Umm, try searching "effects of adreneline" on the internet. Here's a few to get you started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epinephrine#Actions_in_the_body http://www.mindtools.com/stresscn.html Why? What makes it a "clutch" situation is the fact that's it NOT done regularly. Having to make a pass that you know wins or loses a game is different from making a pass on 1st and 10 to start the game. In that situation, with 5 seconds left on the clock, your adrenaline levels will be different from the 1st quarter. Well, most guys anyway, which just shows that the media overuses the term. Bobby Abreu, for example, hasn't. If you're right, it should be impossible to predict that year after year he's likely to perform notably better with runners on than without. And yet, year after year, he does. For his career of over 5000 at bats (split fairly evenly - 2800 and 2300 ABs), he has a differential of nearly 0.150 OPS and 0.050 BA in those two situations. Each of the past 5 seasons, he's been at least 0.100 OPS better. Except some of it is all connected to the same basic thing. It's simply an ability to respond well to pressure.
But this assumes everyone plays to their absolute maximum capability at all times. In no other profession do people max out their ability 100% of the time. Why assume that they would in sports?
no, it really doesn't. using an extreme example - if vince young can throw a ball no further than 50 yards, i do not believe he's capable of throwing it 60 yards in a "clutch" situation. now, he may reach back and do it once; but he might also throw 1 or 2 balls only 25 yards... the point being, given 100 "clutch" throws, vince young will consistently throw the ball 50 yards, meaning he's playing up to the limitations of his physical skills.
Can we take the Bagwell discussion else where? I keep thinking we've made another trade or on the verge of signing someone, but nope. Bagwell.
Thanks, I wasn't aware that epinephrine existed! How does that prove that certain players are "clutch"? Because having done something multiplied 1000s of times will prepare someone more for a big moment (complete with more epinephrine) than having not done so. Unless, of course, you don't think practice is of any value. What about the rest of his career? What's he going to do this year? It all evens out. Congrats on finding one example, for only part of his career.
Two things here (sort of unrelated): 1. Much of the concept of being "clutch" is mental. It's not that you necessarily do things you're physically incapable of, but that you make good decisions and "smart" plays (in football context). Some people are able to focus better when there is the most pressure, while others do the least. You see this in everyday life as well - some people are better at working with their backs against deadline, while others will be better in a lower intensity situation. So it wouldn't necessarily be that he throws it further, but that he's was able to make the right decision, moreso than earlier in the game where the pressure and focus is not there. You can certainly also look at this as not living up to potential for the first 3 quarters of a game, but that does back to the idea that no one functions at 100% efficiency all the time in anything. 2. In my previous posts, I was referring to physical abilities though. In that regard, I would still argue that you can do things you otherwise wouldn't. No that you physically couldn't in ordinary circumstances, but that people don't. This goes back to the adrenaline concept. If I ask you to run 100 meters, and then you're in a hostile environment with people shooting at you and you have to run 100 meters to safety, you'll probably run faster in the latter situation. It's not that you physically couldn't in the first scenario, it's that you (a) chemically might not be able to because of adrenaline flow and (b) you just aren't going to run 100% on a constant basis when asked. It's no different than the fact that lots of people here are at work but are choosing to post on a BBS - they are not functioning at 100% efficiency in their "natural" state, even though they are getting paid and are professionals. But when it comes down to a deadline, they'll be able to work harder. And if it's a really important deadline that could result in them getting fired or promoted, they'll work even harder. QB's make thousands of throws a year between games, practice, warmups, etc. They can't do them all at 100% effort - you develop a comfort level that lets you continue to perform at a high level. But when you're called upon to go above and beyond, some people are better at using the adrenaline/focus/etc to take advantage of those extra physical capabilities, while others aren't. I know we're talking about this in the context of sports, but I think we're talking human nature so it applies to all areas of life and sports is just an example. The leadership stuff is kind of the same idea.
It doesn't. The quote you asked for documentation for is this: Sorry, but its a known and proven phenomenon that people react differently when in pressure situations. What does this have to do with anything? You don't practice adrenaline or pressure. You practice in the hopes that you will be able to deal with it better, certainly. What are you talking about? I quoted his entire major league career. As for one example - you're the one arguing that something doesn't exist. If it doesn't exist, there shouldn't be one example. The point is that it hasn't evened out, nor has it shown signs of it.
