Poll: What is the most useless stat in hockey?

Poll

What's the most useless stat in hockey?

Only registered users are allowed to vote for this poll.
127 votes were received.

Plus/Minus	14		11%
Game-winning goals	90		71%
Secondary assists	23		18%

---

Was going to make this a regular poll, but I figured it would lend itself to plenty of discussion. Ready... Go!

Do I have to pick only one? I'd be willing to vote for plus/minus and game winning goals.

I had a hard time not picking Plus/Minus, but I just had to go for GWG. Unless it's scored in the last minute of a game or overtime, most of the time it's just another goal. It certainly doesn't carry any extra significance when it's scored, unless you can predict the final score. And without the other goals, both for and against, it wouldn't be a GWG. Just let it go. Pointless.

In the preposterously-early voting, I'm heartened to see I'm not alone on this. But, yes, you can only pick one

CowbellGuy
In the preposterously-early voting, I'm heartened to see I'm not alone on this. But, yes, you can only pick one

OK, I went with GWG. For exactly the reasons you cited.

CowbellGuy
I had a hard time not picking Plus/Minus, but I just had to go for GWG. Unless it's scored in the last minute of a game or overtime, most of the time it's just another goal. It certainly doesn't carry any extra significance when it's scored, unless you can predict the final score. And without the other goals, both for and against, it wouldn't be a GWG. Just let it go. Pointless.

Same here. I'd much prefer a go-ahead-goals stat, or even better, a game-tying-goals stat. Scoring when tied or down by one necessarily has much more of a clutch component to it.

CowbellGuy
I had a hard time not picking Plus/Minus, but I just had to go for GWG. Unless it's scored in the last minute of a game or overtime, most of the time it's just another goal. It certainly doesn't carry any extra significance when it's scored, unless you can predict the final score. And without the other goals, both for and against, it wouldn't be a GWG. Just let it go. Pointless.

It would be a little useful with a better definition: goal that put you ahead to stay (aka, the losing pitcher rule). But nth + 1 goal in a game where the loser scores n is, like you said, completely valueless.

Robb

CowbellGuy
I had a hard time not picking Plus/Minus, but I just had to go for GWG. Unless it's scored in the last minute of a game or overtime, most of the time it's just another goal. It certainly doesn't carry any extra significance when it's scored, unless you can predict the final score. And without the other goals, both for and against, it wouldn't be a GWG. Just let it go. Pointless.

Same here. I'd much prefer a go-ahead-goals stat, or even better, a game-tying-goals stat. Scoring when tied or down by one necessarily has much more of a clutch component to it.

Oh God, please don't tell me you just say "clutch." That's the sound of a thousand sabermetricians sharpening their knives.

I think it's amusing that the bars for both choices with 1 vote are of different lengths.

Oooooh, I have some other hated stats that are lame enough to get some votes:

Shutouts. A totally dumbass comparative measure. Why should a brilliant game between the pipes when you're under constant assault but allow one fluky goal be any less valued than a game when you allow no goals because you're team is spending the whole time on the other side of the rink?

Hits. Total bullshit. As subjective as "errors" in baseball. It's especially stupid when you consider that grinding or just getting in someone's way can be just as effective, bruising and wearing on the opposition.

I also hate "scoring chances" (and other similar attempts to subjectively log especially dangerous shots). Geez, you put a guy like Holmstrom in front of the net, and even my weak wrist shot from the point is more dangerous than the best shooter in hockey teeing up an unscreened shot in the slot. Please.

CowbellGuy
I had a hard time not picking Plus/Minus, but I just had to go for GWG. Unless it's scored in the last minute of a game or overtime, most of the time it's just another goal. It certainly doesn't carry any extra significance when it's scored, unless you can predict the final score. And without the other goals, both for and against, it wouldn't be a GWG. Just let it go. Pointless.

In the 1980s, baseball kept the stat "Game Winning RBI." Same thing. MLB eventually wised up and dropped it completely.

Hillel Hoffmann
Shutouts. A totally dumbass comparative measure. Why should a brilliant game between the pipes when you're under constant assault but allow one fluky goal be any less valued than a game when you allow no goals because you're team is spending the whole time on the other side of the rink?

On average, games where a goalie gives up zero goals represent better performances than games where a goalie gives up one. At the very least, a team can't lose when their goalie gives up zero; they can lose when the goalie gives up one, fluky or not.

A stat doesn't have to be perfect to be useful/provide useful information. A stat is only useless if it doesn't provide any useful information. Number of shutouts is useful information, even if no context is provided. GWG is probably not useful or at least has very little utility.

I like knowing the scoring chances. Think of a game in which one team keeps sending shots in from the top of the faceoff circles to rack up 35-40 harmless shots, and the other team only has 25 but many come from cycling the puck in deep and finding open lanes for one-timers in front of the net. The box score could easily give the impression that the lesser team had the better game.

KeithK

Hillel Hoffmann
Shutouts. A totally dumbass comparative measure. Why should a brilliant game between the pipes when you're under constant assault but allow one fluky goal be any less valued than a game when you allow no goals because you're team is spending the whole time on the other side of the rink?

On average, games where a goalie gives up zero goals represent better performances than games where a goalie gives up one. At the very least, a team can't lose when their goalie gives up zero; they can lose when the goalie gives up one, fluky or not.

A stat doesn't have to be perfect to be useful/provide useful information. A stat is only useless if it doesn't provide any useful information. Number of shutouts is useful information, even if no context is provided. GWG is probably not useful or at least has very little utility.

You're right, of course -- GWG is the worst, by far, of all the stat nonsense.

But I'll never be comfortable with the Cult of the Shutout.

Hillel Hoffmann

KeithK

Hillel Hoffmann
Shutouts. A totally dumbass comparative measure. Why should a brilliant game between the pipes when you're under constant assault but allow one fluky goal be any less valued than a game when you allow no goals because you're team is spending the whole time on the other side of the rink?

On average, games where a goalie gives up zero goals represent better performances than games where a goalie gives up one. At the very least, a team can't lose when their goalie gives up zero; they can lose when the goalie gives up one, fluky or not.

A stat doesn't have to be perfect to be useful/provide useful information. A stat is only useless if it doesn't provide any useful information. Number of shutouts is useful information, even if no context is provided. GWG is probably not useful or at least has very little utility.

You're right, of course -- GWG is the worst, by far, of all the stat nonsense.

But I'll never be comfortable with the Cult of the Shutout.

The one thing a shutout says to me, albeit with a lot of error, is that the goalie is mentally in the game all 60 minutes. I've seen goalies in a 4-0 game who let up a goal with just a couple minutes left, and I can't help think that either they got lulled, or the psyched themselves out looking forward to the shutout. Getting the shutout is decent (again, not perfect) evidence that neither mental lapse happened.

