Holloway vs. Heckendorf

[JustinTyem]

Who's the best receiver in NDSU history? The question can be kicked around for a little while, but .......... http://www.ndsuspectrum.com/sports/holloway-vs-heckendorf-1.2651274

[NDSUstudent]

Heckendorf, I don't even think this discussion can be had yet. Heck was so good and so clutch and he would have had a monster season in 2008 if he hadn't had plantar fasciitis.

[CAS4127]

Len Kretchman, Stacy Robinson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . just sayin'!!!!1

[HandoEX]

Holloway is not even in the same universe as Heckendorf. Nothing close to close. Heckendorf was the best receiver I've seen at NDSU by a gigantic margin.

Who caught the game winning TD against SHSU? What about Cal Poly? Who is the school's all time leading receiver? He is the most underrated skill player the Bison have ever had.

[TransAmBison]

TR McDonald...

[KTF]

TR McDonald... I was going to mention this guy as well... Look at the teams he played on (offensive philosphy) and his recieving numbers, they are staggering...

[stevdock]

I don't even know if Holloway is the best WR on the team right now. I think Ryan Smith is starting to chip into that quite a bit right now. But they are used completely differently most of the time so it's tough to compare.

[344Johnson]

Holloway is not even in the same universe as Heckendorf. Nothing close to close. Heckendorf was the best receiver I've seen at NDSU by a gigantic margin.

Who caught the game winning TD against SHSU? What about Cal Poly? Who is the school's all time leading receiver? He is the most underrated skill player the Bison have ever had.

Who played in an offense with Steve Walker back when NDSU wasn't so afraid to air it out? Better question...look who holloway had throwing the ball at him so far. Freshman year Mertens. Sophomore year, Mertens/Mohler, Junior yea, Freshman Jensen/Mohler, senior year Jensen :)

heckendorf Walker Walker Walker Mertens? Not saying Holloway is better than Heck, but he hasn't had the opportunity to play with the type of quarterback Walker was until Jensen this year.

[TransAmBison]

Who played in an offense with Steve Walker back when NDSU wasn't so afraid to air it out? Better question...look who holloway had throwing the ball at him so far. Freshman year Mertens. Sophomore year, Mertens/Mohler, Junior yea, Freshman Jensen/Mohler, senior year Jensen :)

heckendorf Walker Walker Walker Mertens? Not saying Holloway is better than Heck, but he hasn't had the opportunity to play with the type of quarterback Walker was until Jensen this year.Good receivers make average qb's look great.

[HandoEX]

Who played in an offense with Steve Walker back when NDSU wasn't so afraid to air it out? Better question...look who holloway had throwing the ball at him so far. Freshman year Mertens. Sophomore year, Mertens/Mohler, Junior yea, Freshman Jensen/Mohler, senior year Jensen :)

heckendorf Walker Walker Walker Mertens? Not saying Holloway is better than Heck, but he hasn't had the opportunity to play with the type of quarterback Walker was until Jensen this year.
Heckendorf MADE Walker great. Watch his highlight films. He caught bad passes time and again. Circus catches down the sideline, catches from his back, double coverage, 80 yard bombs and outrunning the DBs, etc. When Holloway does that regularly and makes game winning catches, we can have the discussion.

[bisonaudit]

Do we have a site historian? Because I recall there being a metric ton of Walker love on this board when this stuff was actually going down, but now, in service of a different arguement, it seems like that history is being revised somewhat.

I caught piles and piles of crap here because the perception was that I didn't express a sufficient amount of love for Mr. Walker. That wasn't true but that was the perception. Now I'm find myself in the curious position of advocating for the man.

I could be wrong but, maybe, just maybe. They were both pretty damn good football players (Walker and Heck) and maybe, just maybe, they contributed to each other's greatness and the collective greatness of those teams?

[Tatanka]

Heckendorf>>Holloway. Sorry Big Tex.

[tony]

Warren Holloway, T.R. McDonald, Stacy Robinson, Len Kretchman, Pete Lana, Chuck Wald, Tim Strehlow, and Kole Heckendorf... those are some really good recievers. And Ryan Smith, Zach Vraa, and/or Trevor Gebhart might end up in that list.

[HandoEX]

Do we have a site historian? Because I recall there being a metric ton of Walker love on this board when this stuff was actually going down, but now, in service of a different arguement, it seems like that history is being revised somewhat.

I caught piles and piles of crap here because the perception was that I didn't express a sufficient amount of love for Mr. Walker. That wasn't true but that was the perception. Now I'm find myself in the curious position of advocating for the man.

I could be wrong but, maybe, just maybe. They were both pretty damn good football players (Walker and Heck) and maybe, just maybe, they contributed to each other's greatness and the collective greatness of those teams?
That is probably directed at me, and after re-reading my post, I can see how it may come out like I was ripping Walker. Walker was an amazing QB and would have been amazing without Kole and I didn't mean my post to come across as otherwise. I have always thought that Heck made Walker look as good as any WR has made their QB look here.

[semobison]

Stacy Robinson, 2nd round draft choice of the New York Giants in 1983! He has a Super Bowl ring! Still in the NDSU track and field record books! Indoor 60 meter NDSU school record holder, 3rd all time in 100 meters outdoors! Didnt have huge numbers because we ran the veer back then but he was the most talanted that I have seen!

[NorthernBison]

Most talented? Stacy Robinson by a mile. Seriously, any other NDSU receiver ever started in a Superbowl and lead the team in receiving yards?

Most productive at NDSU? I'm going to say Heckendorf based on the really big plays and the clutch performances regardless of what the stats say.

[DjKyRo]

Heckendorf, and it's not close. Frankly I'm not sold that Holloway is all that great of a receiver, no offense to the guy. He's gotten open underneath and over the top which is good, but he reminds me a lot of the Steelers' Mike Wallace - good deep threat, but hasn't opened my eyes with a catch the way Heckendorf was able to do.

[bisonaudit]

That is probably directed at me, and after re-reading my post, I can see how it may come out like I was ripping Walker. Walker was an amazing QB and would have been amazing without Kole and I didn't mean my post to come across as otherwise. I have always thought that Heck made Walker look as good as any WR has made their QB look here.

Not directed at anyone specificly. There were a couple of posts along those lines of yours plus a 'clutch' mention in another (which was the sorce of anti-Walker perception because I don't think clutchness is a skill) which led to my post. I know there's plenty of room in the hearts of the Bison faithfull for them both.

[TransAmBison]

Not directed at anyone specificly. There were a couple of posts along those lines of yours plus a 'clutch' mention in another (which was the sorce of anti-Walker perception because I don't think clutchness is a skill) which led to my post. I know there's plenty of room in the hearts of the Bison faithfull for them both.I would disagree on your view of "clutchness". In baseball they show batting averages with runners in scoring position. Just one quick and easy example...

[CaBisonFan]

Len Kretchman, Stacy Robinson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . just sayin'!!!!1

Ditto...and I'm a fan of Heck & Holloway. Stacy started for the Giants and won a Super Bowl. Robinson & Kretchman's stats at SU might not match up...but we were an option running team. They made their catches count. Tremendous athletes, blockers, and team players.

[Mr. Burgundy]

Some of this stuff is priceless. Who cares. Why is it always...who is better? Who is now in their mid 60's but was tougher than this 19 year old? Who played D1 vs D2? Who cares. Warren is playing awesome right now. Lets cheer for him. He finally has a QB that is getting him the ball, and he is making the plays. Plus, he is a well spoken young man who is graduating. I hope he has a LONG Senior season and can be included in our long list of great receivers. He is having a GREAT season.

[Wally]

Kelly Artz.:)....his game in the 1994 Mud Bowl playoff game vs Pitt St was epic.....Heck over Holloway IMHO

[CaBisonFan]

Some of this stuff is priceless. Who cares. Why is it always...who is better? Who is now in their mid 60's but was tougher than this 19 year old? Who played D1 vs D2? Who cares. Warren is playing awesome right now. Lets cheer for him. He finally has a QB that is getting him the ball, and he is making the plays. Plus, he is a well spoken young man who is graduating. I hope he has a LONG Senior season and can be included in our long list of great receivers. He is having a GREAT season.

