A-Rod gets the MVP over Ortiz

[McKain]

We can't measure clutch in any fathom of "measuring."

We can't even judge who is clutch and who isn't clutch, because there is no definition for clutch; there is no definition for non-clutch. All we "know" is that someone who is "clutch" produces when it "means the most."

What is there to say that clutchness can't happen in the early innings of a game? Or when the game is lopsided? All the average fan considers clutch is someone who produces "when it matters," but nobody can accurately judge when it matters. Does it matter more to put up 4 runs in the first inning and then win the game 4-3? I'd say those 4 runs in the first mattered quite a bit. What's the difference between that and putting up 4 runs in the 8th and 9th when down 3-0, in terms of clutchness? "IT CAME LATE IN THE GAME! THEY NEEDED THE WIN!" That's all that people can respond to that with, but it's the same scenario as the first situation. Four runs needed to be put up to win the game, and they were. When they came up does not necessarily make one or the other situation clutch, it just makes both of the situaitons MATTER.

[DirtyKash]

The first situation (driving in 4 runs early in the game when it's 0-0) is not a clutch situation because there's no pressure on the batter to put up the runs. If he fails to produce in that at-bat, the team's chances to lose the game do NOT take a big hit. They still have 7 or 8 more innings to put up some runs.

Whereas if it's late in the game in a "critical" at-bat and the player strikes out with a runner at third base in a one-run deficit (for example), that's obviously not clutch. The team's chances to win the game just got flushed down the toilet.

Really, it's not that hard to understand.

[McKain]

There's ALWAYS pressure on batters to produce runs; that's what most clutch-arguers don't realize. Batters go up there every at-bat expected to do everything they can to produce a run; the expectation, the want, the need doesn't necessarily change as the game progresses, it's the result that will change. If three batters strike out in the first inning, the team has just lost 11% of its chances in that game to produce runs. If three guys come up in the ninth inning, the team just lost 11% of its chances in that game to produce runs. Any batter at any time and any at-bat is EXPECTED to score, and they WANT him to score, and likely the necessity for him to score is the same as it will be at any point in the game. One final play is never going to decide the outcome of the game, it's going to be a cumulative effect of every play, every at-bat, every pitch, every swing. If three guys fail in the ninth inning, they somehow didn't have the other 89% of the game to produce in? That part just never happened? They couldn't have, you know, scored them?

Every at-bat is a "critical" at-bat, and every situation is a critical situation. If someone strikes out with the tying run on second in the last inning with 2 outs, they should not be deemed clutch or unclutch, because where were they in the previous eight innings doing their part for the game? Were they somehow just being normal unspectacular players, but then the ninth inning comes up and it's "OH MY GOD IT'S TIME TO BE CLUTCH GO MAKE A CLUTCH HIT PLEASE MAKE A CLUTCH HIT" when they could have been making "clutch" hits all along by putting the team ahead.

[DirtyKash]

I stand by my statement that outs are bigger in the latter stages of a tie game than they are in the early stages of a tie game.

Just like throwing a touchdown pass with your team down 21-17 with 40 seconds left is way more clutch than throwing a touchdown pass with the score 7-3 in the first quarter.

Or making a 16-foot jumper with 2 seconds left in a 91-90 game is way more clutch than making a 16-foot jumper with the game being 24-23 in the first quarter.

And off the top of my head, here is a quick list of who is clutch and who isn't clutch:

CLUTCH: Jeter, Manny, Ortiz, Pujols, Hideki Matsui, Bonds, Berkman
NOT CLUTCH: A-Rod, Vlad, Jeff Kent

[McKain]

In both situations you listed there, the effect is *exactly* the same.
The team gains seven points, the team gains two points, the team goes ahead in both scenarios.

A game of baseball is 54 outs, a game of football is 60 minutes, a game of basketball is... however many minutes, I haven't watched a basketball game in years.

Each portion of a game has the same percentage of opportunity, so really, what makes the last inning, the last out, the last minute, the last ten seconds more important than any of the others? If the team produces very well up through the 6th inning and scores 12 runs but produces horribly in the last 3 and gives up 8 runs, they still won. If the same team produces horribly early, falls down 8, then scores 12 unanswered runs late in the game, it has the same effect. I don't see any possible way that I will agree clutch exists until it can be measured, and as long as every portion of a game matters the same as every other portion, clutch will not be a measurable concept.