Hillel Hoffmann
Why should a brilliant game between the pipes when you're under constant assault but allow one fluky goal be any less valued than a game when you allow no goals because you're team is spending the whole time on the other side of the rink?

Why should an at-em ball snagged by the shortstop that you hit off a nasty splitter be any less valued than a bloop single off a dead-armed hanging curve?

Does that make hits and outs "worthless" metrics?

Trotsky

Hillel Hoffmann
Why should a brilliant game between the pipes when you're under constant assault but allow one fluky goal be any less valued than a game when you allow no goals because you're team is spending the whole time on the other side of the rink?

Why should an at-em ball snagged by the shortstop that you hit off a nasty splitter be any less valued than a bloop single off a dead-armed hanging curve?

Does that make hits and outs "worthless" metrics?

I withdraw my dumbass shutout rant, which I admit is irrationally motivated by people fawning over Brodeur.

Hillel Hoffmann

Trotsky

Hillel Hoffmann
Why should a brilliant game between the pipes when you're under constant assault but allow one fluky goal be any less valued than a game when you allow no goals because you're team is spending the whole time on the other side of the rink?

Why should an at-em ball snagged by the shortstop that you hit off a nasty splitter be any less valued than a bloop single off a dead-armed hanging curve?

Does that make hits and outs "worthless" metrics?

I withdraw my dumbass shutout rant, which I admit is irrationally motivated by people fawning over Brodeur.

I can totally appreciate irrational rants.

CowbellGuy
I had a hard time not picking Plus/Minus, but I just had to go for GWG. Unless it's scored in the last minute of a game or overtime, most of the time it's just another goal. It certainly doesn't carry any extra significance when it's scored, unless you can predict the final score. And without the other goals, both for and against, it wouldn't be a GWG. Just let it go. Pointless.

Why is Plus/Minus a meaningless stat?

There are problems with all stats. Even goals and assists don't accurately measure the value of a player. Ryan Vesce score something like 3 goals in 3 games when he was on Joe Thornton's line. None otherwise. Heck, I probably could score on that line. Why the particular hate on +/-?

Roy 82
Why is Plus/Minus a meaningless stat?

A great player on a terrible team will log a ton of minutes and wind up with a hugely negative +/-. It's not meaningless -- it's just that its meaning amounts to "likelihood the coach will play you even strength," and for that you may as well use TOI directly.

KeithK

Hillel Hoffmann

Trotsky

Hillel Hoffmann
Why should a brilliant game between the pipes when you're under constant assault but allow one fluky goal be any less valued than a game when you allow no goals because you're team is spending the whole time on the other side of the rink?

Why should an at-em ball snagged by the shortstop that you hit off a nasty splitter be any less valued than a bloop single off a dead-armed hanging curve?

Does that make hits and outs "worthless" metrics?

I withdraw my dumbass shutout rant, which I admit is irrationally motivated by people fawning over Brodeur.

I can totally appreciate irrational rants.

So can I. However, a rant about people fawning over Brodeur is not irrational, IMHO.

Plus-minus is a useless stat because a player on a checking line may be an excellent defensive forward, but have a terrible plus-minus number because he's usually matched against the opposition's No. 1 line. I used to cover the Hartford Whalers (remember them?) for a local paper and never put much stock in that statistic. If a goalie gives up a soft goal, for example, everyone else on the ice for his team gets a minus even though it's not their fault. There are numerous examples of how this statistic is a poor way to measure a player's value to his team. Here's a similar sentiment from an Edmonton sportswriter who did a statistical analysis of various hockey stats:
Plus/minus -- When a guy gets a plus or a minus, he might not earn it. In fact, at least 30 per cent of the time, a player has nothing to do with goal being scored, but he gets assigned a false positive or a false negative. This high error rate does little for my confidence in this stat.

The basic problem here is the player is just one of five guys on the ice, and if he's consistently out on the ice with weak players, he's going to have a weak plus/minus, no matter how good he is.The same goes for a weak player out there with good players.

You put Bobby Orr with the wrong four guys, he'll be negative plus/minus. You put Zack Stortini out there with Jason Strudwick and Kyle Brodziak, he's going to have a crappy Corsi plus/minus. The same high error rate for this stat applies to all plus/minus stats, be they Shots For/Shots Against plus/minus, or Corsi plus/minus (which is Shots At For/Shots At Against plus/minus), or Scoring Chances For/Scoring Chances Against plus/minus.

The full article is available here: [communities.canada.com]

dbilmes
Plus-minus is a useless stat because a player on a checking line may be an excellent defensive forward, but have a terrible plus-minus number because he's usually matched against the opposition's No. 1 line. I used to cover the Hartford Whalers (remember them?) for a local paper and never put much stock in that statistic. If a goalie gives up a soft goal, for example, everyone else on the ice for his team gets a minus even though it's not their fault. There are numerous examples of how this statistic is a poor way to measure a player's value to his team. Here's a similar sentiment from an Edmonton sportswriter who did a statistical analysis of various hockey stats:
Plus/minus -- When a guy gets a plus or a minus, he might not earn it. In fact, at least 30 per cent of the time, a player has nothing to do with goal being scored, but he gets assigned a false positive or a false negative. This high error rate does little for my confidence in this stat.

The basic problem here is the player is just one of five guys on the ice, and if he's consistently out on the ice with weak players, he's going to have a weak plus/minus, no matter how good he is.The same goes for a weak player out there with good players.

You put Bobby Orr with the wrong four guys, he'll be negative plus/minus. You put Zack Stortini out there with Jason Strudwick and Kyle Brodziak, he's going to have a crappy Corsi plus/minus. The same high error rate for this stat applies to all plus/minus stats, be they Shots For/Shots Against plus/minus, or Corsi plus/minus (which is Shots At For/Shots At Against plus/minus), or Scoring Chances For/Scoring Chances Against plus/minus.

The full article is available here: [communities.canada.com]

I think the problem is that there are no good stats for defensemen. The other standard one is PIM, with more penalties being considered better.

dbilmes
Plus-minus is a useless stat because a player on a checking line may be an excellent defensive forward, but have a terrible plus-minus number because he's usually matched against the opposition's No. 1 line. I used to cover the Hartford Whalers (remember them?) for a local paper and never put much stock in that statistic. If a goalie gives up a soft goal, for example, everyone else on the ice for his team gets a minus even though it's not their fault. There are numerous examples of how this statistic is a poor way to measure a player's value to his team. Here's a similar sentiment from an Edmonton sportswriter who did a statistical analysis of various hockey stats:
Plus/minus -- When a guy gets a plus or a minus, he might not earn it. In fact, at least 30 per cent of the time, a player has nothing to do with goal being scored, but he gets assigned a false positive or a false negative. This high error rate does little for my confidence in this stat.

