Playoffs or bust?

[illWill]

A picture that sums up this thread:

 

 

[Commandant]

I get it. 

 

Its hard for people to confront the fact that narratives the media has shoved down their throat, and that they have believed their whole lives, and that makes their sports heroes seem more heroic are myths... but sometimes you just have to look at the facts, and there are no facts that show there is any repeatable "clutch" skill in professional sports. 

 

Once you realize that greatness is not something that athletes turn off and on, it becomes easier. 

[Trizzak]

1 hour ago, Commandant said:

I get it. 

 

Its hard for people to confront the fact that narratives the media has shoved down their throat, and that they have believed their whole lives, and that makes their sports heroes seem more heroic are myths... but sometimes you just have to look at the facts, and there are no facts that show there is any repeatable "clutch" skill in professional sports. 

 

Once you realize that greatness is not something that athletes turn off and on, it becomes easier. 

 

Condescending af.

[Commandant]

44 minutes ago, Trizzak said:

 

Condescending af.

 

and what is the picture above my post, the one i responded to, supposed to be?

 

Will wants to take a pot shot about how this thread is 4 or 5 people against one... don't be surprised if i make a sarcastic and condescending comment in reply.

[Machine of Loving Grace]

15 hours ago, Commandant said:

But "If Clutch is a skill, then its repeatable."

In Cammalleri's case, you can't see that "statistically significant" improvement.  The sample size is too small.  We need more playoff games out of him, before we declare him the one outlier who is clutch.  No one has been able to do that over a statistically significant amount of time.  Why would we assume its an actual clutch skill and not just a hot streak.  Heck we have 3 series he performed great in during his playoff career (Washington 10, Pittsburgh 10, Boston 11), two series he scored zero goals and a few assists (Flames 08 Playoffs, Flyers 10).  3 good series, 2 bad series, does not prove he is a clutch player. It is more likely he is a streaky scorer who had a good month. 

 

It's like you don't even read your own writing. What you just described to me is a guy who was pretty clutch. I won't even bring up the goalpost move of that he's no longer clutch because he had three assists and not three goals in his first ever playoff series in Calgary. And because of the teams he played for, he didn't end up getting a chance to play in the playoffs again. Not his fault, and you have to take the information how it is. Streaky scorer who had a good month? Guys have won Conn Smythe trophies doing that.

 

Honestly at this point I'm fine with just settling that we look at hot streaks differently. If you're Max Pacioretty having a hot streak in December, it means nothing to me compared to Mike Cammalleri having a hot streak in May. Give me players who have hot streaks in the spring please.

[The Chicoutimi Cucumber]

I can't believe this argument has gone on this long, or gotten this grouchy.

[huzer]

I'm pretty clutch. Nearly 30 years later, I can still remember my 5 goal playoff game, team down 4-0, I got 4 in the 3rd and scored the 5th in OT.

 

Regardless of that irrelevant anecdote, I don't really feed on the "clutch" narrative. That's almost like buying into the character crap that the team was currently constructed on. I can hear Bergevin in my ear saying "There are people that get you to the playoffs, then the people that get you through the playoffs". Ugh. It's been an interesting discussion though.

[illWill]

1 hour ago, Machine of Loving Grace said:

 

Honestly at this point I'm fine with just settling that we look at hot streaks differently. If you're Max Pacioretty having a hot streak in December, it means nothing to me compared to Mike Cammalleri having a hot streak in May. Give me players who have hot streaks in the spring please.

 

Stats to me only capture a certain percentage of what's actually going on in a particular sport. There are a bazillion variables at play and it's impossible to measure them all. 

 

 

[xXx..CK..xXx]

On 12/5/2017 at 10:23 AM, Commandant said:

 

That article is showing a narrative.  It doesn't do anything to actually prove that those players are clutch.  It doesn't get into any statistical analysis to show they are better in key situations than they are in the first inning, or first game, or first period.  Its just repeating narratives. 

 

and Novak Djokovic and Roger Federer are both GREAT players... that doesn't make them clutch. 

 

Narratives spun by the media cause the story of someone overcoming the odds, and stepping up to the pressure, is a heroic one, and that sells.  But we shouldn't just accept narratives as true without looking at them critically. 