Yep...we've had so many great ones.

[HerdBot]

Stacey Robinson. Can't compare Hollow too Heck. Ask me at the end of the season. I will say this. Holloway is having a more impactful senior season than Heck

[EndZoneQB]

One name I haven't seen mentioned is Eric Nelson. I did see Tim Strehlow, which I would agree with as well.

[tony]

Not directed at anyone specificly. There were a couple of posts along those lines of yours plus a 'clutch' mention in another (which was the sorce of anti-Walker perception because I don't think clutchness is a skill) which led to my post. I know there's plenty of room in the hearts of the Bison faithfull for them both.

Oh, I disagree. I'm pretty sure that I've read about experiments that show as much. Guys who come through in the clutch consistently have lower pulse rates at times of stress than other athletes. Why does pulse rate matter? Well, once you get your heart rate above a certain point, your body movements get jerky and your decision-making ability is negatively impacted. Personally, I think there is more at play than just heart rate but, still, it's kind of interesting.

[bisonaudit]

I would disagree on your view of "clutchness". In baseball they show batting averages with runners in scoring position. Just one quick and easy example...

Just because they put a number across the bottom of your TV screen doesn't mean that that number actually means anything.

BA w/ RISP is not a skill. It is the go to example of a statistic which has zero predictive value. It's been demonstrated over and over again that small sample size and the high variability of batting averages combine to ensure that any BA w/ RISP number that you've ever seen on you TV during a baseball game is totally random in relationship to that player's actual batting average. i.e. not a skill.

What we all (me too) perceive as clutchness is really just a combination selective memory and randomness.

[JustinTyem]

Just some tibs on Heckendorf,He owns alot of the PREP RECORDS in the state of Wisconsin for Catches. Kole is the Best at catching,not fast,not quick, but all he does is catching the ball when it touches his hands!!! http://images.wissports.net/WFCA/Records/Stat%20Records%20-%20All.pdf

[bisonaudit]

Oh, I disagree. I'm pretty sure that I've read about experiments that show as much. Guys who come through in the clutch consistently have lower pulse rates at times of stress than other athletes. Why does pulse rate matter? Well, once you get your heart rate above a certain point, your body movements get jerky and your decision-making ability is negatively impacted. Personally, I think there is more at play than just heart rate but, still, it's kind of interesting.

I didn't say that choking didn't exist which I think is what you're actually taking about.

There's next to no objective evidence that athletes are capable of raising their games "under pressure." Personally, I think that is because what they do is already increadibly difficult and pressure packed even in situations which we as fans don't think of in those terms.

[scbison91]

Stacy Robinson, 2nd round draft choice of the New York Giants in 1983! He has a Super Bowl ring! Still in the NDSU track and field record books! Indoor 60 meter NDSU school record holder, 3rd all time in 100 meters outdoors! Didnt have huge numbers because we ran the veer back then but he was the most talanted that I have seen!

Plus NDSU was running the veer, not a pass happy offense.. It is amazing he was drafted coming out of that kind of offense.

[TransAmBison]

Just because they put a number across the bottom of your TV screen doesn't mean that that number actually means anything.

BA w/ RISP is not a skill. It is the go to example of a statistic which has zero predictive value. It's been demonstrated over and over again that small sample size and the high variability of batting averages combine to ensure that any BA w/ RISP number that you've ever seen on you TV during a baseball game is totally random in relationship to that player's actual batting average. i.e. not a skill.

What we all (me too) perceive as clutchness is really just a combination selective memory and randomness.I guess we will just have to continue to disagree.*








*Which allows the universe to maintain its balance. :D

[tony]

I didn't say that choking didn't exist which I think is what you're actually taking about.

There's next to no objective evidence that athletes are capable of raising their games "under pressure." Personally, I think that is because what they do is already increadibly difficult and pressure packed even in situations which we as fans don't think of in those terms.

If stress makes certain people perform worse than usual, then there is no rule of logic that precludes the possibility that stress could make certain people perform better. Obviously, it's not that you want your pulse rate to be as low as possible; you want it to be in the range within which you perform your best (high, but not too high.)

It could well be that some peoples' bodies don't get pushed into their optimal "zone" until the stress gets to a certain level.

[bisonaudit]

If stress makes certain people perform worse than usual, then there is no rule of logic that precludes the possibility that stress could make certain people perform better.

That my be so, but logic is not evidence.

There is next to no evidence that clutchness is a repeatable skill.

[bisonaudit]

Just because they put a number across the bottom of your TV screen doesn't mean that that number actually means anything.



Any snarkiness here isn't for you its for the fine people who insist on cluttering up my TV with meaningless numbers.

[Bison06]

Any snarkiness here isn't for you its for the fine people who insist on cluttering up my TV with meaningless numbers.

It's unclear what you are saying so I want to clarify. Are you saying there is no such thing as a player who is "clutch" or am I misunderstanding?

[No_Skill]

Any snarkiness here isn't for you its for the fine people who insist on cluttering up my TV with meaningless numbers.

Numbers are dum

http://www.seowoman.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/barbie-hates-math.png

[X-Factor]

Good receivers make average qb's look great.

But in the case of Mertens @ SDSU, you have to at least throw the ball within the field of play. It is a big barn, but you gotta at least be able to hit it!

[CivilBison96]

Kelly Artz.:)....his game in the 1994 Mud Bowl playoff game vs Pitt St was epic.....Heck over Holloway IMHO

Played against him in high school, unfortunately (fortunate for us) he got hit on the sideline with the chains and tore up his knee and had to be taken to the hospital. We had noone that could come anywhere near his speed and playing 9 man football someone with speed has alot of room to operate.

[bisonaudit]

It's unclear what you are saying so I want to clarify. Are you saying there is no such thing as a player who is "clutch" or am I misunderstanding?

There is no such thing as a player who is "clutch."

[TransAmBison]

That my be so, but logic is not evidence.

There is next to no evidence that clutchness is a repeatable skill.Ummmm...the repeatable skill is in those statistics like in baseball...as I previously cited...yet you poopoo'd as if you are some authority on such things. I get it, you only believe in concrete things...but just because something can't be proven definitively doesn't mean it isn't real.

[bisonaudit]

Ummmm...the repeatable skill is in those statistics like in baseball...as I previously cited...yet you poopoo'd as if you are some authority on such things. I get it, you only believe in concrete things...but just because something can't be proven definitively doesn't mean it isn't real.

Begging your pardon but the repeatable skill is not in the statistic you previously sited. There's an entire body of analysis to this effect.

If you're looking for evidence of clutchness you're never going to find it in Batting Averages. The sample size required to generate predictive value from a batting average is a very large. Somewhere north of 750 plate appearance which is longer than a single season. http://www.fangraphs.com/library/index.php/principles/sample-size/

So the next time you're wondering what happened because Joe Mauer hit .340 one year and .305 the next. The most likely answer is, nothing much changed, it's just randomness.

People have looked in plenty of other places and the case is exceedingly weak.

You can't really prove a negative so you can go on believing whatever you like, but almost every analysis I've seen strongly indicates that the only place clutchness exist is in the mind of the observer.

[344Johnson]

So the next time you're wondering what happened because JMauer hit .340 one year and .305 the next. The most likely answer is, nothing much changed, it's just randomness.

You can't really prove a negative so you can go on believing whatever you like, but almost every analysis I've seen strongly indicates that the only place clutchness exist is in the mind of the observer.

Joe Mauer got a tummy ache for a couple months....that explains the drop.

[TransAmBison]

Begging your pardon but the repeatable skill is not in the statistic you previously sited. There's an entire body of analysis to this effect.

