The weird disparity between performance and winning

[Willihammer]

You have to wonder how much the "unlucky" sequencing is related to the Twins squandering every scoring opportunity with failed bunts, hit and runs, steals, etc. 

 

Might be bringing on some of their own bad luck.

[Jham]

 

And yet the 2015 Twins, with basically the same guys, were better in every conceivable clutch situation than with the bases empty.

 

We don't usually label a guy a power hitter one year and punch-and-judy the next year, or vice versa - we talk about slumps and hot hands and so forth - but we're very happy to look inside his head and pronounce whether he's clutch or not on such a basis.

I find the clutch/choke arguments very interesting in that there tend to be strong opinions on each side, and to me, it is the perfect highlight for both the usefulness and shortcomings of sabremetric analysis.  Pressure affects human performance.  And it does not effect everyone equally.  On top of that, it does not affect the same person equally in all cases.  There's lots of variables that determine whether pressure is likely to "burst pipes" or "make diamonds".  

The numbers become quite useful in dispelling heuristics like hindsight or confirmation bias (I told you Buxton was going to strike out) or availability heuristic (at bats / appearances offering greater emotional response are more memorable and affect perception of frequency).  The numbers will probably show that none of us are much better than a computer at predicting outcomes of Buxton ABs, and our memories of 2015 Sano were probably tainted by his unprecedented first month to the extent we ignored his last month.

Nevertheless, there are lots of numbers guys out there who claim clutch or choke don't exist because of the difficulty in measuring it.  Blame the countless variables of baseball, but pressure affects humans in lab settings, it affects pro-golfers, NFL kickers, public speakers, etc.  Sometimes it makes us better, sometimes worse.  Confidence, experience, and whether you're narrowly leading (closer) vs. narrowly trailing (hitter) all matter.  http://www.jneurosci.org/content/34/45/14833.short  

There are many explanations for numbers that deviate dramatically from the expected result.  Luck is only one of them, albeit a convenient one, especially for the numbers guys who can then simply dismiss any element of the sport that can't be quantified.  On other hand, those who care more for the adversarial nature of the game, and the chess match played between pitcher and batter, love watching each side deal with pressure.  For my .02, I think it's predictable that clutch would not show up on the baseball card since both the batter and pitcher will be under pressure at the same time, with both likely to be affected one way or the other.  It's also true that most studies of performance under pressure look at players in close games towards the end of the games.  But as the above John Hopkins study shows, your aversion for losing, love of winning, and whether your ahead or behind would alter the outcome.  There's room for more study for metrics folks willing to dig deeper.

[Mike Sixel]

Then why were they clutch in May of last year, but not the rest of the year?

[jimmer]

 

Then why were they clutch in May of last year, but not the rest of the year?

Because Hunter ran out of his magic pixie dust.