[DirtyKash]

I'm not saying that producing early in the game is not important, because it is. But while it's important, it's not CLUTCH. Producing when the game is on the line, that is clutch.

Men on second and third, two outs, your team is down 4-3. You have to send a player to bat, either Alex Rodriguez or David Ortiz. Both Rodriguez and Ortiz have the same number of HR, RBI, AVG on the season. Who do you choose? It's clearly Ortiz, because he has proven to be clutch. Ortiz is more likely to drive in the tying run (and possibly go-ahead run) whereas Rodriguez is more likely to ground out weakly to shortstop.

Enough said.

[Foster]

Congrats to you A-Rod, you made a dent in the world.

[McKain]

It's not CLEARLY Ortiz. I would take the better PLAYER, the one more LIKELY to produce in *any* situaiton, and a "clutch situation" is the same as any other situation. I want A-Rod up there hitting in any situation over Ortiz unless it's something like Ortiz facing some weak-armed righty who has no control, in which case I'd pick him.

"Producing when the game is on the line" is a poor phrase to use; let's say in innings 2 through 8, your team scores 3 runs and the other team scores 4 runs. What's the difference between someone getting 2 runs in the first or 2 runs in the 9th? The game is on the line if you're down 4-3 in the 9th... but the game is always on the line in the first inning, too, when you might put up 30 runs or give up 30 runs and put the game in your hands. Every situation in baseball has to be a clutch situation, or every situation in baseball has to not be a clutch situation, because every run, hit, extra base, etcetc is equally important, no matter what inning, hour, minute, second it takes place.

[Lance324]

McKain,

The difference between scoring 2 runs in the second inning and 2 runs in the the ninth is this...

If the batter doesn't come through in the second inning, there are still 21 more outs to get the job done, the batter is even probably going to get a chance to redeem himself. It's called being picked up by your teammates. In the ninth or even the eighth there's a real good chance that it will be your last shot. There is a whole lot more pressure on the batter.

What is so hard to understand about that, I think Kash has made his point pretty clear and you are just trying to justify something that is baseless.

[McKain]

If he doesn't come through in the eighth or ninth inning, they had 24 or 21 OTHER outs to get the job done, they just came before those last few.

What's so hard to understand about *that*? There are always other outs in the game to work with, it's just a matter of where they are in relation to where you are, but they are always there. A run is a run is a run is a run is a run, no matter when, how, where, or why it comes, and no run is different than another, no single is different from another single, and no hit is different from another hit, and thus clutch is the only baseless thing here, not my argument. Any type of "increased pressure" in the late innings is a lie; they have the same pressure on every at-bat, and that is the attitude always preached by coaches and managers, because if they start putting emphasis on one inning or two innings or one at-bat, then the batter's other at-bats are going to struggle because he's too worried about living up to this idea of "being clutch in the 9th inning."

[DirtyKash]

It's not CLEARLY Ortiz. I would take the better PLAYER, the one more LIKELY to produce in *any* situaiton, and a "clutch situation" is the same as any other situation. I want A-Rod up there hitting in any situation over Ortiz unless it's something like Ortiz facing some weak-armed righty who has no control, in which case I'd pick him.

"Producing when the game is on the line" is a poor phrase to use; let's say in innings 2 through 8, your team scores 3 runs and the other team scores 4 runs. What's the difference between someone getting 2 runs in the first or 2 runs in the 9th? The game is on the line if you're down 4-3 in the 9th... but the game is always on the line in the first inning, too, when you might put up 30 runs or give up 30 runs and put the game in your hands. Every situation in baseball has to be a clutch situation, or every situation in baseball has to not be a clutch situation, because every run, hit, extra base, etcetc is equally important, no matter what inning, hour, minute, second it takes place.

Once again, I'll agree with you that every situation in the game is an important situation. But not every situation in the game is a clutch situation. There is a difference between important and clutch.

If you drive a Toyota, then you are necessarily a car owner. But if you are a car owner, it doesn't necessarily mean that you drive a Toyota.

