Besides being a masher, Barry Bonds is another thing....a playoff choker

I would say Mariano Rivera is a clutch player. He is excellent in save percentage and ERA in the regular season, but takes it up another notch in the playoffs.

 

so freak, let me get this straight youd take jim leyritz(he was clutch for the padres against the astros) over bagwell or bonds, lol

im sooo sick of barry bonds bashing look the guy may not be the nicest in the world, but that si article is pure crap, and if he was so hard to get along how come some of his teammates like Kent(a fine player in his own right) havent demanded a trade in their tenure there

In order to be a playoff team you need guys like bonds and bagwell who consistently produce year in or out, and i dont consider either of these guys playoff chokers, only thing ill say is they try too hard

Back to the article, that 2nd quote by Kent was asinine, if his teammates really "hope" he comes to play, they must have been on a different planet for 10-12 years, because with bonds you dont have to WORRY about production and obviously he isnt a complete a** hole as i dont see many giants demanding trades year in and out(oh thats right they are a perennial contender with bonds and the best manager in the game imho, dusty baker)

as for the nl i really do think the astros are the best team with sf right behind because of a solid offense, good bullpen and solid pitching staff, the braves have solid pitching, but lack offense, arizona the same, la a mash unit, chicago same as atlanta, the cardinals only decent offensively and pitching, plus lack the strong bullpen and are a horrible road team

overall, i dont consider bonds and bagwell "chokers" and i would gladly take either on my team anyday

 

This is where the problem lies. Freak looks at it in another way, and I tend to agree with him. Where in the world does it saying anything about clutch performances being related to statistics?? Nowhere! "Clutch" is not a commonly used statistical term. It is convenient to say..."let's look at the stats to see who is a clutch player and who isnt" but in the end, the main factor is how that athelete is perceived by popular culture. Certainly, statistics do play a part, as they predominantly determine a players performance. But statistics alone lead you down the wrong path. We know in basketball, for example, a player might show up nowhere in the stat book, but still have a "clutch" game, or a "clutch" 4th quarter. The same can be said in any sport. When someone says Barry Bonds isn't clutch it is because his overall performance, including factors such as attitude and leadership, not solely the performance borne out by his stats, has been below average in pressure situations, such as the playoffs. You can say that we dont truly know statistically cause he hasnt been in enough pressure situations, but nobody says someone isnt clutch because of one poor playoff series. Maybe this year Bond's will come through in the playoffs and lead his team to the WS and lose his label as a poor clutch hitter (even though statistically he will still have a terrible playoff average or OBP or home run and RBI total), but all it takes for a star to become a playoff dud to a playoff stud is one such good run, and rightfully so.

Just my $0.02

 

Gibson vs Eckersley. Was that clutch, luck, or just plain law of averages? That homerun seemed improbable.

 

I agree with Freak, two in a row old friend.

I think there is a real "clutchness" factor. Just because we don't have the sample size to provide statistical evidence for it doesn't mean it isn't real. All it means is we don't have the evidence to suggest disconforming/confirming whether "clutchness" exists. Things exist regardless of whether we have the sample sizes, or even the appropriate scientific methodologies, to support them.

Just a hunch, but I bet you could find stable characteristics where some people rise to the occasion more than others if you had good data (good measures and sufficient sample size). Just my opinion, but some people are not able to perform as well under pressure as normally, some perform the same as normal, and a rare few perform better with increased arousal (the intensity of the moment). Maybe to be "clutch" all you need to do is perform normally because other peoples perforamance will fall (clutchness is the absense of chokeness), or maybe you actually do have to raise your level, that part I am not sure of.

I have a hard time believing "pressure" wasn't part of Gary Anderson missing about his only field goal of the season 3 years ago when the kick mattered most, or Bryan Russell's only airballs come with the deep playoff games on the line (or Freaks KJ example). I think one important part of being clutch is prior clutch experiences (builds on itself). Mario and Horry were helped by prior clutch play.

I think Bagwell himself validates the "clutchness" is real perspective. Hasn't he said he put too much pressure on himself in the playoffs in the past instead of letting the game come to him as he normally would do in regular season games?