If you're looking for evidence of clutchness you're never going to find it in Batting Averages. The sample size required to generate predictive value from a batting average is a very large. Somewhere north of 750 plate appearance which is longer than a single season. http://www.fangraphs.com/library/index.php/principles/sample-size/

So the next time you're wondering what happened because Joe Mauer hit .340 one year and .305 the next. The most likely answer is, nothing much changed, it's just randomness.

People have looked in plenty of other places and the case is exceedingly weak.

You can't really prove a negative so you can go on believing whatever you like, but almost every analysis I've seen strongly indicates that the only place clutchness exist is in the mind of the observer.Randomness...that is pure foolishness. If we were all robots I would think you would have a case...but we humans can be influenced by many things...no randomness about it.

[BlueBisonRock]

Ummmm...the repeatable skill is in those statistics like in baseball...as I previously cited...yet you poopoo'd as if you are some authority on such things. I get it, you only believe in concrete things...but just because something can't be proven definitively doesn't mean it isn't real.

Its more like the sample size is too small for prediction leaving us with a gut feeling. One can't prove clutchness, but one can see the capability demonstrated and believe what ones gut is saying. When we rely too much on the analytical tools available to us, we can miss simply because what we see can't be proven.

BTW TAB, You also demonstrate a clutch ability and you need to keep working on clutch as you did marry up and you better hang on tight.

[TransAmBison]

Its more like the sample size is too small for prediction leaving us with a gut feeling feeling. One can't prove clutchness, but one can see the capability demonstrated and believe what ones gut is saying. When we rely too much on the analytical tools available to us, we can miss simply because what we see can't be proven.

BTW TAB, You also demonstrate a clutch ability and you need to keep working on clutch as you did marry up and you better hang on tight.That's why I hang around you guys...I did marry up...but all you guys are step down...so I don't have to keep to close an eye. :duel::D

[CHADSTAUS]

I think there are great receivers for all the generations. The game has evolved a ton over the years. To many great receivers to give it to one person.

[CaBisonFan]

Stacey Robinson. Can't compare Hollow too Heck. Ask me at the end of the season. I will say this. Holloway is having a more impactful senior season than Heck

Anyone know if Stacey was drafted when Erhardt was the OC there?

[onbison09]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3XO4QBO4iY

[X-Factor]

got a book for you :duel:

http://www.amazon.com/Choke-Secrets-Brain-Reveal-Getting/dp/B004KAB2W6/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1317765788&sr=1-3

[Bison06]

There is no such thing as a player who is "clutch."

What do you mean by that statement? I don't understand. Maybe we have a different definition of clutch but how can you deny that there are players that have a propensity to come up big in big moments?

[perthbison]

Plus NDSU was running the veer, not a pass happy offense.. It is amazing he was drafted coming out of that kind of offense.The Giants used a 6th round pick on Stacy IMHO purely because he was a "world class sprinter" who played decent wide receiver for a D2 team.

[NDSUFan_Sav]

There is no such thing as a player who is "clutch."

Michael Jordan....enough said now end this stupid crap bout arguing about clutch etc

I am glad we had Heck and now I am glad we have Big Tex, both are different type of players.

[semobison]

The Giants used a 6th round pick on Stacy IMHO purely because he was a "world class sprinter" who played decent wide receiver for a D2 team.

I call Bulls$%&..! He was picked in the 2nd round by the Giants 46th overall!... 10.40 100 meter speed is fast, but I wouldn't call it world class!...Those D2 teams back then had more scholarships and were head and shoulders better than the D2 teams of today!..Stacy Robinson...decent...obviously you never saw him play!

[moosbah]

Heckendorf.

Holloway is a good receiver, but he's not great. Great receivers make big catches at big times. Haven't seen nearly enough of that from Holloway to make this a fair comparison.

[perthbison]

I call Bulls$%&..! He was picked in the 2nd round by the Giants 46th overall!... 10.40 100 meter speed is fast, but I wouldn't call it world class!...Those D2 teams back then had more scholarships and were head and shoulders better than the D2 teams of today!..Stacy Robinson...decent...obviously you never saw him play!I'm pretty sure it was 6th round. I saw him play and he was faster than the D backs and he could always get open. I don't remember him making hard to catch grabs but he was very effective. I'm not trying to minimize him, just pointing out that it was his speed that got him drafted, IMHO. He lived on the same floor as me in college and he was a great guy, always said hi and seemed to do a lot of studying.

[Bison"FANatic"]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stacy_Robinson

If Wiki is right it was the second round.

[bisonaudit]

Michael Jordan....enough said now end this stupid crap bout arguing about clutch etc

I am glad we had Heck and now I am glad we have Big Tex, both are different type of players.

Michael Jordan wasn't any more or less clutch than anyone else. He was just flat out better than everyone else.

The perception of clutchness is, the evidence suggests, observational bias (I have it to). But that doesn't make it real.

If you look at the statistics or read the people who do look at the statistics, it's been demonstrated over and over again that there is no evidence that "clutchness" is a repeatable skill. Albert Pujols is just Albert Pujols all the time, he's never some context dependent super Albert. He's always just Albert. And Delmon Young is Delmon Young. He didn't turn into some other guy when he put on a Tiger's uniform. He's the same mediocre player he was in Minnesota and in Tampa Bay before that, he just happened to have a good 10 days during the playoffs and as a consequence of our observational biases some people began to lose their shit.

[semobison]

I'm pretty sure it was 6th round. I saw him play and he was faster than the D backs and he could always get open. I don't remember him making hard to catch grabs but he was very effective. I'm not trying to minimize him, just pointing out that it was his speed that got him drafted, IMHO. He lived on the same floor as me in college and he was a great guy, always said hi and seemed to do a lot of studying.

When you posted that he was drafted in the 6th round, I thought my memory was getting bad so I looked it up. 2nd round pick 46, I was a student then also, and I remember watching the draft to see where Stacy would go. I remember he was projected top 5 or 6 at WR that year! He didnt have a long career, but a smart guy, got his masters and is Director of player developement for the NFL!

[herdmember]

Michael Jordan wasn't any more or less clutch than anyone else. He was just flat out better than everyone else.

The perception of clutchness is, the evidence suggests, observational bias (I have it to). But that doesn't make it real.

If you look at the statistics or read the people who do look at the statistics, it's been demonstrated over and over again that there is no evidence that "clutchness" is a repeatable skill. Albert Pujols is just Albert Pujols all the time, he's never some context dependent super Albert. He's always just Albert. And Delmon Young is Delmon Young. He didn't turn into some other guy when he put on a Tiger's uniform. He's the same mediocre player he was in Minnesota and in Tampa Bay before that, he just happened to have a good 10 days during the playoffs and as a consequence of our observational biases some people began to lose their shit.

Even Bill James, King of all the SABRs, thinks there may be such a thing as clutch.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/baseball/mlb/11/30/james.clutch/index.html

I believe in sports you have people that want to be the guy in the big spot, and maybe they don't perform any better in the clutch, but they don't shrink in the clutch. Then, you have people would prefer to have their teammate be the one in the big spot. This is not necessarily related to how good the person is IMO.

[herdmember]

Oh, and btw you probably have to give Heck the nod right now, but I think for some reason Holloway gets wildly underrated on this site. He is our best WR and has been for 2 to 3 years. He finally has a QB that has stayed healthy and consistent. Holloway is fantastic.

[TransAmBison]

Oh, and btw you probably have to give Heck the nod right now, but I think for some reason Holloway gets wildly underrated on this site. He is our best WR and has been for 2 to 3 years. He finally has a QB that has stayed healthy and consistent. Holloway is fantastic.Fantastic? Wow...that is a bit extreme. Our best receiver for the last few years...true...but you must take into account what we had for receivers. What have we had for receivers '08-'10? Not much. This year Holloway has impressed, but he still could improve. I just haven't seen him break off routes and come back to help out Jensen when he is in trouble. Maybe he has done it, but I have not seen it.