 

There are two main things you are saying on a repeated basis. The first is that great players cannot be clutch. In short, you are basically saying that one needs to be a lesser than great player in order to be able to be considered clutch during the playoffs. Otherwise, they are not clutch when they do great things in the moment, they are simply great. 

 

You completely ignored the fact that I mentioned how the great players in tennis, tend to be the ones who win the "important points". A lifetime can be spent attempting to help recreational players win these big points. In addition, there are many professional players who tend to squander opportunities on a repeated basis, when faced with or given the opportunity of having, break points. This could be against a lesser player or against someone of a higher skill level. This demonstrates a mental side to the game that cannot be quantified through statistical analysis. In tennis, there are many times, where the player who won more points during the match actually loses the outcome of the match. The less "great" player won the match having won less overall points than their opponent because they won the points that mattered most, I.e break points and their advantage points. 

 

The second thing is that you keep keep saying that the playoffs are too small a sample size and that is too vague an argument to counter that being clutch does exist. Being clutch, once again relates to a mental state. Some players raise their game (on a repeated basis) in the crunch whereas others tend to feel helpless in such moments. Take a shootout, for instance, some want to be out there, and some don't. 

 

In the end, you are viewing the term clutch in sports as something that has to be quantifiable by numbers. In a team sport, someone who is clutch might not necessarily produce points in the moment. Being clutch is more of a mindstate in that if the opportunity is there, the player will more than likely cash in because they love the moment and raise their mental fortitude during the crunch. Not every player will excel in these moments, "simply because they are professionals."

 

More often than not, it is the great players who are clutch as well. It does not need to be one or the other. In some instances, being clutch helps make them great. On the other end, you also have the Joel Wards of the world who produce more in important games and moments.

 

This all has nothing to do with a narrative in the media, it comes from having played sports for 25 years and having coached for the past 10.

 

[Trizzak]

10 hours ago, Commandant said:

 

and what is the picture above my post, the one i responded to, supposed to be?

 

Will wants to take a pot shot about how this thread is 4 or 5 people against one... don't be surprised if i make a sarcastic and condescending comment in reply.

 

Humorous and lighthearted. 

[Commandant]

1 hour ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

There are two main things you are saying on a repeated basis. The first is that great players cannot be clutch. In short, you are basically saying that one needs to be a lesser than great player in order to be able to be considered clutch during the playoffs. Otherwise, they are not clutch when they do great things in the moment, they are simply great. 

 

You completely ignored the fact that I mentioned how the great players in tennis, tend to be the ones who win the "important points". A lifetime can be spent attempting to help recreational players win these big points. In addition, there are many professional players who tend to squander opportunities on a repeated basis, when faced with or given the opportunity of having, break points. This could be against a lesser player or against someone of a higher skill level. This demonstrates a mental side to the game that cannot be quantified through statistical analysis. In tennis, there are many times, where the player who won more points during the match actually loses the outcome of the match. The less "great" player won the match having won less overall points than their opponent because they won the points that mattered most, I.e break points and their advantage points. 

 

The second thing is that you keep keep saying that the playoffs are too small a sample size and that is too vague an argument to counter that being clutch does exist. Being clutch, once again relates to a mental state. Some players raise their game (on a repeated basis) in the crunch whereas others tend to feel helpless in such moments. Take a shootout, for instance, some want to be out there, and some don't. 

 

In the end, you are viewing the term clutch in sports as something that has to be quantifiable by numbers. In a team sport, someone who is clutch might not necessarily produce points in the moment. Being clutch is more of a mindstate in that if the opportunity is there, the player will more than likely cash in because they love the moment and raise their mental fortitude during the crunch. Not every player will excel in these moments, "simply because they are professionals."

 

More often than not, it is the great players who are clutch as well. It does not need to be one or the other. In some instances, being clutch helps make them great. On the other end, you also have the Joel Wards of the world who produce more in important games and moments.

 

This all has nothing to do with a narrative in the media, it comes from having played sports for 25 years and having coached for the past 10.

 

 

 

1) By definition to be clutch, you have to elevate your game. 

 

If you are great... then you are just as good in the regular season as in the playoffs.  There is no elevation. 

 

If Michael Jordan scores lots of points in the first quarter, and lots of points in the 4th quarter, thats not clutch... thats just being the best basketball player ever... and doing it at all times. 