The basic problem here is the player is just one of five guys on the ice, and if he's consistently out on the ice with weak players, he's going to have a weak plus/minus, no matter how good he is.The same goes for a weak player out there with good players.

You put Bobby Orr with the wrong four guys, he'll be negative plus/minus. You put Zack Stortini out there with Jason Strudwick and Kyle Brodziak, he's going to have a crappy Corsi plus/minus. The same high error rate for this stat applies to all plus/minus stats, be they Shots For/Shots Against plus/minus, or Corsi plus/minus (which is Shots At For/Shots At Against plus/minus), or Scoring Chances For/Scoring Chances Against plus/minus.

The full article is available here: [communities.canada.com]

But if you take that argument too far, all individual stats are meaningless. Put the NHL best goalie on my beer league against an NHL team, and he'll have a terrible save percentage. Put the most mediocre 4-th liner in my beer league, and he'll be scoring goals every 15 seconds. That's the cost of playing a team sport.

ftyuv
But if you take that argument too far, all individual stats are meaningless. Put the NHL best goalie on my beer league against an NHL team, and he'll have a terrible save percentage. Put the most mediocre 4-th liner in my beer league, and he'll be scoring goals every 15 seconds. That's the cost of playing a team sport.

Yes, if you take the argument *too* *far*, you can use it against anything. But +/- is so weak that you don't need to take the argument very far at all, nevermind *too* far.

Simply the idea of a checking line, or a team with a weak goalie, or players getting a +/- that had nothing to do with a play, are things that happen everyday, which can't be said for NHL players playing in your beer league.

DeltaOne81

ftyuv
But if you take that argument too far, all individual stats are meaningless. Put the NHL best goalie on my beer league against an NHL team, and he'll have a terrible save percentage. Put the most mediocre 4-th liner in my beer league, and he'll be scoring goals every 15 seconds. That's the cost of playing a team sport.

Yes, if you take the argument *too* *far*, you can use it against anything. But +/- is so weak that you don't need to take the argument very far at all, nevermind *too* far.

Simply the idea of a checking line, or a team with a weak goalie, or players getting a +/- that had nothing to do with a play, are things that happen everyday, which can't be said for NHL players playing in your beer league.

Obviously I took it to an extreme, but I don't think a +/- is much worse than any other individual stat. A goalie's stats depend very heavily on his teammates not hanging him out to dry. The forwards' shots-on-goal stats depend on their defence, as well as the coach's system. Etc etc.

Let's turn it on its head: what individual stat is most important? My nomination is TOI (maybe as a percentage of possible minutes, to account for injuries) -- it's the only one that wraps all of the other stats, adds in the intangibles as measured by the coach, and says "this is how important this player to the team, according to the people who would know best."

My vote is for GWG for the same reasons as everyone else, but...

I think looking at any statistic alone doesn't tell the entire story. The +/- and the 3rd assist are good stats combined - a good indication of a "play maker" IMO. I am not sure if there are players who have a combination of a lot of goals but a weak +/-. I am not a big statistics hound so I'll throw the question out to other folks, what are good combinations of statistics that can indicate player strengths?

I think plus/minus is a pretty decent stat. Sure, it's dependent upon who else is on the ice for your team and for the opponent, but so are goals and assists. If you have a high scoring defenseman and a non-scoring defenseman on the same team (assuming they don't always play together) and their +/- is similar, that tells you something.

dbilmes
Plus-minus is a useless stat ...You put Bobby Orr with the wrong four guys, he'll be negative plus/minus.

Orr played with everyone on the Bruins and would often lead the team and league in +/- by a large margin. One year he was +80, not to mention his huge contributions both on power plays and shorthanded. Looking at both straight plus/minus and how it compares with teammates gives you a fuller picture. There's no question that playing on the right line can help. I've always thought that if the Pens had signed Moulson and he played with Crosby and Malkin, he'd be a 50 goal scorer.
Here are some interesting current plus/minus stats from the ECHL:
Evan Barlow 28GP 12-15 27 +12
Tony Romano 11GP 3-6 9 -5

jkahn
I think plus/minus is a pretty decent stat. Sure, it's dependent upon who else is on the ice for your team and for the opponent, but so are goals and assists. If you have a high scoring defenseman and a non-scoring defenseman on the same team (assuming they don't always play together) and their +/- is similar, that tells you something.

dbilmes
Plus-minus is a useless stat ...You put Bobby Orr with the wrong four guys, he'll be negative plus/minus.

Orr played with everyone on the Bruins and would often lead the team and league in +/- by a large margin. One year he was +80, not to mention his huge contributions both on power plays and shorthanded.

An excerpt from the Wikipedia entry on Bobby Orr:

The following year, 1971, in a season when the powerhouse Bruins shattered dozens of league offensive records, Orr finished second in league scoring while setting records that still stand for points in a season by a defenceman [37 goals, 102 assists, 139 points] and for plus/minus (+124) by any position player. Orr's Bruins were heavy favourites to repeat as Cup champions, but were upset by the Montreal Canadiens and their rookie goaltender Ken Dryden.

That was the best team of NHL "everyones" I've ever seen. They scored 399 goals, 108 more than the next highest team (Montreal), but couldn't beat the Big Kid when it counted.

ftyuv
Let's turn it on its head: what individual stat is most important? My nomination is TOI (maybe as a percentage of possible minutes, to account for injuries) -- it's the only one that wraps all of the other stats, adds in the intangibles as measured by the coach, and says "this is how important this player to the team, according to the people who would know best."

I'll disagree on this one. Directly, it really ONLY says "this is how important this player to the team, according to the people who would know best." To me that is the antithesis of a statistic. And it depends c0mpletely on The System favored by the coach.

David Harding

ftyuv
Let's turn it on its head: what individual stat is most important? My nomination is TOI (maybe as a percentage of possible minutes, to account for injuries) -- it's the only one that wraps all of the other stats, adds in the intangibles as measured by the coach, and says "this is how important this player to the team, according to the people who would know best."

I'll disagree on this one. Directly, it really ONLY says "this is how important this player to the team, according to the people who would know best." To me that is the antithesis of a statistic. And it depends c0mpletely on The System favored by the coach.