[perthbison]

When you posted that he was drafted in the 6th round, I thought my memory was getting bad so I looked it up. 2nd round pick 46, I was a student then also, and I remember watching the draft to see where Stacy would go. I remember he was projected top 5 or 6 at WR that year! He didnt have a long career, but a smart guy, got his masters and is Director of player developement for the NFL!I stand corrected then. I was operating off of memory only and I'm wondering where the 6th came from , maybe it was Braxton or one of the others that were a 6th rounder. Glad to hear he is doing well. I never doubted that he would.

[tony]

I think Stacy Robinson being named the MVP of one of the big college All-Star games helped get him into the second round. Phil was named Defensive MVP in one of the big college all-star games too.

Tyrone was the second-to-last player drafted in 1987.

[CAS4127]

I stand corrected then. I was operating off of memory only and I'm wondering where the 6th came from , maybe it was Braxton or one of the others that were a 6th rounder. Glad to hear he is doing well. I never doubted that he would.

Tyrone was drafted in the 12th and final round of the 87 draft, second from last (or first from last if you are Bisonaudit).

As for the receivers being mentioned here as the best ever, Robinson had the worst hands of all of them, I can guarantee that!! Witnessed with my own eyes. Still a great receiver and great guy, but never had that great of hands--better than Troy Williamson however.

[bisonaudit]

Even Bill James, King of all the SABRs, thinks there may be such a thing as clutch.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/baseball/mlb/11/30/james.clutch/index.html

I believe in sports you have people that want to be the guy in the big spot, and maybe they don't perform any better in the clutch, but they don't shrink in the clutch. Then, you have people would prefer to have their teammate be the one in the big spot. This is not necessarily related to how good the person is IMO.

There's been plenty more written since that article in 2007, which includes no comparitive data at all, and we still don't have much in the way of evidence that clutchness is a repeatable skill. Bill James may be correct regarding the origin story of the "clutch" debate and I think he was correct to say that there's a difference between there being no evidence that something exists and it actually not existing. I'd disagree with his idea that the burden of proof may have been laid on the wrong party but I haven't seen anything in the past four years that's convinced me that clutchness is a skill. Maybe it's out there, but that SI story ain't it. All James really said is that instead of starting from "it doesn't exist" we should start from "we don't know." Fine. I've seen a number of analysis in the last 4 years that strongly indicate clutchness isn't a skill and I've seen next to nothing that indicates it is.

[CAS4127]

There's been plenty more written since that article in 2007, which includes no comparitive data at all, and we still don't have much in the way of evidence that clutchness is a repeatable skill. Bill James may be correct regarding the origin story of the "clutch" debate and I think he was correct to say that there's a difference between there being no evidence that something exists and it actually not existing. I'd disagree with his idea that the burden of proof may have been laid on the wrong party but I haven't seen anything in the past four years that's convinced me that clutchness is a skill. Maybe it's out there, but that SI story ain't it. All James really said is that instead of starting from "it doesn't exist" we should start from "we don't know." Fine. I've seen a number of analysis in the last 4 years that strongly indicate clutchness isn't a skill and I've seen next to nothing that indicates it is.

I would argue that it is part of a skill set. Some players/people have it, some don't--sort of like having the ability to allow your physical skills, your mind/thinking ability, your instincts and your creativity to work together at a given, major opportunity. Some people clam up, others don't. Pretty difficult to put a number on all of the subparts to that skill set, don't ya think.

[BlueBisonRock]

There's been plenty more written since that article in 2007, which includes no comparitive data at all, and we still don't have much in the way of evidence that clutchness is a repeatable skill. Bill James may be correct regarding the origin story of the "clutch" debate and I think he was correct to say that there's a difference between there being no evidence that something exists and it actually not existing. I'd disagree with his idea that the burden of proof may have been laid on the wrong party but I haven't seen anything in the past four years that's convinced me that clutchness is a skill. Maybe it's out there, but that SI story ain't it. All James really said is that instead of starting from "it doesn't exist" we should start from "we don't know." Fine. I've seen a number of analysis in the last 4 years that strongly indicate clutchness isn't a skill and I've seen next to nothing that indicates it is.

Help me understand your definition of a clutch player and a clutch situation. I expect that statistics arn't going to help as the descriptive adjective "clutch" implies (to me) that there likely to be very few data points to examine. Because of this, I believe we will need to move from an analytical pov to a gut or instinctual pov.

This concept was touched on in the previously recommended book "Choke". I read the first few pages (all that were available) and saw one example of the antichoke or as some are calling it "a Clutch performance". This was the individual who enjoyed life, spent little time studing, and yet absolutely nailed the LSAT. It was also noted that this individual demonstrated this trait (or ability) frequently.

This subject interests me as there are people in sports, in business, in organizations, and in life who are the go to folks. Somehow, they find a way to get the job done. I think of these performers as being "clutch" performers.

[bisonaudit]

Pretty difficult to put a number on all of the subparts to that skill set, don't ya think.

Given the some of the best analytical minds in sport have tried and no one has been able to, yes, it's pretty difficult to quantify whatever it is that people think is going on here. So much so, that most statistically inclined observers have concluded that, nothing or nearly nothing is in fact going on.

I get people's reluctance on this one. I'm not an automation. One of the truest things that's ever been said about sports:


Crash Davis: I never told him to stay out of your bed.
Annie Savoy: Yes you did.
Crash Davis: I told him that a player on a streak has to respect the streak.
Annie Savoy: Oh fine.
Crash Davis: You know why? Because they don't - -they don't happen very often.
Annie Savoy: Right.
Crash Davis: If you believe you're playing well because you're getting laid, or because you're not getting laid, or because you wear women's underwear, then you *are*! And you should know that!


I'm convinced that this is true AND I'm equally convinced that clutchness isn't a skill.

[CAS4127]

Given the some of the best analytical minds in sport have tried and no one has been able to, yes, it's pretty difficult to quantify whatever it is that people think is going on here. So much so, that most statistically inclined observers have concluded that, nothing or nearly nothing is in fact going on.

I get people's reluctance on this one. I'm not an automation. One of the truest things that's ever been said about sports:


Crash Davis: I never told him to stay out of your bed.
Annie Savoy: Yes you did.
Crash Davis: I told him that a player on a streak has to respect the streak.
Annie Savoy: Oh fine.
Crash Davis: You know why? Because they don't - -they don't happen very often.
Annie Savoy: Right.
Crash Davis: If you believe you're playing well because you're getting laid, or because you're not getting laid, or because you wear women's underwear, then you *are*! And you should know that!


I'm convinced that this is true AND I'm equally convinced that clutchness isn't a skill.

Well, certainly Brady did not have "it" on Sunday against the Cowgirls. I mean, he completely chocked, hung on to the ball too tight cuz he was nervous, couldn't allow his mind to go through his check-downs, couldn't "pull the trigger" when his instincts suggested the reciever would be coming clear in about two steps (couldn't even picture that), and just could not read the defensive coverage. Now, if that would have been McNabb or Romo, game over for the Girls--clutch!!!!

[56BISON73]

Given the some of the best analytical minds in sport have tried and no one has been able to, yes, it's pretty difficult to quantify whatever it is that people think is going on here. So much so, that most statistically inclined observers have concluded that, nothing or nearly nothing is in fact going on.

I get people's reluctance on this one. I'm not an automation. One of the truest things that's ever been said about sports:


Crash Davis: I never told him to stay out of your bed.
Annie Savoy: Yes you did.
Crash Davis: I told him that a player on a streak has to respect the streak.
Annie Savoy: Oh fine.
Crash Davis: You know why? Because they don't - -they don't happen very often.
Annie Savoy: Right.
Crash Davis: If you believe you're playing well because you're getting laid, or because you're not getting laid, or because you wear women's underwear, then you *are*! And you should know that!


I'm convinced that this is true AND I'm equally convinced that clutchness isn't a skill.

You have to have the skills to be able to perform in the clutch. Being clutch is mental in being able to perform at an elevated level in important situations which in itself is a skill.