And no, the game is not on the line in the first inning, as you have 8 innings left to redeem yourself.

Let me give you an analogy that perhaps you would understand.

You, McKain, are a pornstar in a big new Hollywood adult movie, which co-stars Jenna Jameson. So far, the movie is going well: you have sex in the classic missionary position, the "girl on top cowgirl" position, and then the doggie-style position.

Now comes the most crucial part of the movie, the part where you are supposed to ejaculate on Jenna's breasts.

So before this scene starts, the movie director gives you a little pep talk, since it's your first porno movie, and he tells you that "he believes in you" and that "you can do it".

The movie continues and the movie director shouts, "ALRIGHT! Cum on her tits! Annnnnnnnnnnnnnd ... action!"

But as the spotlight is greatest ... what happens? Your penis suddenly becomes limp; you lose your erection and are unable to ply your seed on her boobies. You have failed at the most important moment.

They bring in Ron Jeremy. Right when the director orders it, Jeremy delivers with an explosion of white goo and the scene is complete.

This repeats over the next few movies. It's a trend that is becoming obvious. The word spreads around Hollywood that McKain can't "deliver the goods" when the spotlight shines brightest.

You are thus not clutch. Ron Jeremy, however, is clutch.

It doesn't matter that you were able to maintain a hard-on during the actual intercourse parts of the movie (which are also important), but when it came time for the cum scene (which is a clutch situation), you failed to provide.

Some people (such as Ortiz) perform better when the pressure is at its greatest and the game is on the line, while others (such as A-Rod) consistently fail to deliver in those times. These are not robots and computers who are at-bat, they are people.

Anyways, this is entirely way too long already.

[McKain]

The game is never "on the line," the game is a culmination of plays and hits and errors and strikeouts and groundballs to advance runners, it's not one inning where the game is miraculously going to be decided, it is every inning.

That hypothetical is flawed; Jenna Jameson no longer does porn with men, she only directs and does lesbian flicks. Not to mention that... a porn shoot and a baseball game are nothing in common when trying to argue about clutchness. A male porn star is measured by his ability to perform in all aspects, and not just his ability to shoot one off, whereas clutch is all about ignoring every aspect and focusing on just one aspect.

Ortiz does better (than A-Rod) in one type of nonexistent situation, a "clutch situation," which is by default every situation since a baseball game is a combination of everything, not a single moment and swing.

[DirtyKash]

The game is never on the line? WTF have you been smoking?

So you're saying that a player who comes up in the bottom of the ninth with a man on third and two outs in a 4-3 deficit ... the game's not on the line right then and there? He strikes out, the game is over, that makes the game ON THE LINE.

The game is MUCH MORE on the line than when he comes up in the top of the first inning with no one on and no outs.

Sure, the game is a result of everything that happens throughout the nine innings. HOWEVER... RIGHT THEN AND THERE in the ninth inning, the game is on the line.

Because if he strikes out in the first inning with no one on and no out out, well, the game continues, that's what.

[McKain]

But if you say that, and AGREE that a game is a result of everything that happens in the nine innings, how can you then say that in the ninth inning, the game is suddenly on the line? If the game is a result of everything that occurs, all innings weighed equally, but only in the ninth inning is it "on the line," then it's not really all innings being weighed equally and one of them is being given unearned value in terms of how important it is, which is never true. The first inning and the ninth inning are the same, and all that people who believe in clutch seem to be able to say is "IT MATTERS MORE BECAUSE THERE'S NO MORE CHANCES AND THEY HAVE TO WIN IT THEN AND THERE" when there were 26 other outs worth of chances and they could have won it then, or there, or here, or anywhere, including the ninth inning.q

[DirtyKash]

The difference is this: the first inning happens BEFORE the ninth inning.

Say you strike out to end the game in the ninth inning with the tying run at third, you're going to admonish yourself for failing to deliver there.

You're NOT, however, going to tell yourself, "oh but if only I had hit a solo homerun in the first inning instead of striking out, we would never have been in this position. Why oh WHY did I not hit a solo homerun in the first inning??? WHY!!!"

Yeah, it counts equally. Both would have scored a run for the team.

But it's different.