That was actually my point. Stats are all about trying to quantify something, right? And let's cut out the middle man -- what we really want to know is, "how good is this player?" Since it's very hard in hockey to separate that from the question of "how good is this player in this system", and since a coach/GM will presumably try in general to recruit players who match their system, I think the latter question is at the crucial intersection of Useful and Answerable. And as you yourself pointed out, TOI helps with that.

If you're looking for a hockey stat that completely objectively, and orthogonally to all other factors, tells you something useful -- then my contention is that you're going to fail. If you're looking for a hockey stat that indicates how good a player is, I think TOI is often a good one.

ftyuv

David Harding

ftyuv
Let's turn it on its head: what individual stat is most important? My nomination is TOI (maybe as a percentage of possible minutes, to account for injuries) -- it's the only one that wraps all of the other stats, adds in the intangibles as measured by the coach, and says "this is how important this player to the team, according to the people who would know best."

I'll disagree on this one. Directly, it really ONLY says "this is how important this player to the team, according to the people who would know best." To me that is the antithesis of a statistic. And it depends c0mpletely on The System favored by the coach.

That was actually my point. Stats are all about trying to quantify something, right? And let's cut out the middle man -- what we really want to know is, "how good is this player?" Since it's very hard in hockey to separate that from the question of "how good is this player in this system", and since a coach/GM will presumably try in general to recruit players who match their system, I think the latter question is at the crucial intersection of Useful and Answerable. And as you yourself pointed out, TOI helps with that.

If you're looking for a hockey stat that completely objectively, and orthogonally to all other factors, tells you something useful -- then my contention is that you're going to fail. If you're looking for a hockey stat that indicates how good a player is, I think TOI is often a good one.

But you're not cutting out the middleman: you're making the coach the literal middleman. It's like claiming that polls are a quantitative way of evaluating teams' performance. All you're doing is quantifying someone's opinion of their performance.

dbilmes
Plus-minus is a useless stat because a player on a checking line may be an excellent defensive forward, but have a terrible plus-minus number because he's usually matched against the opposition's No. 1 line. I used to cover the Hartford Whalers (remember them?) for a local paper and never put much stock in that statistic. If a goalie gives up a soft goal, for example, everyone else on the ice for his team gets a minus even though it's not their fault. There are numerous examples of how this statistic is a poor way to measure a player's value to his team. Here's a similar sentiment from an Edmonton sportswriter who did a statistical analysis of various hockey stats:
Plus/minus -- When a guy gets a plus or a minus, he might not earn it. In fact, at least 30 per cent of the time, a player has nothing to do with goal being scored, but he gets assigned a false positive or a false negative. This high error rate does little for my confidence in this stat.

The basic problem here is the player is just one of five guys on the ice, and if he's consistently out on the ice with weak players, he's going to have a weak plus/minus, no matter how good he is.The same goes for a weak player out there with good players.

You put Bobby Orr with the wrong four guys, he'll be negative plus/minus. You put Zack Stortini out there with Jason Strudwick and Kyle Brodziak, he's going to have a crappy Corsi plus/minus. The same high error rate for this stat applies to all plus/minus stats, be they Shots For/Shots Against plus/minus, or Corsi plus/minus (which is Shots At For/Shots At Against plus/minus), or Scoring Chances For/Scoring Chances Against plus/minus.

The full article is available here: [communities.canada.com]

I think David put it most succinctly. I also voted for +/- not just because I can corroborate his comments from other scouts, but because of the attention fans and analysts give to +/-. If you look at tsn.ca's statistics page (http://tsn.ca/nhl/statistics/) you'll find +/- listed, but not game-winning goals. I think a better question for this poll would be "What is the most overrated stat in hockey" and in that regard it has to be +/- because no really pays attention to GWG.

jtwcornell91

ftyuv

David Harding

ftyuv
Let's turn it on its head: what individual stat is most important? My nomination is TOI (maybe as a percentage of possible minutes, to account for injuries) -- it's the only one that wraps all of the other stats, adds in the intangibles as measured by the coach, and says "this is how important this player to the team, according to the people who would know best."

I'll disagree on this one. Directly, it really ONLY says "this is how important this player to the team, according to the people who would know best." To me that is the antithesis of a statistic. And it depends c0mpletely on The System favored by the coach.

That was actually my point. Stats are all about trying to quantify something, right? And let's cut out the middle man -- what we really want to know is, "how good is this player?" Since it's very hard in hockey to separate that from the question of "how good is this player in this system", and since a coach/GM will presumably try in general to recruit players who match their system, I think the latter question is at the crucial intersection of Useful and Answerable. And as you yourself pointed out, TOI helps with that.

If you're looking for a hockey stat that completely objectively, and orthogonally to all other factors, tells you something useful -- then my contention is that you're going to fail. If you're looking for a hockey stat that indicates how good a player is, I think TOI is often a good one.

But you're not cutting out the middleman: you're making the coach the literal middleman. It's like claiming that polls are a quantitative way of evaluating teams' performance. All you're doing is quantifying someone's opinion of their performance.

The crucial difference being that polls ask people their opinions about teams they don't actually know very well, whereas coaches know their players extremely well.

You're right about the middle man bit, though. I should have instead said that since stats are a middleman anyway, let's at least pick the right middleman. The point is that we should focus on what we want the stats to tell us, not just on the stats for the sake of their objective purity.

ftyuv

jtwcornell91

ftyuv

David Harding

ftyuv
Let's turn it on its head: what individual stat is most important? My nomination is TOI (maybe as a percentage of possible minutes, to account for injuries) -- it's the only one that wraps all of the other stats, adds in the intangibles as measured by the coach, and says "this is how important this player to the team, according to the people who would know best."

I'll disagree on this one. Directly, it really ONLY says "this is how important this player to the team, according to the people who would know best." To me that is the antithesis of a statistic. And it depends c0mpletely on The System favored by the coach.

That was actually my point. Stats are all about trying to quantify something, right? And let's cut out the middle man -- what we really want to know is, "how good is this player?" Since it's very hard in hockey to separate that from the question of "how good is this player in this system", and since a coach/GM will presumably try in general to recruit players who match their system, I think the latter question is at the crucial intersection of Useful and Answerable. And as you yourself pointed out, TOI helps with that.

If you're looking for a hockey stat that completely objectively, and orthogonally to all other factors, tells you something useful -- then my contention is that you're going to fail. If you're looking for a hockey stat that indicates how good a player is, I think TOI is often a good one.

But you're not cutting out the middleman: you're making the coach the literal middleman. It's like claiming that polls are a quantitative way of evaluating teams' performance. All you're doing is quantifying someone's opinion of their performance.

The crucial difference being that polls ask people their opinions about teams they don't actually know very well, whereas coaches know their players extremely well.

