Not everything can be proven mathematically

[Pocket Trips]

This is new postng on an old topic. But i feel that my post brings up a slightly different topic of mathematics being over-used to justify certain arguements. for anyone not familiar with what I am referring to the link is here

Derek Jeter Clutch?

Everyone who keeps saying that clutch ability cannot be proven mathematically therfore it does not exist is overlooking a few things about baseball and life in general.

NOT EVERYTHING CAN BE PROVEN OR DISPROVEN BY MATH. Even some of you who argue that clutch ability does not exist have given as a reason for this the small sample size of "clutch situations," however you want to define them I think we all can agree that it is a relatively small # of situations we are calling "clutch." The problem is that BY DEFINITION a clutch situation comes up very infrequently. So infrequently in fact that I'm sure there is no way to mathematically quantify it with any accuracy.

Just because something cannot be proven mathematically does not mean it cannot be DISPROVEN mathematically either. Lack of evidence against a theory does not disprove a theory. Even in a sport like baseball which lends itself so readily to statistical analysis, not everything about a players ability both offensively and defensively can be expressed statistically. If everything regarding a players ability coud be expressed statistically there would be no need for MLB scouts. GM's and managers would just be able to look at a players stat sheet and say "this guy is a major leaguer."
There is no denying that some players seem to handle the pressure of playoff baseball better than others. This is true of Superstars like Bonds and others who have consistantly choked come playoff time in the really big at bats that could have changed the course of a game with one swing. Then there are guys like David Ortiz last year who seemed to come through with a big AB every time it was needed. It is also true of guys who were role players like Mark Lemke or Luis Sojo who came through in big-time spots and whose careers are remembered specifially for just a play or 2.

Can it be expressed mathematically? no.

Is it a given that put into these same situations enough times to create a relavant sample size the same players would perform similarly? No.

But clutch ability is measured by relatively small # of situations over the course of a game or series not by an entire career. The players who consistantly come through in these rare situations will be remembered as "clutch" E.I. Reggie Jackson and his 3 HR's in 78 or Bucky "F'ing" Dent with his HR against the sox in the playoff game. Others who under-perform in such situations will be remembered for doing so because everything is under a magnifying glass in the playoffs. If you don't think that this isn't true just look at Bill Buckner. The guy put up what many considered borderline Hall of Fame #'s and was a great 1b for 99.999999% of his career but he is remembered for one play.

[Soul Daddy]

Meh. But...

[ QUOTE ]
This is true of Superstars like Bonds and others who have consistantly choked come playoff time in the really big at bats that could have changed the course of a game with one swing.

[/ QUOTE ]
Were you in a coma during 2002?

[Pocket Trips]

my point is not whether super steroid man is clutch or not.... my point is that being clutch cannot be proven or disproven mathematically

[GuyOnTilt]

What's your point? Aren't you basically saying that the term "clutch" could just as easily be replaced with the word "lucky", i.e. simply running well at the right times over a very short sample?

GoT

[Soul Daddy]

[ QUOTE ]
my point is not whether super steroid man is clutch or not.... my point is that being clutch cannot be proven or disproven mathematically

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't feel like debating this point. It's something you either understand / believe or not. There is plenty of dialogue in the Jeter thread that I don't intend on rehashing.

My point is that choosing Bonds as your example of someone who has repeatedly not performed in the playoffs is ridiculous given what he did in '02.

[Pocket Trips]

obviously you don't remember who won that series or his less than stellar performances in the playoffs back in his pre-steroid um i mean Pirate days

[Soul Daddy]

[ QUOTE ]
obviously you don't remember who won that series or his less than stellar performances in the playoffs back in his pre-steroid um i mean Pirate days

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course. It was obviously Barry's fault that the Giants couldn't protect a 5 run lead in the 7th. And using his Pirate days only lends evidence to the idea that over time, everything gravitates towards the mean.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
Not everything can be proven mathematically

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't tell David.

[jesusarenque]

[ QUOTE ]
This is new postng on an old topic. But i feel that my post brings up a slightly different topic of mathematics being over-used to justify certain arguements. for anyone not familiar with what I am referring to the link is here

Derek Jeter Clutch?

Everyone who keeps saying that clutch ability cannot be proven mathematically therfore it does not exist is overlooking a few things about baseball and life in general.

NOT EVERYTHING CAN BE PROVEN OR DISPROVEN BY MATH. Even some of you who argue that clutch ability does not exist have given as a reason for this the small sample size of "clutch situations," however you want to define them I think we all can agree that it is a relatively small # of situations we are calling "clutch." The problem is that BY DEFINITION a clutch situation comes up very infrequently. So infrequently in fact that I'm sure there is no way to mathematically quantify it with any accuracy.

Just because something cannot be proven mathematically does not mean it cannot be DISPROVEN mathematically either. Lack of evidence against a theory does not disprove a theory. Even in a sport like baseball which lends itself so readily to statistical analysis, not everything about a players ability both offensively and defensively can be expressed statistically. If everything regarding a players ability coud be expressed statistically there would be no need for MLB scouts. GM's and managers would just be able to look at a players stat sheet and say "this guy is a major leaguer."
There is no denying that some players seem to handle the pressure of playoff baseball better than others. This is true of Superstars like Bonds and others who have consistantly choked come playoff time in the really big at bats that could have changed the course of a game with one swing. Then there are guys like David Ortiz last year who seemed to come through with a big AB every time it was needed. It is also true of guys who were role players like Mark Lemke or Luis Sojo who came through in big-time spots and whose careers are remembered specifially for just a play or 2.

Can it be expressed mathematically? no.

Is it a given that put into these same situations enough times to create a relavant sample size the same players would perform similarly? No.

But clutch ability is measured by relatively small # of situations over the course of a game or series not by an entire career. The players who consistantly come through in these rare situations will be remembered as "clutch" E.I. Reggie Jackson and his 3 HR's in 78 or Bucky "F'ing" Dent with his HR against the sox in the playoff game. Others who under-perform in such situations will be remembered for doing so because everything is under a magnifying glass in the playoffs. If you don't think that this isn't true just look at Bill Buckner. The guy put up what many considered borderline Hall of Fame #'s and was a great 1b for 99.999999% of his career but he is remembered for one play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Selective memory.

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]

Of course. It was obviously Barry's fault that the Giants couldn't protect a 5 run lead in the 7th. And using his Pirate days only lends evidence to the idea that over time, everything gravitates towards the mean.

[/ QUOTE ]

Scott Spezio! Woohoo!

And even an ardent Barry hater like myself will have to admit that he overcame his "choke" reputation and performed like the superstar he is in the 2002 WS.