[bisonaudit]

Help me understand your definition of a clutch player and a clutch situation. I expect that statistics arn't going to help as the descriptive adjective "clutch" implies (to me) that there likely to be very few data points to examine. Because of this, I believe we will need to move from an analytical pov to a gut or instinctual pov.

This concept was touched on in the previously recommended book "Choke". I read the first few pages (all that were available) and saw one example of the antichoke or as some are calling it "a Clutch performance". This was the individual who enjoyed life, spent little time studing, and yet absolutely nailed the LSAT. It was also noted that this individual demonstrated this trait (or ability) frequently.

This subject interests me as there are people in sports, in business, in organizations, and in life who are the go to folks. Somehow, they find a way to get the job done. I think of these performers as being "clutch" performers.

I don't think clutch players exist, the evidence I've seen tells me that they don't. Clutch situations do. In baseball there's such a think as the "leverage index" which analysts have used in examining clutchness. It assigns a value on a sliding scale to each at-bat based on the game circumstances. They've found next to no evidence that players are capable of raising their performance level as the leverage index increases.

I think if the people that you describe as clutch performers as simply great at their job. I suspect that if you think about it, what's actually going on is that they are coming through for their team all the time. There performance in "non-clutch" situations sets them up to get noticed when the "pressure is on" but their performance is really more or less the same regardless of the circumstance.

[bisonaudit]

You have to have the skills to be able to perform in the clutch. Being clutch is mental in being able to perform at an elevated level in important situations which in itself is a skill.

Except there is no evidence to support the assertion that clutch is a skill.

You certainly have to have skills to succeed in the clutch, but the evidence suggests that they're the same skills that contribute to success or failure in non-clutch circumstances.

[CAS4127]

Except there is no evidence to support the assertion that clutch is a skill.You certainly have to have skills to succeed in the clutch, but the evidence suggests that they're the same skills that contribute to success or failure in non-clutch circumstances.

Just exactly how do you measure instincts, creativeness, feel, anticipation, intelligence, street smarts, experience, etc. altogether. Guess I just haven't seen that test yet!!

[56BISON73]

Except there is no evidence to support the assertion that clutch is a skill.You certainly have to have skills to succeed in the clutch, but the evidence suggests that they're the same skills that contribute to success or failure in non-clutch circumstances.

No there is no quanatative numbers. But that doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

[CaBisonFan]

Reggie Jackson...Mr. October...definitely had something that made him very special when the big moments came. It happened so many times that it was obvious.

In college...Christian Laettner was the holy grail of 'clutch' baskets.

The 3rd baseman for St. Louis...(name?)...has something special going. Time will tell if it's just a hot streak or a specific gift.

Joe Montana...my favorite QB ever...had something that he brought to the really big moments.

Steve Walker and Heckendorf definitely had some of that. The Cal Poly game is one example. Unbelievable

The list is long. It can't be measured, examined, or defined.

[BlueBisonRock]

I don't think clutch players exist, the evidence I've seen tells me that they don't. Clutch situations do. In baseball there's such a think as the "leverage index" which analysts have used in examining clutchness. It assigns a value on a sliding scale to each at-bat based on the game circumstances. They've found next to no evidence that players are capable of raising their performance level as the leverage index increases.

I think if the people that you describe as clutch performers as simply great at their job. I suspect that if you think about it, what's actually going on is that they are coming through for their team all the time. There performance in "non-clutch" situations sets them up to get noticed when the "pressure is on" but their performance is really more or less the same regardless of the circumstance.

So Kirk Gibson's home run off of Dennis Eckersley (one of the best if not the best closer in baseball at the time) in the series in LA a 'few years back' was sustained and normal performance? The man could hardly walk and had no business being in the dugout much less on the field. A hit to the left center gap would have resulted in an 8-3 putout (minor exaturation). True, he was an outstanding player, but at that moment he was a liability.

That was a clutch performance in a clutch situation. Had Eckersley won that battle, it would have been ability in a clutch situation. There are many other examples, but this particular situation provides one of the best examples of clutch performance to me.

[Wacker_in_the_Hall]

Mike McTague who played from 1975 to 1978 was in my opinion a better athlete than any reciever we have had since that time. He was also a kicker while at NDSU. He went on to play in the CFL for 10 years as a wide-out and punter. Again we never threw in those days, so it is difficult to compare.

[WYOBISONMAN]

Mike McTague who played from 1975 to 1978 was in my opinion a better athlete than any reciever we have had since that time. He was also a kicker while at NDSU. He went on to play in the CFL for 10 years as a wide-out and punter. Again we never threw in those days, so it is difficult to compare.

Hmm.........I was in Jr. High for part of that time span..... ;)

[bisonaudit]

No there is no quanatative numbers. But that doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

Correct, there's a difference between there not being any evidence something is real and it actually not being real, as I've said here several times now.

[bisonaudit]

So Kirk Gibson's home run off of Dennis Eckersley (one of the best if not the best closer in baseball at the time) in the series in LA a 'few years back' was sustained and normal performance? The man could hardly walk and had no business being in the dugout much less on the field. A hit to the left center gap would have resulted in an 8-3 putout (minor exaturation). True, he was an outstanding player, but at that moment he was a liability.

That was a clutch performance in a clutch situation. Had Eckersley won that battle, it would have been ability in a clutch situation. There are many other examples, but this particular situation provides one of the best examples of clutch performance to me.

That was a great moment, but if you played the moment 100 time Eckersley probably comes out on top in 95 of them. There were very few places in play where he could have it a ball and not made an out. You're absolutely correct. Ozzie Smith also hit a WS home run and he had almost now power. It was an accident of chance that he hit one of his handful of annual homeruns in a WS game. It wasn't skill.

This shouldn't in anyway diminish these accomplishments, it's just the way sports work.

[56BISON73]

Correct, there's a difference between there not being any evidence something is real and it actually not being real, as I've said here several times now.

Oh no you dont. Somethings cant be measured in a quanatative sense even though it is real. Nice try.

:)

[BlueBisonRock]

Mike McTague who played from 1975 to 1978 was in my opinion a better athlete than any reciever we have had since that time. He was also a kicker while at NDSU. He went on to play in the CFL for 10 years as a wide-out and punter. Again we never threw in those days, so it is difficult to compare.

Wacker, you are bringing back some memories. Yes, McTague was excellent. I vividly remember him in the pregame at Dakotah Field practicing PATs by attempting to place the ball on the (now) BSA roof. Gametime, he was ready!

[BlueBisonRock]

That was a great moment, but if you played the moment 100 time Eckersley probably comes out on top in 95 of them. There were very few places in play where he could have it a ball and not made an out. You're absolutely correct. Ozzie Smith also hit a WS home run and he had almost now power. It was an accident of chance that he hit one of his handful of annual homeruns in a WS game. It wasn't skill.

This shouldn't in anyway diminish these accomplishments, it's just the way sports work.

Interesting. You just provided a statistical basis (5% success) for an event that plays out a single time in history. Looks like I will continue calling it clutch and you will call it a great moment. We can leave the discussion here if you would like.

[westnodak93bison]

Some of this stuff is priceless. Who cares. Why is it always...who is better? Who is now in their mid 60's but was tougher than this 19 year old? Who played D1 vs D2? Who cares. Warren is playing awesome right now. Lets cheer for him. He finally has a QB that is getting him the ball, and he is making the plays. Plus, he is a well spoken young man who is graduating. I hope he has a LONG Senior season and can be included in our long list of great receivers. He is having a GREAT season.

Great post! Warren is an outstanding receiver imho.
Also, TR McDonald was a flat out stud imho. Did he ever drop a ball? I once worked with a former DB from Mankato that TR burned badly multiple times at the dome. I loved razzing him about it!

[bisonaudit]

Reggie Jackson...Mr. October...definitely had something that made him very special when the big moments came. It happened so many times that it was obvious.