You're right about the middle man bit, though. I should have instead said that since stats are a middleman anyway, let's at least pick the right middleman. The point is that we should focus on what we want the stats to tell us, not just on the stats for the sake of their objective purity.

Some of us would like to have stats to quantify "leadership," "hustle," "coming to play," and the all-important "heart." I think we agree long ago that you can't measure those things. It hard to argue that TOI is not a good measure of the coaches' perception of those characteristics.
Maybe we should do a correlation study. Are those whose ideal is an accurate statistical description of a player more likely to be engineers and physical sciences majors?

David Harding
Some of us would like to have stats to quantify "leadership," "hustle," "coming to play," and the all-important "heart."

Hark, is that the sound of Sabermetricians sharpening their knives?

I'm sorry I missed this conversation when it started. I respectfully disagree with the sentiment on numerous counts.

NO statistic is useless. Every measurement can tell you something. It is not the fault of the statistic if it's misinterpreted by humans.

Someone (Trotsky) mentioned Sabermetrics / Bill James. Bill James makes this point when he defends the "save" and the notion of "quality starts" ... He used that once as a jumping off point to a lengthy article on the usefulness of stats. Yes, it's true, some statistics are more indicative than others. Yes, it's true that some statistics are more susceptible to meaningless influences than others. But it doesn't render a statistic necessarily meaningless.

Someone mentioned the Game-Winning RBI in baseball. It was eliminated because it was deemed useless. And it indeed had numerous flaws, just as the Game Winning Goal does. But neither is completely useless. ... In fact, baseball's and hockey's were/are determined differently. Each is consistent within its sport, and each has its plusses and minuses. I remember when GWRBI was being panned -- people said it should be more like hockey. In hockey, the GWG is the goal that's +1 the other team's total. In baseball, the GWRBI was the RBI that put your team ahead to stay. This is consistent within each sport, because that's the way a goaltender's win is calculated vs. a pitcher's win. But it's not accurate to say one is inherently a better method than the other -- and it used to drive me crazy to hear people criticize the GWRBI when they weren't criticizing the way a pitcher's win was calculated. In either method, there are going to be flawed Game Winners, and "good" Game Winners. Neither is perfect, but it doesn't have to be.

James' argument was that no statistic is perfect in a team sport -- they are all subject to flaws. How many goals are empty netters? How many go off a guy's skate and in? Obviously, the goal statistic is "less flawed," as a whole, because even if they go off a skate, at least you can say it directly contributed to your team winning. As do RBIs in baseball. However, RBIs are still dependent on your team having runners on base. Martin St. Louis' and Eric Perrin's linemate at Vermont was J.C. Ruid -- and he scored a lot of goals thanks to them. Would he have scored those goals playing on the 4th line? Hell no.

Next point ... I actually do believe there are clutch hockey players, and clutch baseball players. I believe this despite being an ardent supporter of Bill James/Sabermetrics. I have seen players at the top of Game Winning goal statistics consistently each year -- and not just because they score a lot in general. Problem is, you're dealing with small sample sizes -- so it's hard to tell statistically. But to say there aren't players that rise to an occasion, is really quite silly to anyone who actually watches sports.

I don't believe in "momentum" - but I do believe in "clutch" ... I think they are two different things.

Finally ... the plus-minus statistic. I am an ardent supporter of this statistic for being very useful. Yes, of course, you might have just lolly-gagged on the ice, and get credit with a plus just because you were there when Ovechkin went nuts. But so what. Again, any stat is open to this kind of thing. Assists are dependent upon the other guy scoring the goal. Runs are dependent on someone driving you in. Wins and shutouts are dependent upon your defense. Etc....

We have to assume when looking at something like plus-minus that -- despite the fact that you get some cheapies, that EVERYONE gets cheapies. And therefore, over the course of the season, that plays itself out. Similarly, obviously a player on a bad team will have a generally lower plus-minus total. That is why us, as interpreters, must look at the stat and take it within the context of the team. Why is this so easy for people to do when it comes to Wins for a pitcher? They know that a great pitcher on a crappy team wins 15 games, and it means he's awesome. They are able to adjust that in their minds. Same thing for plus-minus. No one is saying that the 3rd liner on the Penguins is better than the star on Edmonton just because the Penguins guy has a better plus-minus. But you can make that adjustment relatively, and come up with a good indication.

I am very much a supporter that plus-minus is a good indicator of someone's general two-way worth to a team. And the best players on the best teams have the best plus-minus.

So I take umbrage with the idea than any statistic is useless. It's all in how we choose to apply and interpret those statistics. Useful information comes from all of it.

Peace out.

adamw
I actually do believe there are clutch hockey players, and clutch baseball players. I believe this despite being an ardent supporter of Bill James/Sabermetrics. I have seen players at the top of Game Winning goal statistics consistently each year -- and not just because they score a lot in general. Problem is, you're dealing with small sample sizes -- so it's hard to tell statistically. But to say there aren't players that rise to an occasion, is really quite silly to anyone who actually watches sports.

To the first point, I'd like to see a citation about the players that were consistently at the top of the GWG stats who weren't otherwise top scorers. The entirety of the opposition to the notion of clutch comes from noticing that there is almost never any consistency to those kind of stats from year to year.

To the second point, that people who actually watch sports wouldn't agree that there are players who rise to the occasion, I'd say that players get a reputation and once they do, anything that follows that matches up "proves" the initial impression and anything that doesn't match up is written off and quickly forgotten. Evgeny Malkin was a choker in 2008 but a pressure performer in 2009. Sportswriters are scratching their heads trying to figure out how Tony Romo and Alex Rodriguez suddenly stopped being chokers just as they once did with Barry Bonds. Donovan McNabb, who has been to a Super Bowl, will never shake his reputation unless he gets himself a ring. In the end it is 90% bullshit and 10% post-hoc mythmaking.

adamw
NO statistic is useless. ...

Someone mentioned the Game-Winning RBI in baseball. It was eliminated because it was deemed useless. And it indeed had numerous flaws, just as the Game Winning Goal does. But neither is completely useless. ...

In hockey, the GWG is the goal that's +1 the other team's total.

Well, the thread was titled "What is the most useless stat in hockey?", not completely useless; but this one has to come close. We're up 3-1 and I score. We give up 2 goals and I'm a winner?

Peace out.

With this I can agree.