 

2) Sports at the Pro Level are not the same as having played and coached sports for 25 years and 10. 

 

Do normal people react differently to pressure? sure. 

 

By the time you reach the players who make the NHL, you are talking about the best of the best of the best in sports.  Those 0.00001% of athletes made it to where they are, because they succeed in pressure situations, whether it is impressing scouts, outperforming peers to win jobs, doing well in junior hockey, AHL hockey, etc.  Those who don't elevate, have been weeded out.

 

3) As for sample sizes.  I don't make the rules of what is or isn't statistically significant.  This is math.   Means, standard deviation, sample size... all basic statistics taught in any intro level university science course.  The studies have been run.  The numbers have been looked at.  There is virtually no evidence of any player, not Cammalleri, not Rivera, not Claude Lemieux, not Justin Williams, no one... to repeatedly perform better at a statistically significant level at a large sample size. 

 

Some (Claude Lemieux, Rivera, williams) is because when you look at all their games, they are the same in the regular season and playoffs. 

 

Some (Cammalleri) did well in 3 out of 5 playoff rounds (and sorry MOLG... 0 g 3 a in 6 games in Calgary is not good, even giving credit for the assists).... 5 playoff series in a career is too small a sample size to get any data of real predictive value.  

 

[Commandant]

58 minutes ago, Trizzak said:

 

Humorous and lighthearted. 

 

Some might argue that my post, dripping in sarcasm is the same.   Sorry if you didn't get it. 

[Trizzak]

23 minutes ago, Commandant said:

 

Some might argue that my post, dripping in sarcasm is the same.   Sorry if you didn't get it. 

 

Condescending af.

[xXx..CK..xXx]

46 minutes ago, Commandant said:

 

 

1) By definition to be clutch, you have to elevate your game. 

 

If you are great... then you are just as good in the regular season as in the playoffs.  There is no elevation. 

 

If Michael Jordan scores lots of points in the first quarter, and lots of points in the 4th quarter, thats not clutch... thats just being the best basketball player ever... and doing it at all times. 

 

2) Sports at the Pro Level are not the same as having played and coached sports for 25 years and 10. 

 

Do normal people react differently to pressure? sure. 

 

By the time you reach the players who make the NHL, you are talking about the best of the best of the best in sports.  Those 0.00001% of athletes made it to where they are, because they succeed in pressure situations, whether it is impressing scouts, outperforming peers to win jobs, doing well in junior hockey, AHL hockey, etc.  Those who don't elevate, have been weeded out.

 

3) As for sample sizes.  I don't make the rules of what is or isn't statistically significant.  This is math.   Means, standard deviation, sample size... all basic statistics taught in any intro level university science course.  The studies have been run.  The numbers have been looked at.  There is virtually no evidence of any player, not Cammalleri, not Rivera, not Claude Lemieux, not Justin Williams, no one... to repeatedly perform better at a statistically significant level at a large sample size. 

 

Some (Claude Lemieux, Rivera, williams) is because when you look at all their games, they are the same in the regular season and playoffs. 

 

Some (Cammalleri) did well in 3 out of 5 playoff rounds (and sorry MOLG... 0 g 3 a in 6 games in Calgary is not good, even giving credit for the assists).... 5 playoff series in a career is too small a sample size to get any data of real predictive value.  

 

If you increase the sample size, you are eliminating the purpose of being clutch. Over an 82 game season, it is relevant to argue that no player will be clutch each an every game. Frankly, over an 82 game season, there will be a myriad of reasons why it may not be possible to be clutch each and every game.  When you have a best of 7 series or a game 7, every moment becomes magnified because of the importance attached to it. 

 

Being clutch is more relevant over a smaller sample size than a larger one. The larger the sample size the less important the definition becomes. It is those players who perform during the "moment" who are more

clutch than those who simply perform over a larger sample size. Those are the "great" players and this is the reason you've reached a wall in the argument. 

 

Furthermore, someone might demonstrate clutch attributes 20 games out of 80 while another demonstrates it 5 games out of 80. No one said they would be clutch each and every game but clearly one player is more clutch than the other.