Reggie is actually a great example of selective memory creating this artificial impression of clutchness. Reggie's career slash line AVG/OPB/SLG was .262/.356/.490

In the World Series Reggie was absolutely lights out at .357/.457/.755 in 116 plate appearances. That's positively Ruthian and everyone remembers him for it.

What everyone forgets is that in games that were nearly as important, the ALCS, Reggie stunk on ice. in 181 plate appearance he put up a line of .227/.298/.380. That's basically Nick Punto without the defense and the grit.

If only Reggie had perceived the 11 league championship series he played in as more important he would have risen to the occasion turned on his clutchness and probably had a chance to play in more than 5 World Series. ;)

How you hit is a skill. When you hit is not a skill. It's random.

[Strommer10]

Heckendorf is among some of the best receivers in the history of the program. Holloway is definitely not. I do like the argument about the teams/QBs that each of them had. It does make a difference and makes it harder to compare. But I still think if Heck played the past 4 years, he would've had a great impact.

[JustinTyem]

Heckendorf is among some of the best receivers in the history of the program. Holloway is definitely not. I do like the argument about the teams/QBs that each of them had. It does make a difference and makes it harder to compare. But I still think if Heck played the past 4 years, he would've had a great impact.If Brock could have Kole for 3 strong years, "MY OH MY" the Bison records would be even bigger!!! Also note Holloway played with a bad knee last year,thats why he had micro-fracture surgery,for 3 years he had crappy Qb's. Now he has a great one and he gets doubled up alot. Give him some credit!!!

[devin45k]

They are both different styles of recievers. Heckendorf was great and Holloway is great. Heckendorf had qbs the whole time he played. Holloway had a guy that couldnt even start in D II and was only throwing WR screens. I couldnt make the judgement unless they both played with the same caliber of quaterbacks.

[344Johnson]

They are both different styles of recievers. Heckendorf was great and Holloway is great. Heckendorf had qbs the whole time he played. Holloway had a guy that couldnt even start in D II and was only throwing WR screens. I couldnt make the judgement unless they both played with the same caliber of quaterbacks.

How good would we be if they were both playing now!?!?

[devin45k]

How good would we be if they were both playing now!?!?

Um, that would be so hard to comprehend. That would make holes for running and other players open up so much more. I think we would be putting Thorton in alot more in 4th quarters. ;)

[TransAmBison]

Um, that would be so hard to comprehend. That would make holes for running and other players open up so much more. I think we would be putting Thorton in alot more in 4th quarters. ;)Would it be as hard to comprehend as...oh...say clutchness?

[BlueBisonRock]

Would it be as hard to comprehend as...oh...say clutchness?

Are you now clutching at straws?

Shifting to the immediate gratification theory, Holloway! Heck was the greatest when he played. Stacey, McDonald, Kirchman, McTague, and Lana were all the greatest when they played.

[gotts]

Reggie is actually a great example of selective memory creating this artificial impression of clutchness. Reggie's career slash line AVG/OPB/SLG was .262/.356/.490

In the World Series Reggie was absolutely lights out at .357/.457/.755 in 116 plate appearances. That's positively Ruthian and everyone remembers him for it.

What everyone forgets is that in games that were nearly as important, the ALCS, Reggie stunk on ice. in 181 plate appearance he put up a line of .227/.298/.380. That's basically Nick Punto without the defense and the grit.

If only Reggie had perceived the 11 league championship series he played in as more important he would have risen to the occasion turned on his clutchness and probably had a chance to play in more than 5 World Series. ;)

How you hit is a skill. When you hit is not a skill. It's random.

I tend to agree.

General question for anyone - just out of curiosity, say Reggie Jackson came up in the bottom of the 9th inning, Yankees down by 2 runs, two runners on, and hits a homerun to win the game. Is that considered clutch?

Say he comes up in the same situation, only there is no one on. The result of his at-bat is the same - a homerun. He cuts the deficit to 1, but the Yankees ultimately lose. Wouldn't you agree that most people would consider this "less clutch" than the previous situation even though the end result of his at bat is the same?

You can't tell me that a guy has a knack for hitting a 3 run homer; it's a matter of circumstance. If it were true, then why can't he have a knack for hitting a solo homer, 2-run homer, or grand slam?

[TransAmBison]

I tend to agree.

General question for anyone - just out of curiosity, say Reggie Jackson came up in the bottom of the 9th inning, Yankees down by 2 runs, two runners on, and hits a homerun to win the game. Is that considered clutch?

Say he comes up in the same situation, only there is no one on. The result of his at-bat is the same - a homerun. He cuts the deficit to 1, but the Yankees ultimately lose. Wouldn't you agree that most people would consider this "less clutch" than the previous situation even though the end result of his at bat is the same?

You can't tell me that a guy has a knack for hitting a 3 run homer; it's a matter of circumstance. If it were true, then why can't he have a knack for hitting a solo homer, 2-run homer, or grand slam?I don't believe the two situations can be compared since there is way more pressure in situation #1 as the game is in his hands. In situation #2 what he does can not win the game. Being able to produce under more pressure is clutch. Lesser people (AG) produce lesser results (bald out). :D

[tony]

I tend to agree.

General question for anyone - just out of curiosity, say Reggie Jackson came up in the bottom of the 9th inning, Yankees down by 2 runs, two runners on, and hits a homerun to win the game. Is that considered clutch?

Say he comes up in the same situation, only there is no one on. The result of his at-bat is the same - a homerun. He cuts the deficit to 1, but the Yankees ultimately lose. Wouldn't you agree that most people would consider this "less clutch" than the previous situation even though the end result of his at bat is the same?

You can't tell me that a guy has a knack for hitting a 3 run homer; it's a matter of circumstance. If it were true, then why can't he have a knack for hitting a solo homer, 2-run homer, or grand slam?

Batting is not a good example because the pitcher has a lot more control over the outcome than, say, a single DB on a 4th and 15 or say. Moreover, there is no other player involved when a person steps up to try and make a huge putt or free throw.

On the other hand, why should I bother arguing. Maybe Steve Walker was not clutch - maybe he was just the luckiest guy on the planet :)

[CAS4127]

Batting is not a good example because the pitcher has a lot more control over the outcome than, say, a single DB on a 4th and 15 or say. Moreover, there is no other player involved when a person steps up to try and make a huge putt or free throw.

Yes, Tony nailed it. See, in order to test the "clutch" hypothesis, one must assume certain facts/evidence, the most important of which is the ability/skill of the player or players being considered. For example, let's take pool for example. Assume two players have the exact same ability/skill, and I mean exact, in a completely isolated setting. In short, they are completely identical in that regard, but they do not have the same physiological makeup, not the same brains, not the same life experiences, not the same intelligence, not the same street smarts, not the same self-confidence, nothing else is the same. Now, put them in a stadium filled with 100K people screaming and hollering for one or the other, and another 1 millions watching on TV, and tell them the first to get all of their balls in the pockets from the brake wins $250 million (Note that you must also assume that the tables are set up exactly the same, the balls are all the same, the sticks are the same, everything is the same). Under Baudits reasoning, it should be a tie. I'm betting it ain't! Why?!

[TransAmBison]

Yes, Tony nailed it. See, in order to test the "clutch" hypothesis, one must assume certain facts/evidence, the most important of which is the ability/skill of the player or players being considered. For example, let's take pool for example. Assume two players have the exact same ability/skill, and I mean exact, in a completely isolated setting. In short, they are completely identical in that regard, but they do not have the same physiological makeup, not the same brains, not the same life experiences, not the same intelligence, not the same street smarts, not the same self-confidence, nothing else is the same. Now, put them in a stadium filled with 100K people screaming and hollering for one or the other, and another 1 millions watching on TV, and tell them the first to get all of their balls in the pockets from the brake wins $250 million (Note that you must also assume that the tables are set up exactly the same, the balls are all the same, the sticks are the same, everything is the same). Under Baudits reasoning, it should be a tie. I'm betting it ain't! Why?!Randomness?

[tony]

Randomness?