KRACH

ugarte
To the second point, that people who actually watch sports wouldn't agree that there are players who rise to the occasion, I'd say that players get a reputation and once they do, anything that follows that matches up "proves" the initial impression and anything that doesn't match up is written off and quickly forgotten. Evgeny Malkin was a choker in 2008 but a pressure performer in 2009. Sportswriters are scratching their heads trying to figure out how Tony Romo and Alex Rodriguez suddenly stopped being chokers just as they once did with Barry Bonds. Donovan McNabb, who has been to a Super Bowl, will never shake his reputation unless he gets himself a ring. In the end it is 90% bullshit and 10% post-hoc mythmaking.

I would generally agree with you .... I just believe there are people who can rise to the occasion. Just from playing sports myself, I have seen players that wilt under pressure, and seen players who do better under it. Does it play itself out enough in statistics to be noticed -- that's the question. And I know Bill James et al says that it can all be explained through random fluctuation. I get it. I agree....

Anyway .... Jim's right .... the discussion was about "most useless" not totally useless. So OK. On that note, you win

adamw

ugarte
To the second point, that people who actually watch sports wouldn't agree that there are players who rise to the occasion, I'd say that players get a reputation and once they do, anything that follows that matches up "proves" the initial impression and anything that doesn't match up is written off and quickly forgotten. Evgeny Malkin was a choker in 2008 but a pressure performer in 2009. Sportswriters are scratching their heads trying to figure out how Tony Romo and Alex Rodriguez suddenly stopped being chokers just as they once did with Barry Bonds. Donovan McNabb, who has been to a Super Bowl, will never shake his reputation unless he gets himself a ring. In the end it is 90% bullshit and 10% post-hoc mythmaking.

I would generally agree with you .... I just believe there are people who can rise to the occasion. Just from playing sports myself, I have seen players that wilt under pressure, and seen players who do better under it. Does it play itself out enough in statistics to be noticed -- that's the question. And I know Bill James et al says that it can all be explained through random fluctuation. I get it. I agree....

Anyway .... Jim's right .... the discussion was about "most useless" not totally useless. So OK. On that note, you win

The problem I'm hearing with GWGs (and it's one I agree with) isn't that there's no such thing as clutch players. It's that the goal that ends up being the GWG is often not a clutch one. If a team is up 2-0, the goal that puts them 3-0 isn't exactly high pressure; but if the other team scores two late in the third, suddenly that third goal is the clutch, high pressure GWG. I agree with Robb that the go-ahead or tying goal is much more interesting, even if it's diluted by virtue of the fact that there can be several of them in a game.

adamw

I would generally agree with you .... I just believe there are people who can rise to the occasion. Just from playing sports myself, I have seen players that wilt under pressure, and seen players who do better under it. Does it play itself out enough in statistics to be noticed -- that's the question. And I know Bill James et al says that it can all be explained through random fluctuation. I get it. I agree....

Anyway .... Jim's right .... the discussion was about "most useless" not totally useless. So OK. On that note, you win

I'm way too lazy to look it up, but someone actually did an analysis of "clutch" players and determined that, with one exception, none of the clutch performers were actually clutch at all. Statistically speaking, the clutch performances for players was within their normal range. I don't think anyone has done an "anti-clutch" analysis. Personally, I find it far easier to believe that some players consistently choke under pressure than that some players are basically mediocre and then consistently do heroic things when the pressure is high. I don't believe in clutch, and I see no evidence to support it, but I haven't seen any evidence about choking and it makes intuitive sense that it would happen.

Tom Lento

adamw

I would generally agree with you .... I just believe there are people who can rise to the occasion. Just from playing sports myself, I have seen players that wilt under pressure, and seen players who do better under it. Does it play itself out enough in statistics to be noticed -- that's the question. And I know Bill James et al says that it can all be explained through random fluctuation. I get it. I agree....

Anyway .... Jim's right .... the discussion was about "most useless" not totally useless. So OK. On that note, you win

I'm way too lazy to look it up, but someone actually did an analysis of "clutch" players and determined that, with one exception, none of the clutch performers were actually clutch at all. Statistically speaking, the clutch performances for players was within their normal range. I don't think anyone has done an "anti-clutch" analysis. Personally, I find it far easier to believe that some players consistently choke under pressure than that some players are basically mediocre and then consistently do heroic things when the pressure is high. I don't believe in clutch, and I see no evidence to support it, but I haven't seen any evidence about choking and it makes intuitive sense that it would happen.

So, there is no Mr. October?

Jim Hyla

Tom Lento

adamw

I would generally agree with you .... I just believe there are people who can rise to the occasion. Just from playing sports myself, I have seen players that wilt under pressure, and seen players who do better under it. Does it play itself out enough in statistics to be noticed -- that's the question. And I know Bill James et al says that it can all be explained through random fluctuation. I get it. I agree....

Anyway .... Jim's right .... the discussion was about "most useless" not totally useless. So OK. On that note, you win

I'm way too lazy to look it up, but someone actually did an analysis of "clutch" players and determined that, with one exception, none of the clutch performers were actually clutch at all. Statistically speaking, the clutch performances for players was within their normal range. I don't think anyone has done an "anti-clutch" analysis. Personally, I find it far easier to believe that some players consistently choke under pressure than that some players are basically mediocre and then consistently do heroic things when the pressure is high. I don't believe in clutch, and I see no evidence to support it, but I haven't seen any evidence about choking and it makes intuitive sense that it would happen.

So, there is no Mr. October?

In fact, doesn't that prove the point? Reggie Jackson is a HOF'er regardless of the month. That he excelled in October is no surprise because he was an excellent power hitter normally.

I think the one thing I believe in that staunch Sabermetricians don't is "streakiness." Timing, muscle memory, and physical well-being can come in and out of sync, I've felt that feeling where the ball seems like a beach ball, or I know I'm hitting the sweet-spot every time. I believe in "streakiness" more than I do "clutch."

RichH
I think the one thing I believe in that staunch Sabermetricians don't is "streakiness." Timing, muscle memory, and physical well-being can come in and out of sync, I've felt that feeling where the ball seems like a beach ball, or I know I'm hitting the sweet-spot every time. I believe in "streakiness" more than I do "clutch."

I totally agree with you. There are times when you are physically or mentally out of whack and you play poorly for a time and conversely there are times when you are locked in and play extremely well. I find it hard to believe that anyone who plays sports would doubt this. Someone who only looks t stats could miss this by assuming that it's just natural variability of the random variable, a matter of sample size. But life isn't just a random variable sampling even if lots of things can be modeled pretty well that way.

KeithK

RichH
I think the one thing I believe in that staunch Sabermetricians don't is "streakiness." Timing, muscle memory, and physical well-being can come in and out of sync, I've felt that feeling where the ball seems like a beach ball, or I know I'm hitting the sweet-spot every time. I believe in "streakiness" more than I do "clutch."