 

In the NBA, star players are rested regularly throughout the year. Would they ever be benched in a playoff series simply for rest? The answer is no, because whether we want to admit it or not, the importance of a game during the season can be less meaningful than another game in the same season, or more obviously, a regular season game compared to the playoffs.

 

If you want to find someone being clutch over a larger sample size, you don't fully understand the definition of clutch, or you just want to eliminate the possibility altogether. 

 

There are many different types of clutch. You can be clutch as an immediate response to your opponent having done something amazing. Think of darts. Your opponent hit a bullseye on their last shot and the only way to defeat them is for you to hit the bullseye yourself. If you were to nail the eye in the moment, that represents the definition of clutch. It doesn't matter if he never did that again in his life. The moment was clutch.

 

We've gone on a tangent to argue a very specific type of clutch in sports based on your view, but there are varying levels of clutch. While there are certainly players who are generally clutch over time as well, this isn't the only way to demonstrate clutch tendencies in sports. 

[Commandant]

47 minutes ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

If you increase the sample size, you are eliminating the purpose of being clutch. Over an 82 game season, it is relevant to argue that no player will be clutch each an every game. Frankly, over an 82 game season, there will be a myriad of reasons why it may not be possible to be clutch each and every game.  When you have a best of 7 series or a game 7, every moment becomes magnified because of the importance attached to it. 

 

Being clutch is more relevant over a smaller sample size than a larger one. The larger the sample size the less important the definition becomes. It is those players who perform during the "moment" who are more

clutch than those who simply perform over a larger sample size. Those are the "great" players and this is the reason you've reached a wall in the argument. 

 

Furthermore, someone might demonstrate clutch attributes 20 games out of 80 while another demonstrates it 5 games out of 80. No one said they would be clutch each and every game but clearly one player is more clutch than the other.

 

In the NBA, star players are rested regularly throughout the year. Would they ever be benched in a playoff series simply for rest? The answer is no, because whether we want to admit it or not, the importance of a game during the season can be less meaningful than another game in the same season, or more obviously, a regular season game compared to the playoffs.

 

If you want to find someone being clutch over a larger sample size, you don't fully understand the definition of clutch, or you just want to eliminate the possibility altogether. 

 

There are many different types of clutch. You can be clutch as an immediate response to your opponent having done something amazing. Think of darts. Your opponent hit a bullseye on their last shot and the only way to defeat them is for you to hit the bullseye yourself. If you were to nail the eye in the moment, that represents the definition of clutch. It doesn't matter if he never did that again in his life. The moment was clutch.

 

We've gone on a tangent to argue a very specific type of clutch in sports based on your view, but there are varying levels of clutch. While there are certainly players who are generally clutch over time as well, this isn't the only way to demonstrate clutch tendencies in sports. 

 

Increasing the sample size can be done by looking at more playoff series.  Claude Lemieux has 18 years of making the playoffs.  His sample size is there. 

 

Cammalleri has 3 years and 5 series.  While he did well, the sample size is small enough and the standard deviations not big enough.  We can't say statistically that his playoffs wasn't just a streaky scorer getting lucky that his streak lined up with the playoffs.  We can't show statistically that it was actual "clutch" play instead of luck that his strong play lined up with a crucial time. 

 

There are crucial moments.   Being clutch is being able to repeatedly perform in crucial moments.  A pro athlete who is good at sports doing something once can be seen as random chance.  To prove he is clutch it has to be a repeatable skill. 

 

Someone can perform well in crucial moments.  If they don't repeat that performance over a number of crucial moments then you can't say that they have the inate ability to be clutch.  It could merely be luck. 

[xXx..CK..xXx]

1 hour ago, Commandant said:

 

Increasing the sample size can be done by looking at more playoff series.  Claude Lemieux has 18 years of making the playoffs.  His sample size is there. 

 

Cammalleri has 3 years and 5 series.  While he did well, the sample size is small enough and the standard deviations not big enough.  We can't say statistically that his playoffs wasn't just a streaky scorer getting lucky that his streak lined up with the playoffs.  We can't show statistically that it was actual "clutch" play instead of luck that his strong play lined up with a crucial time. 

 

There are crucial moments.   Being clutch is being able to repeatedly perform in crucial moments.  A pro athlete who is good at sports doing something once can be seen as random chance.  To prove he is clutch it has to be a repeatable skill. 