Or if they do it 100 times and one guy wins 80 times, you could just argue that the 80-time loser choked 30 times. Granted, choking is an established scientific truth (like Bigfoot) but taking it to another level when the real pressure on is pseudo-scientific claptrap (like Sasquatch.) :)

[Fightin' Bison]

Reggie is actually a great example of selective memory creating this artificial impression of clutchness. Reggie's career slash line AVG/OPB/SLG was .262/.356/.490

In the World Series Reggie was absolutely lights out at .357/.457/.755 in 116 plate appearances. That's positively Ruthian and everyone remembers him for it.

What everyone forgets is that in games that were nearly as important, the ALCS, Reggie stunk on ice. in 181 plate appearance he put up a line of .227/.298/.380. That's basically Nick Punto without the defense and the grit.

If only Reggie had perceived the 11 league championship series he played in as more important he would have risen to the occasion turned on his clutchness and probably had a chance to play in more than 5 World Series. ;)

How you hit is a skill. When you hit is not a skill. It's random.

Performance under pressure is not random. Not every player has an equal number of tries at a high pressure basket, or a high pressure throw, or a game winning one-timer. Only certain athletes will consistently take that burden upon themselves. There is a "successful psychopath" who is assertive, needs dominance, and is able to make decision without remorse or regret (e.g., Kobe. Great reputation for making game winning shots. Truth is that he isn't better than anyone else, but is more willing to take the last shot because he needs to be dominant). The successful psychopath is not concerned with failure because they only focus on their success. These are your highest achieving athletes, attorneys, ceo's and politicians. Reggie may have stunk on ice in the ALCS, but he took his swings without fear of striking out and wanted to be in position to win the game. Another athlete may have let those pitches go by, looking for a walk. Whether an individual successful psychopath succeeds in a particular moment - out of proportion to his/her ordinary success rate - is random. But whether that successful psychopath is in position to perform at that crucial moment is far from random.

[bisonaudit]

On the other hand, why should I bother arguing. Maybe Steve Walker was not clutch - maybe he was just the luckiest guy on the planet :)

Or, you know, maybe he was just a really great football player all of the time and we only happened to remember the bits of this consistently great performance which happend when the game was on the line. This arguement keeps coming back to what I can only conclude is a willful misunderstanding of my position. The fact that there's no evidence that clutchness is a skill is not a condemnation of the talent of the athletes we percieve as clutch. It's actually an affirmation of their talent and all the great things that they're doing when we're not paying attention.

You guys are spinning all kinds of great hypothesis. But what you don't have is a) a testable theory (unless you can come up w/ a million screaming billards fans) or 2) actual objective evidence. The anti-clutch contingent have both.

[CaBisonFan]

I tend to agree.

General question for anyone - just out of curiosity, say Reggie Jackson came up in the bottom of the 9th inning, Yankees down by 2 runs, two runners on, and hits a homerun to win the game. Is that considered clutch?

Say he comes up in the same situation, only there is no one on. The result of his at-bat is the same - a homerun. He cuts the deficit to 1, but the Yankees ultimately lose. Wouldn't you agree that most people would consider this "less clutch" than the previous situation even though the end result of his at bat is the same?

You can't tell me that a guy has a knack for hitting a 3 run homer; it's a matter of circumstance. If it were true, then why can't he have a knack for hitting a solo homer, 2-run homer, or grand slam?

Reggie, as a matter of 'fact,' hit the homer when it was most needed. He did it so many time in so many October games that it was uncanny. He did it for Oakland and New York. He tended to level off during less urgent situations. He did it consistently throughout a long career. He hit solo, one-on, two-on, and grand slam homeruns when his team had no momentum. He'd pull the team up. It was a gift. When your team was against him...it was obnoxious.

[bisonaudit]

Reggie, as a matter of 'fact,' hit the homer when it was most needed. He did it so many time in so many October games that it was uncanny. He did it for Oakland and New York. He tended to level off during less urgent situations. He did it throughout consistently through a long career. He hit solo, one-on, two-on, and grand slams homeruns when his team had no momentum. He'd pull the team up. It was a gift.

Except he didn't "tend to level off during less urgent situtations". He played substantially better in the regular season - hall of famer (least urgent) than he did in the ALCS - stink on ice (more urgent) and then he turned into Babe Ruth in the World Series (most urgent).

What actually happened was that Reggie Jackson was a Hall of Fame baseball player who by random chance played really poorly the first 2 weeks of October and really well the last 2 weeks of October.

[Fightin' Bison]

You guys are spinning all kinds of great hypothesis. But what you don't have is a) a testable theory (unless you can come up w/ a million screaming billards fans) or 2) actual objective evidence.

If you ignore the body of psychological literature on the successful psychopath.

[CAS4127]

Me thinks Baudit has seen the new baseball movie about using the numbers to win and he likely has read a few stories about the concept/hypothesis/theory--can't remember the name of it!!??? How come that didn't hold true??!!

[bisonaudit]

Me thinks Baudit has seen the new baseball movie about using the numbers to win and he likely has read a few stories about the concept/hypothesis/theory--can't remember the name of it!!??? How come that didn't hold true??!!

Good movie, but that story wasn't really about numbers and it wasn't even really about baseball.

If you'd read the book you'd know that Billy Beane said "My shit doesn't work in the playoffs!" :)

Also, the Red Sox, Yankees, Blue Jays, Rays, Dodgers and Indians all started doing the same thing. By the time the world at large caught onto the on base percentage thing the market had caught up and it was no longer an undervalued commodity. Next came defense, people weren't valuing it properly and the advent of play-by-play and video based statistics lead to a revolution in the quality of defensive measurement. Tampa Bay was out front on this and it's contributed to their small market success. Injury prevention is another area that some teams are exploring as a way to preserve their investments, Texas is doing a lot here especially with their pitching staff.

There isn't one magic bullet. These front offices have to be constantly evolving, searching for market inefficiencies.

If the guy down the street is willing to pay you more for a player that they percieve as being clutch and you know that their eyes are fooling them, that's a market inefficiency you can exploit. The player may be great but if they think that he's somehow greater yet, you can take advantage of that. The opposite also holds true. When the Yankees or the Red Sox run some guy out of town because "he can't get the big hit" perhaps that's an opportunity for a smaller team to get a player for less than he's likely worth.

[CAS4127]

Chuck Knoblauch---CLUTCH!!!!!!

[CaBisonFan]

Except he didn't "tend to level off during less urgent situtations". He played substantially better in the regular season - hall of famer (least urgent) than he did in the ALCS - stink on ice (more urgent) and then he turned into Babe Ruth in the World Series (most urgent).

What actually happened was that Reggie Jackson was a Hall of Fame baseball player who by random chance played really poorly the first 2 weeks of October and really well the last 2 weeks of October.

Who...by your definition...did not play clutch baseball. Tell the Oakland and Yankee fans that. lol

[devin45k]

I dont think this is a Bison football thread anymore.

[perthbison]

I don't believe the two situations can be compared since there is way more pressure in situation #1 as the game is in his hands. In situation #2 what he does can not win the game. :D Also there would likely be a difference in the pitching strategy for each situation that could ultimately affect the outcome of the at bat.

[NDSUFan_Sav]

Michael Jordan wasn't any more or less clutch than anyone else. He was just flat out better than everyone else.

The perception of clutchness is, the evidence suggests, observational bias (I have it to). But that doesn't make it real.

If you look at the statistics or read the people who do look at the statistics, it's been demonstrated over and over again that there is no evidence that "clutchness" is a repeatable skill. Albert Pujols is just Albert Pujols all the time, he's never some context dependent super Albert. He's always just Albert. And Delmon Young is Delmon Young. He didn't turn into some other guy when he put on a Tiger's uniform. He's the same mediocre player he was in Minnesota and in Tampa Bay before that, he just happened to have a good 10 days during the playoffs and as a consequence of our observational biases some people began to lose their shit.

I didn't even read 90% of this as I don't even care the discussion is pointless.