I totally agree with you. There are times when you are physically or mentally out of whack and you play poorly for a time and conversely there are times when you are locked in and play extremely well. I find it hard to believe that anyone who plays sports would doubt this. Someone who only looks t stats could miss this by assuming that it's just natural variability of the random variable, a matter of sample size. But life isn't just a random variable sampling even if lots of things can be modeled pretty well that way.

I buy that there are times when players are doing well and "feel" it's because they have the touch...

I'm not quite convinced players "feelings" tell us much:

[www.psych.cornell.edu]

Jacob 03

KeithK

RichH
I think the one thing I believe in that staunch Sabermetricians don't is "streakiness." Timing, muscle memory, and physical well-being can come in and out of sync, I've felt that feeling where the ball seems like a beach ball, or I know I'm hitting the sweet-spot every time. I believe in "streakiness" more than I do "clutch."

I totally agree with you. There are times when you are physically or mentally out of whack and you play poorly for a time and conversely there are times when you are locked in and play extremely well. I find it hard to believe that anyone who plays sports would doubt this. Someone who only looks t stats could miss this by assuming that it's just natural variability of the random variable, a matter of sample size. But life isn't just a random variable sampling even if lots of things can be modeled pretty well that way.

I buy that there are times when players are doing well and "feel" it's because they have the touch...

I'm not quite convinced players "feelings" tell us much:

[www.psych.cornell.edu]

It's a good argument. I believe muscle-memory is real (most evident to me in something like a golf swing), and that can contribute to a "feeling," whatever that means. Take it a step further, and the concept of "confidence." A feeling of confidence, as nebulous and difficult to define as that is, can manifest itself in a physical manner. It can lead to more aggressive actions, for example. A lack of confidence can turn up as a hesitation or some sort of hitch in a swing or motion that can directly impact the end result. Athletes who are "in a zone" or at the very least putting in a superior performance often talk of "having a clear mind" or "not thinking," which generally means just not letting higher level thoughts affect their motion. If suddenly a golfer has a "case of the yips" or a 2nd baseman suddenly can't make a routine throw to 1st, there's an example of a mental aspect or even a "feeling" that has input in the end result.

You can also apply the level of "being warm" to introduce another abstract quantity. If a player comes off the bench "cold," there's more of a chance of playing differently than either a tired player being replaced, or the performance that same player would perform had they had a chance to make some warm-up throws/swings/whatever. I feel that when I go to the 3-pointer line to shoot some hoops (as a caucasian who grew up in the '80s usually did, thanks to Larry Bird), that I need about 5 warm-up shots to train my body to use the correct muscle groups at the proper force. Is that real or just a "feeling" thing? I'm not sure.

Jacob 03

KeithK

RichH
I think the one thing I believe in that staunch Sabermetricians don't is "streakiness." Timing, muscle memory, and physical well-being can come in and out of sync, I've felt that feeling where the ball seems like a beach ball, or I know I'm hitting the sweet-spot every time. I believe in "streakiness" more than I do "clutch."

I totally agree with you. There are times when you are physically or mentally out of whack and you play poorly for a time and conversely there are times when you are locked in and play extremely well. I find it hard to believe that anyone who plays sports would doubt this. Someone who only looks t stats could miss this by assuming that it's just natural variability of the random variable, a matter of sample size. But life isn't just a random variable sampling even if lots of things can be modeled pretty well that way.

I buy that there are times when players are doing well and "feel" it's because they have the touch...

I'm not quite convinced players "feelings" tell us much:

[www.psych.cornell.edu]

Those guys got TWO grants for that study. One from Cornell and one from the Navy. Can you imagine the grant application? "Funds will be applied to ticket purchase from box offices or 'other sources,' travel expenses, and post-game analytic meetings..."

Can I vote for wins and losses. We all know that its the effort that counts

RichH
In fact, doesn't that prove the point? Reggie Jackson is a HOF'er regardless of the month. That he excelled in October is no surprise because he was an excellent power hitter normally.

I think the one thing I believe in that staunch Sabermetricians don't is "streakiness." Timing, muscle memory, and physical well-being can come in and out of sync, I've felt that feeling where the ball seems like a beach ball, or I know I'm hitting the sweet-spot every time. I believe in "streakiness" more than I do "clutch."

In 318 lifetime plate appearances in the postseason - a decent sample - Jackson's AVG, sLG and OPS are all significantly higher than his lifetime totals. However, they are not drastically so - so it's within statistical norms. However, that doesn't rule out its existence either.

I'm not sure why it's easier to believe in streakiness than clutch. To me, they sound pretty much the same conceptually. Some people have a better ability of blocking out negatives and willing themselves towards positives under stress, while some people crumble. This holds true for life - why wouldn't in hold true for sports?

You're not necessarily contradicting Sabermetrics either way. All Bill James has said on streakiness, clutch, etc... is that there is no evidence for it that can't be mathematically explained through plain old random fluctuation. But he never asserted that it absolutely doesn't exist.

I think with such small sample sizes it's difficult to say whether it exists or not. And normally, I am not one to buy into folklore, old-school axioms ("baseball is 90% pitching", etc..... But in this case, I think anecdotal evidence / personal experience would lead us to believe there is something to "clutchness" or "streakiness"

The one thing I absolutely do not think is true is "momentum" --- Actually, I think it can be true WITHIN one game. But from game to game, it doesn't exist. For every time someone pontificated "wow, that big win the night before really propelled them into this game" ... there are just as many examples where a team that suffered a devastating loss bounces right back, and so on.

adamw
In 318 lifetime plate appearances in the postseason - a decent sample - Jackson's AVG, sLG and OPS are all significantly higher than his lifetime totals. However, they are not drastically so - so it's within statistical norms. However, that doesn't rule out its existence either.

The point is that across many players - Reggie Jackson included - there was only one case where a player actually performed significantly better in the clutch. Everyone else - even those who performed consistently better (like Jackson) - were within the range of normal statistical variation. If I remember correctly, the one guy who performed significantly better wasn't widely regarded as a clutch hitter, which brings me to my next point.

I think with such small sample sizes it's difficult to say whether it exists or not. And normally, I am not one to buy into folklore, old-school axioms ("baseball is 90% pitching", etc..... But in this case, I think anecdotal evidence / personal experience would lead us to believe there is something to "clutchness" or "streakiness"

Personal experience and anecdotal evidence are TERRIBLE ways to measure the validity of a claim. Humans are great at finding patterns where none exist. Personal experience and anecdotal evidence might be useful for creating a claim - I've seen x happen many times so I think x is true - but if you want to say that your claim is definitive you need to evaluate it properly. If someone else shows up with a ton of data and systematic analysis and says "there's no evidence to support x" then it's far more likely that your personal experience and anecdotal evidence is biased. Basically, the absence of evidence for clutch does not definitively prove that clutch doesn't exist - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - but it is highly suggestive. Until I see some evidence, I'll continue to not believe in the concept of a clutch player.

adamw
You're not necessarily contradicting Sabermetrics either way. All Bill James has said on streakiness, clutch, etc... is that there is no evidence for it that can't be mathematically explained through plain old random fluctuation. But he never asserted that it absolutely doesn't exist.