 

Someone can perform well in crucial moments.  If they don't repeat that performance over a number of crucial moments then you can't say that they have the inate ability to be clutch.  It could merely be luck. 

It certainly could be luck but it doesn't erase the fact that that certain players are clutch. As a fan, it might be hard to identify. As a statistician, it may be difficult to prove. However as a player or coach on the team, it can be important to identify those who are likely to perform when needed. Clutch moments can develop in various situations. Such as after the opposing team has scored a goal, or in the dying moments of a game, when down by one. Getting a goal for the sake of argument in those moments are clutch situations. 

 

Players think differently than each other and some things can never be coached. I would like to agree with the fact that at this point NHL players are professionals and should all have a similar killer instinct mentality in the crunch but the truth is some players of even skill level will fire the puck wide in the slot with less than a minute to go on a repeated basis 10/10 times. Others will get a shot on net 10/10 times and score x+3 out of those 10 times. There are of course a lot of variables at play, but those players are clutch.

 

Give the players the same opportunity in the first period, and the numbers may start to even out. Next we will hear that choking in sports is impossible. 

 

The question is who decided what stat needs to be looked at to quantify something that is happening in somebody's mind. The player who got 10 out of 10 shots in the crucial moment has a stat that no one is paying attention to yet the numbers could still indicate that he has a clutch mentality. His shot was going in off the crossbar, the goalie just made a brilliant glove save. The player who missed the net 10 out of 10 times is mentally weak in those moments and shouldn't be counted on to be clutch.

[Commandant]

56 minutes ago, xXx..CK..xXx said:

It certainly could be luck but it doesn't erase the fact that that certain players are clutch. As a fan, it might be hard to identify. As a statistician, it may be difficult to prove. However as a player or coach on the team, it can be important to identify those who are likely to perform when needed. Clutch moments can develop in various situations. Such as after the opposing team has scored a goal, or in the dying moments of a game, when down by one. Getting a goal for the sake of argument in those moments are clutch situations. 

 

Players think differently than each other and some things can never be coached. I would like to agree with the fact that at this point NHL players are professionals and should all have a similar killer instinct mentality in the crunch but the truth is some players of even skill level will fire the puck wide in the slot with less than a minute to go on a repeated basis 10/10 times. Others will get a shot on net 10/10 times and score x+3 out of those 10 times. There are of course a lot of variables at play, but those players are clutch.

 

Give the players the same opportunity in the first period, and the numbers may start to even out. Next we will hear that choking in sports is impossible. 

 

The question is who decided what stat needs to be looked at to quantify something that is happening in somebody's mind. The player who got 10 out of 10 shots in the crucial moment has a stat that no one is paying attention to yet the numbers could still indicate that he has a clutch mentality. His shot was going in off the crossbar, the goalie just made a brilliant glove save. The player who missed the net 10 out of 10 times is mentally weak in those moments and shouldn't be counted on to be clutch.

3

 

Down a goal, late in a game? Those situations are crucial, and you should put your BEST players on the ice in crucial situations, because they are the ones most likely to succeed.   

 

That is why you put Crosby on the ice.  That is why you let Michael Jordan take the shot, that is why you put your best pitcher on the mound.   The best players are the ones most likely to perform in a key situation, because they are the ones most likely to perform in all situations.

 

Clutch is a myth, its a narrative, just like character.  Give me talent.

 

As for your examples... those are hypotheticals.  The player who goes 10 for 10 and 0 for 10, don't exist in real life professional sports.  Find them for me and then we can talk. 

 

But here is an example of an actual player i know of. 

 

Alex Rodriguez was a great player.  However many called him a choker cause he had a near mendoza-line batting average over the 2005, 06 and 07 playoffs with the Yankees. Fans in New York wanted him benched in the playoffs.  The next time the team made the playoffs, the manager played him despite the fans callin for his head cause the guy isn't clutch. Then in 2009, he hit over 400 in the playoffs as the Yankees won the world series. 

 

What happened?  Why did he stop choking? The truth is that he didn't discover some secret of being clutch that year.  He was simply always a great hitter, but one who was unlucky to hit a slump in the playoffs.  The next year he hit a hot streak in the playoffs. 