[bisonaudit]

Performance under pressure is not random. Not every player has an equal number of tries at a high pressure basket, or a high pressure throw, or a game winning one-timer. Only certain athletes will consistently take that burden upon themselves. There is a "successful psychopath" who is assertive, needs dominance, and is able to make decision without remorse or regret (e.g., Kobe. Great reputation for making game winning shots. Truth is that he isn't better than anyone else, but is more willing to take the last shot because he needs to be dominant). The successful psychopath is not concerned with failure because they only focus on their success. These are your highest achieving athletes, attorneys, ceo's and politicians. Reggie may have stunk on ice in the ALCS, but he took his swings without fear of striking out and wanted to be in position to win the game. Another athlete may have let those pitches go by, looking for a walk. Whether an individual successful psychopath succeeds in a particular moment - out of proportion to his/her ordinary success rate - is random. But whether that successful psychopath is in position to perform at that crucial moment is far from random.

I don't disagree with any of this. Clutchness is, to borrow your words, succeeding "out of proportion to his/her ordinary success rate". There is no evidence that that is a repeatable skill, it's random. When we see these guys like Kobe or Jordan or Reggie or Papi or Jeter do great things in big spots we're actually selling them short by calling them clutch. They're really that good all the time, it's just that we're not always paying as much attention. Their skills put them in a position to perform at the crucial moment. They make their own luck. Fortune favors the prepared.

[gotts]

I didn't even read 90% of this as I don't even care the discussion is pointless.

Thank you for your continued interest in the existence/non-existence of "clutchness."

Would most agree that clutchness is purely defined by situation and opportunity to potentially thrive in said situation?

[TransAmBison]

Thank you for your continued interest in the existence/non-existence of "clutchness."

Would most agree that clutchness is purely defined by situation and opportunity to potentially thrive in said situation?Are you saying Heckendorf didn't actually exist? I saw him...and he was unbelievable many times...but I assure you he existed.

[344Johnson]

Are you saying Heckendorf didn't actually exist? I saw him...and he was unbelievable many times...but I assure you he existed.

Are you sure he exists? Perhaps as a computer program in the Matrix, but in the true reality? No, Kole Heckendorf is not real.

[Bison06]

I don't disagree with any of this. Clutchness is, to borrow your words, succeeding "out of proportion to his/her ordinary success rate". There is no evidence that that is a repeatable skill, it's random. When we see these guys like Kobe or Jordan or Reggie or Papi or Jeter do great things in big spots we're actually selling them short by calling them clutch. They're really that good all the time, it's just that we're not always paying as much attention. Their skills put them in a position to perform at the crucial moment. They make their own luck. Fortune favors the prepared.

I think this comes back to a difference in your definition of clutch vs. mine. I say if a player performs the way he always does when the lights are the brightest that is exactly the definition of clutch. Players who do not have this ability will be rattled and will not be able to perform as well as they normally do due to the pressures of the situation.

If a player can overcome all of that only to perform the way they do at all other times during a game or season, that is "clutch". You can throw as many statistics as you want at it, but to not be phased by all of the things going on around you and the gravity of a moment is a skill that some people have and some don't.

[bisonaudit]

I think this comes back to a difference in your definition of clutch vs. mine. I say if a player performs the way he always does when the lights are the brightest that is exactly the definition of clutch. Players who do not have this ability will be rattled and will not be able to perform as well as they normally do due to the pressures of the situation.

If a player can overcome all of that only to perform the way they do at all other times during a game or season, that is "clutch". You can throw as many statistics as you want at it, but to not be phased by all of the things going on around you and the gravity of a moment is a skill that some people have and some don't.

I'd call that either doing your job or not choking; but whatever floats your boat.

[Bison06]

I'd call that either doing your job or not choking; but whatever floats your boat.

Doing your job? These people are human and are susceptible to pressure just like anyone else.

I assume you are a CPA because of your name, so tell me, how well would you do your job if the happiness of an entire community/fanbase as well as millions and millions of dollars were on the line when you sit down to do your next audit.

Should you be praised for being able to do it under pressure while the guy next to you had a nice quiet room to get his work done and no pressure whatsoever?

Doing the same quality of work while under increased financial and social pressure deserves to be praised, thus you have guys that are called "clutch" for being able to do it.

[bisonaudit]

Doing your job? These people are human and are susceptible to pressure just like anyone else.

I assume you are a CPA because of your name, so tell me, how well would you do your job if the happiness of an entire community/fanbase as well as millions and millions of dollars were on the line when you sit down to do your next audit.

Should you be praised for being able to do it under pressure while the guy next to you had a nice quiet room to get his work done and no pressure whatsoever?

Doing the same quality of work while under increased financial and social pressure deserves to be praised, thus you have guys that are called "clutch" for being able to do it.

When these guys do their job there's no shortage of praise and when they don't there's no shortage of criticism. It's part of the gig and I'm not saying that they don't deserve it. Great is great, and if there's money and fame at the end of that greatness rainbow, bully for them.

I'm not some kind of athelete hater just because I think about the game differently than some. I've got all kinds of appreciation for what these guys do and the joy (and heartache) that it brings me.

I think you and I have a definitional problem (as you've pointed out) but we're actually saying more or less the same thing. But I also think that your definition of 'clutch' is not the common definition. I think that when most people think about 'clutchness' they're thinking about an ability to raise your level of performance when is counts. Whatever word you want to put on that, there's no evidence that it is a repeatable skill.

[Bison06]

When these guys do their job there's no shortage of praise and when they don't there's no shortage of criticism. It's part of the gig and I'm not saying that they don't deserve it. Great is great, and if there's money and fame at the end of that greatness rainbow, bully for them.

I'm not some kind of athelete hater just because I think about the game differently than some. I've got all kinds of appreciation for what these guys do and the joy (and heartache) that it brings me.

I think you and I have a definitional problem (as you've pointed out) but we're actually saying more or less the same thing. But I also think that your definition of 'clutch' is not the common definition. I think that when most people think about 'clutchness' they're thinking about an ability to raise your level of performance when is counts. Whatever word you want to put on that, there's no evidence that it is a repeatable skill.

Correct, I agree with you that they probably don't have an ability to elevate their game. Like I said in my previous post, if a player can even play on the same level as they do during "normal" circumstances, I would call that "clutch".

You're right just a difference in our definitions.

[NDSUFan_Sav]

Thank you for your continued interest in the existence/non-existence of "clutchness."

Would most agree that clutchness is purely defined by situation and opportunity to potentially thrive in said situation?

yes........

[ndsubison1]

So clutch depends on the moment of the game? would a sweet touchdown catch in the first quarter be clutch? I think there are clutch performances but not clutch players

[DjKyRo]

So clutch depends on the moment of the game? would a sweet touchdown catch in the first quarter be clutch? I think there are clutch performances but not clutch players

I think there are players who perform better in high-pressure situations or "big spots." Isaiah Thomas was an absolute monster in situations where the game was on the line, but LoBron James is famous for choking in big moments (at least with the Heat thus far). It might not be quantifiable but it's definitely a quality some people have and others don't.

[ndsubison1]

LeBron has had plenty of "clutch" performances throughout his career, even with the heat

[semobison]

Ok enough of this!
Clutch n : the claws or hand in the act of grasping; also: a device (as a coupling for connecting two working machinery parts) for grippimg an object.
Hope that helps, there was more, where clutch is used as an adjective, but it bored me ( much like this argument) so I quit!!

[SlickVic]

Lebron had probably the most clutch performance I've ever seen game 5 in the playoffs vs the world champion pistons when he played for Cleveland...he scored the cavs final 25 points...not a game winning shot not a game winning throw or catch not a game winning hit or homerun...he scored his teams final 25 points in a double overtime playoff basketball game...might wanna YouTube that one kyro it defines clutch...also big game rob aka Robert horry nobody would of ever even heard of him if he hadn't made atleast 8 game winning shots in his post season career...that fool is living proof of performing in the clutch