i don't stray too terribly far from this; my contention is that i think we overvalue people capable of performing when it matters most. not that it has NO value, just the idea of ascribing additional acclaim or accolades when, in essence, the player is merely playing to his potential. no one would trade arod for scrappy little davey eckstein, but i promise you, people will give much too much weight to what, if anything, eckstein really brings to a team, especially in relation to arod. "he's just a winner; he leaves all out on the field; he's a leader..." i'll take my 22 physically gifted athletes against anyone's "clutch leaders" any day and, imo, i will wipe the field with them 99% of the time. in the end, imo, you can either do it physically, or not, clutch leaders be damned. i guess it's half-empty/full; i would characterize this athlete, as you stated earlier, as underachieving, so when he IS focused, et al, he's merely clicking at the height of his physical capacity. if vince young runs a 4.2/40, he'll run a 4.2/40. if he consistently runs a 4.0/40 in "clutch" situations, then it's a product of him not concentrating, caring, whatever, whenever he was clocked running a 4.2. i think our evidence is how often "clutch" players are either being judged on a small sample size (carlos beltran) or how often "clutch" players, over the course of extended periods, eventually revert back to the expected level of output.
Major, I agree with your points.. except that in baseball, it has been proven otherwise. Although a guy may make the "smart" decisions and be clutch...over a long period of time, he will make the same number of smart decisions and dumb decisions in those situations as he usually would. Which, in the end, will average out to something close to his career averages. Maybe the media hype on the game or the pub. it received for whatever reason made the "smart" decisions stand out more. But the stats seem to prove that everything about this concept isn't true for baseball
But clearly you were tying epinephrine directly to being "clutch" and implying a causal relationship. Can you back that up? Oh, please... But you answer your answer your own question here: Yup. It's that simple. All that practice *does* make a difference when the pressure intensifies. You did. I got hung up on the "the last five years" bit and clearly missed the other. My bad. But what are "those situations" which you are referncing? And, your tying of the concept of leadership to the concept of "clutch" is weak and completely unsupportable. Terrell Owens has made a few plays in pressure situations? Is he a leader? (And, I guess he's suddenly no longer "clutch".)
Wow. This has really gotten derailed. I review two pages of posts, and nothing about what the Astros may or may not do over the offseason. This has somehow devolved into a debate about being clutch and taking the juice. Anybody hear anything about the Astros? News? Rumors?
No. Thanks, though, for the lecture; I'm so sorry for discussing baseball issues in a baseball thread. Oh, and btw, there's no such thing as "clutch".
Candidates for the 4/5 spot as it stands now, per Garner last night: Wandy, Sampson, Nieve, Gutierrez. Presumably he forgot to mention Albers. Jason Lane continues to suck in Winter ball. Jason Jennings, Purp & the agent will discuss extensions soon. Daily Racket Update: As of 9:20 AM, he was still unsure if he wanted to have waffles or pancakes for breakfast. *If* they can move Ensberg, they would like to sign Huff. Nobody wants Ensberg.
Huff is a better option because he has been consistant over his career and the reason nobody wants Ensberg is because he sucks and there are pretty much no teams out there where he is a significant upgrade at third.
Actually, I think the Cardinals are doing a pretty smart thing. First of all, Suppan is the SAME pitcher that he was when he signed with them 3 years ago for $3 million/year. His fastball didn't get faster, his curveball or sinker didn't develop more bite, and his propensity to give up HR's and not win all that many games (12) remained the same. He just happened to pitch his guts out on the world's biggest stage, in a free agent year. Frankly, Backe did the same thing for us in 04 and 05. Sure, he'd be a fine fit here... where we don't have many other reliable options... but I'm not going to blame the Cardinals for not worrying about both Suppan and Marquis (who really regressed). Weaver was a huge help for them... a guy with good stuff who just needed some good direction from Dave Duncan... but as soon as he leaves that environment, I'm sure he'll pretty much regress as well.
the ghey veterans will be reunited. seriously, fellas...you're grown men. don't go all steve/cuttino on us.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/colum...asnick_jerry&id=2702125&lpos=tv1&lid=tab1pos3 Good bet to sign this winter Jason Jennings Starting Pitcher Houston Astros Jason Jennings, Houston The Astros traded pitchers Jason Hirsh and Taylor Buchholz and outfielder Willy Taveras for Jennings, and they don't want this arrangement to be a one-and-done deal. The feeling is mutual: Jennings is a Dallas native and Baylor University product, and those Texas ties die hard. The Astros signed Roy Oswalt to a five-year, $73 million contract before he reached free agency. In light of Meche's five-year, $55 million deal with Kansas City, Jennings is probably looking at five years and something in the middle. Considering what the Astros gave up for him, agent Casey Close has a lot of leverage at his disposal. Jennings' 58-56 record and career 4.74 ERA and 622-to-425 strikeout-to-walk ratio are nothing special. But he made strides last year, adding a cut fastball to his repertoire and exhibiting better control. While Jennings is probably a No. 3 or No. 4 starter on a first-place club, he is young and durable enough, at 28, to be a reliable sidekick to Oswalt for years to come. Don't be surprised if the Astros sign him to a multiyear deal before spring training.