 

The lesson is always play your best player, don't count on something mythical like clutch to make you believe some other player should be put into the crucial situation. 

 

 

[huzer]

15 minutes ago, Commandant said:

Clutch is a myth, its a narrative, just like character.  Give me talent.

 Amen.

[BCHabnut]

I wonder what percentage of players underperform during critical times due to changes in reffing, tighter checking, psychological issues with over thinking? Resulting in the players who maintain the exact stats being clutch by staying the same. Because they did not regress as many players do in playoffs. 

[Commandant]

1 hour ago, BCHabnut said:

I wonder what percentage of players underperform during critical times due to changes in reffing, tighter checking, psychological issues with over thinking? Resulting in the players who maintain the exact stats being clutch by staying the same. Because they did not regress as many players do in playoffs. 

 

The studies account for that

 

http://nhlnumbers.com/2012/10/3/clutch-nhl-playoff-big-game-performers

[xXx..CK..xXx]

3 hours ago, Commandant said:

 

Down a goal, late in a game? Those situations are crucial, and you should put your BEST players on the ice in crucial situations, because they are the ones most likely to succeed.   

 

That is why you put Crosby on the ice.  That is why you let Michael Jordan take the shot, that is why you put your best pitcher on the mound.   The best players are the ones most likely to perform in a key situation, because they are the ones most likely to perform in all situations.

 

Clutch is a myth, its a narrative, just like character.  Give me talent.

 

As for your examples... those are hypotheticals.  The player who goes 10 for 10 and 0 for 10, don't exist in real life professional sports.  Find them for me and then we can talk. 

 

But here is an example of an actual player i know of. 

 

Alex Rodriguez was a great player.  However many called him a choker cause he had a near mendoza-line batting average over the 2005, 06 and 07 playoffs with the Yankees. Fans in New York wanted him benched in the playoffs.  The next time the team made the playoffs, the manager played him despite the fans callin for his head cause the guy isn't clutch. Then in 2009, he hit over 400 in the playoffs as the Yankees won the world series. 

 

What happened?  Why did he stop choking? The truth is that he didn't discover some secret of being clutch that year.  He was simply always a great hitter, but one who was unlucky to hit a slump in the playoffs.  The next year he hit a hot streak in the playoffs. 

 

The lesson is always play your best player, don't count on something mythical like clutch to make you believe some other player should be put into the crucial situation. 

 

 

Saying clutch is a myth is blatantly incorrect. You still haven't explained why a player like Joel Ward who is notoriously known for being clutch, statistics aside, has his numbers go up from .43 points per game in the regular season to .63 once he reaches he playoffs. He has been in the playoffs 7 seperate times. 

 

I don't necessarily think this is the only way that being clutch can be quantified but I'm going by the way you are defining it.

 

It's also interesting to note that you state a sample size is too small and then use a singular example in order to attempt to prove your narrative. 

 

Many thought A-Rod was a choker but that doesn't mean they were correct. That right there is a narrative of its own. It would be similar to stating that Carey Price is a choker because he has yet to do anything in the playoffs. 

 

If Carey Price wins a Stanley Cup, this will neither demonstrate that he is necessarily clutch nor will it disprove anyone who view him as a choker. I consider Carey Price to

be the best goalie in the game but I don't consider him to be clutch at this point in time. If skill were all that mattered, he would have done more in the playoffs up to date, regardless of it being a team sport. 

 

True examples of chokers would be players like Marty Turco, Alex Semin, potentially players like Ovechkin and Joe Thornton. These players have had statistical regression during playoffs, as well as a lack of championships despite championship caliber teams. Bruce Boudreau is another example, even though he got off the shnide in a game 7 last year. 

 

Example of clutch players in he NHL would include players like Patrick Roy, Joe Sakic (unless we don't consider his 6 game winning goals in the 1996 playoffs clutch)

 

Claude Lemieux's stats also did go up in the playoffs during his prime years from roughly .65 ppp to .71 in the playoffs.

 

How about Lundqvist who at one point was 15-5 in elimination games during the playoffs? Having one repeated game 7s. How would that be considered a "hot streak" after having lost game 6? Sure, he is a great goalie, but there are other goalies who are just as great, who have a much worse record in elimination games.

 

Henrik Lundqvist has been clutch in the NHL playoffs, despite not having won a cup. 

