it but wouldn't be surprised if it happened more often than not.
Stown, that is about a big a reach I have ever seen, come on now. If he did have it in his power to just decide to go really, really nuts, it would not be any more strain on his body whatsoever to do that in the ALCS too. He is swinging a bat. And besides, how would an extra 30K set his grandchildren for life? If he really wanted to set his grandchildren for life, he would have used that mythical power and hit 70 home runs a year, and he would truly have been set for life both financially and in imortality.
So a Mike Schmidt fan's defense would be, "Schmidt already dominated a World Series in 1980, so he decided that he didn't have to hit the ball in the 1983 World Series, because he had already established his greatness."
So when Reggie has those same slumps and hot streaks in the regular season, it must be because he is choosing to do that.
Again, if that is your claim that he decided to take those ALCS games off, just so he can be superman in the WORLD SERIES, then it goes back to what I said earlier, you are calling him either Stupid or psychic. If so, then it would negate any 'bonus' he received for being perceived 'clutch' when determining how good he is.
BUt there is plenty enough strong evidence to show that the DOMINANT reason for these blips is basic randomness from the small sample sizes. >>
I was being sarcastic but it is interesting how you're only focusing on that.
My point, for the third or fourth time, is that the human body and mind cannot naturally go 100% over a prolonged period. If you think it can, then your participation in sports is only from the bleachers.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>saberman,
Anyway, maybe Reggie didn't give two flips about making it to the WS. Perhaps he figured "Hey, I got P-A-I-D! If we make it, great. If not, my grandchildren are still taken care of." Then maybe when they did make it, he said, "All right, now maybe if I go really nuts, my great-great grandchildren will be set for life." You can use the same hypothetical for any athlete in any sport.
Does that always happen? I doubt it but wouldn't be surprised if it happened more often than not.
Stown, that is about a big a reach I have ever seen, come on now. If he did have it in his power to just decide to go really, really nuts, it would not be any more strain on his body whatsoever to do that in the ALCS too. He is swinging a bat. And besides, how would an extra 30K set his grandchildren for life? If he really wanted to set his grandchildren for life, he would have used that mythical power and hit 70 home runs a year, and he would truly have been set for life both financially and in imortality.
So a Mike Schmidt fan's defense would be, "Schmidt already dominated a World Series in 1980, so he decided that he didn't have to hit the ball in the 1983 World Series, because he had already established his greatness."
So when Reggie has those same slumps and hot streaks in the regular season, it must be because he is choosing to do that.
Again, if that is your claim that he decided to take those ALCS games off, just so he can be superman in the WORLD SERIES, then it goes back to what I said earlier, you are calling him either Stupid or psychic. If so, then it would negate any 'bonus' he received for being perceived 'clutch' when determining how good he is.
BUt there is plenty enough strong evidence to show that the DOMINANT reason for these blips is basic randomness from the small sample sizes. >>
I was being sarcastic but it is interesting how you're only focusing on that.
My point, for the third or fourth time, is that the human body and mind cannot naturally go 100% over a prolonged period. If you think it can, then your participation in sports is only from the bleachers. >>
Nobody's arguing that you can't go 100% all the time. The point being made is that the term 'clutch' has no predictive value. That is, no player can be expected to perform at a level above that which he has already established just because the present situation 'means more'. Given enough time, every player's performance in 'clutch' situations will regress to the level of their performance in 'non clutch' situations.
Really, that's all this argument is about. I'm not sure what kind of hairs you and Skinpitch are splitting, but the way I read it this is the only meaningful point that Skin/Hoop?Saber is making.
Boo is right.
Stown, I know it can't go 100% all the time, but that would be a miniscule reason(and a very selective one) to explain a players sudden jump in performance in a big game.
Would Mays's World Series poor performance then mean that he was not going 100% in those games? If not, then what was the cause for the big drop in performance for him? Not being able to handle the pressure? NOt a big game player? I ask, because that is what most sports fans would say(can't handle the pressure or not a big game player), and DO say to explain the reason for those post season ups and downs for players such as him.
The prevailing evidence shows what is PRIMARILY at work, and it isn't big game ability or saving one's best for the big game, nor is it clutchness or chokeness.
And yes, I know exactly what you mean by personal experience. I chose not to throw any breaking pitches during some regular games because it was sometimes painful to throw them...but I did during the more meaningful games. So there are instances such as those, but those are in the minority. But that would not make a player clutch or non clutch, and that is part of the point.
<< <i>I'm not sure what kind of hairs you and Skinpitch are splitting, but the way I read it this is the only meaningful point that Skin/Hoop?Saber is making. >>
I'm just subtly pointing out some hypocracy..
In one post he says players never hold back, then admits that it does happen, only to finally say it's an insignificant number.
One can make far fetched possibilities for every single thing in the world, and there is a remote possibility one may be true. It is a given that this is possible in sports too. So what? When it is insignificant, you are right, I am not going to spend a lot of time talking about it.
Do you expect me to go deep enough write a book about it? No thanks. Guys have a hard enough time reading and comprehending on here if I put a five paragraph post up...let alone a book.
I do claim that Reggie DID NOT hold back in the ALCS, yes. Because it is a foolish notion that 'holding back' is the reason for those poor performances in the ALCS...and then 'just deciding to play his best' as the reason for the increased performances in the World Series is just as foolish, and would mean the guy is flat out stupid or psychic(which puts it right back to the original post).
I ask again, what is the cause for Willie Mays's poor World Series performances? Did he chose NOT to play his best in those games? Was it because he couldn't handle pressure?
And, for the record, here is what I posted earlier. This was my first response to you in regard to the holding back theory you presented. I never said never, just that it was basically a poor reason...
"Stown, I agree with a lot of that, especially where guys can hide their lack of effort, i.e. a defender in basketball, or an outfielder not going full out. One of hte reasons why it is hard to bet on basketball is that you never know if they will decide to play defense that night
To say that one can give 95% during the season and kick it up to 100% in the post season...that may be possible, but when a guy does do better than normal in the post season, the predominant reason is the randomness that happens all the time, and not that the guy is 'clutch' and therefore better than a guy who is equal but had the misfortune of the randomness fall the opposite way in his post season.
Reggie in the ALCS is the perfect example of the randomness"
Steve