 

I already hear the circular argument that none of the players I listed are clutch, they are merely great. But you are missing the point that great players can be clutch as well.

 

The analysis would be tedious but if someone were to do the work, there would be various ways to statistically prove that some players are clutch. Timing of their goals, points per period.... etc...

 

 

 

 

 

[Commandant]

1 or 2 outliers doesn't prove that those players are clutch.  it is what you would expect. 

 

Simple math here.

90% of a population is expected to be within 2 standard deviations of the mean. 

 

5% would be more than 2 standard deviations above it.... and 5% would be below it. 

Seeing two or three players whose numbers increase, and two or three who decrease from that mean does not prove that clutch is a skill that players have.  It just shows that with small sample sizes, 5% of the population on either end is white noise.

 

If clutch was a true skill that you can draft for, that you can trade for, that you can build your team with... then you would see more than that 5% of noise. 

 

Instead of downvoting me for posting the studies that have been done, maybe try to read them and understand what they are trying to prove and what they say about finding one or two outliers. 

 

Outliers exist, it still doesn't prove that clutch exists.

[xXx..CK..xXx]

On 12/7/2017 at 6:42 PM, Commandant said:

 

 

Instead of downvoting me for posting the studies that have been done, maybe try to read them and understand what they are trying to prove and what they say about finding one or two outliers. 

 

Outliers exist, it still doesn't prove that clutch exists.

I  didn't downvote you a single time.

 

I understand what you are trying to argue but none of it proves that clutch is a myth. Being clutch can happen in a brief moment as well. If you only get one chance and you execute, that's clutch. 

 

It's almost impossible to note the mindstate of a person over an extended period of time but some people are mentally stronger than others. Some sports have more clutch players than others, and being clutch is more noteable in individual sports. 

 

You define clutch players as pretty much exclusively being great and I refute by saying in tennis, there are 100-200 players in the world who are as "great" skillfully (professionals) as Federer and yet if they were to play a match, Federer would win most of the time because of his mental edge. You may refute this claim but it's truly not far from the truth. There really are that many people who could hit with Federer for fun and compete but when the match starts, nerves kick in and Federer handles it better than most ever have. There are many "studies" stating that the sport is 50% skill and 50% mental. Djokovic took half a year off because he was struggling mentally, not skillfully.

 

To state that something similar cannot differentiate players in the NHL is giving too much credit to the players as being "professional". As if there are no players in the league suffering from alcohol abuse, depression, or other mental fogs that can obstruct their decision making. Of course you have players like Theo Fleury who have experienced trauma and actually excelled in clutch situations but the point remains that not everyone is on an even mental state. 

 

In a team sport, clutch is more difficult to assess and even less likely to necessarily make a difference in the outcome because of factors like coaching, systems, line matching, injuries, chemistry, overall competitiveness of the team and everything else changing from minute to minute and season to season but there are certainly players you want out there in the crucial moments and it's not simply because they are great. Wayne Gretzky was pretty great and didn't shoot in the '98 Nagano Olympics. Of course that's not the best example but it could either be an example of why clutchness in a team sport cannot be measured (questionable coaching decision) or why fans often ask why this player was used in a specific moment (coach thinks questioned player excels in the moment more than the usual, expectedly "great" individual.) 

[Commandant]

Why do I care if being clutch is repeatable, and not about doing something once?

 

Because if it isn't repeatable... if it only happens in one brief moment and is never repeated, then there is no point using it as a factor when evaluating players and building a hockey team. 

 

If past results in crucial moments don't predict future results in those crucial moments (and all the statistical studies say they don't)... then why do i want to use it as a criteria in trades, signings, draft picks, player usage, etc.... 

 

And the fact is that we can't prove it exists. 

 

So I want my team's GM to ignore the narratives about clutch, and acquire players with talent, and production instead. 

 

I also do not believe that there are 100-200 players who have the skills of Federer.  Federer is one of the greatest of all time, and some would argue he is the greatest... and having talent is a huge part of that.  He didn't become what he is if he has the same skills as 100-200 other guys. His accuracy, the way he can spin the ball on his shots, the way he thinks the game, etc.... its all part of talent. 

[Guest Stogey24]

Lol, this is still going on?