I think with such small sample sizes it's difficult to say whether it exists or not. And normally, I am not one to buy into folklore, old-school axioms ("baseball is 90% pitching", etc..... But in this case, I think anecdotal evidence / personal experience would lead us to believe there is something to "clutchness" or "streakiness"

So what you are saying is that streakiness and clutch are religions. You can't prove them, nor can you disprove them, but all science and math goes against them. I personally hate the "you can't prove that it doesn't exist" position. It's up to the assert-er to prove their point it's not up to the opposition to disprove the point. Until someone can prove the point I chose to sit back and enjoy the moment and not worry about such silly stuff.

Jim Hyla
So what you are saying is that streakiness and clutch are religions. You can't prove them, nor can you disprove them, but all science and math goes against them. I personally hate the "you can't prove that it doesn't exist" position. It's up to the assert-er to prove their point it's not up to the opposition to disprove the point. Until someone can prove the point I chose to sit back and enjoy the moment and not worry about such silly stuff.

It is entirely not true that "science and math" all go against the ideas of players going on streaks of good or poor performance. For example, look at the time history a batter's hitting performance and you will see periods of good performance and periods of poor. Sometimes these variations are explainable simply by statistical variations - whether mroe balls fall in than usual or whether more line drives are hit right at a fielder. But sometimes they're not. Sometimes the fact that hitter is 1 for 16 is because he's swinging poorly at pitches, striking out, popping up. Detailed analysis of results would show this.

Athletic performance over a large sample usually can be represented by a random variable. But the underlying activity is NOT a random variable. There are actual reasons for many of the fluctuations aside from pure statistical variabiliy.

If you're looking at a player's performance at the end of a season and trying to project future performance, it's perfectly reasonable to simply look at the statistics, given a large enough sample. That doesn't mean that the actual games are essentially the same as an invisible hand rolling dice.

KeithK

Jim Hyla
So what you are saying is that streakiness and clutch are religions. You can't prove them, nor can you disprove them, but all science and math goes against them. I personally hate the "you can't prove that it doesn't exist" position. It's up to the assert-er to prove their point it's not up to the opposition to disprove the point. Until someone can prove the point I chose to sit back and enjoy the moment and not worry about such silly stuff.

It is entirely not true that "science and math" all go against the ideas of players going on streaks of good or poor performance. For example, look at the time history a batter's hitting performance and you will see periods of good performance and periods of poor. Sometimes these variations are explainable simply by statistical variations - whether mroe balls fall in than usual or whether more line drives are hit right at a fielder. But sometimes they're not. Sometimes the fact that hitter is 1 for 16 is because he's swinging poorly at pitches, striking out, popping up. Detailed analysis of results would show this.

Athletic performance over a large sample usually can be represented by a random variable. But the underlying activity is NOT a random variable. There are actual reasons for many of the fluctuations aside from pure statistical variabiliy.

If you're looking at a player's performance at the end of a season and trying to project future performance, it's perfectly reasonable to simply look at the statistics, given a large enough sample. That doesn't mean that the actual games are essentially the same as an invisible hand rolling dice.

Statistical variations do not say you can't explain what happens on any at bat, rather that they occur to everyone who plays. Good hitters hit good pitchers better than bad hitters, it's not a random variable. But you have to prove that something such as streaks occur, just saying it doesn't make it so. You say that sometimes you can't explain streaks by random variations, well show me the evidence. Come up with a streak that was somehow out of statistical variation. Then I'm willing to start believing. Otherwise it's just a belief, like religion. Now I know to some, sports is a religion, so it all makes sense.

Jim Hyla

KeithK

Jim Hyla
So what you are saying is that streakiness and clutch are religions. You can't prove them, nor can you disprove them, but all science and math goes against them. I personally hate the "you can't prove that it doesn't exist" position. It's up to the assert-er to prove their point it's not up to the opposition to disprove the point. Until someone can prove the point I chose to sit back and enjoy the moment and not worry about such silly stuff.

It is entirely not true that "science and math" all go against the ideas of players going on streaks of good or poor performance. For example, look at the time history a batter's hitting performance and you will see periods of good performance and periods of poor. Sometimes these variations are explainable simply by statistical variations - whether mroe balls fall in than usual or whether more line drives are hit right at a fielder. But sometimes they're not. Sometimes the fact that hitter is 1 for 16 is because he's swinging poorly at pitches, striking out, popping up. Detailed analysis of results would show this.

Athletic performance over a large sample usually can be represented by a random variable. But the underlying activity is NOT a random variable. There are actual reasons for many of the fluctuations aside from pure statistical variabiliy.

If you're looking at a player's performance at the end of a season and trying to project future performance, it's perfectly reasonable to simply look at the statistics, given a large enough sample. That doesn't mean that the actual games are essentially the same as an invisible hand rolling dice.

Statistical variations do not say you can't explain what happens on any at bat, rather that they occur to everyone who plays. Good hitters hit good pitchers better than bad hitters, it's not a random variable. But you have to prove that something such as streaks occur, just saying it doesn't make it so. You say that sometimes you can't explain streaks by random variations, well show me the evidence. Come up with a streak that was somehow out of statistical variation. Then I'm willing to start believing. Otherwise it's just a belief, like religion. Now I know to some, sports is a religion, so it all makes sense.

I think the thing that one needs to demonstrate is that there's a model that consistently fits the data better than a stationary random variable. The problem is that the "streakiness" hypothesis is difficult to formulate in a way that can make quantitative predictions. What determines when the "hot" and "cold" periods occur? I guess one thing you could try is a model where the probability of success had some parametrized correlation or anticorrelation built into it, and try to measure that parameter.

jtwcornell91
...a model where the probability of success had some parametrized correlation or anticorrelation built into it, and try to measure that parameter.

Things you don't hear on Gopher Puck Live's forum for $600, Alex.

jtwcornell91

Jim Hyla

KeithK

Jim Hyla
So what you are saying is that streakiness and clutch are religions. You can't prove them, nor can you disprove them, but all science and math goes against them. I personally hate the "you can't prove that it doesn't exist" position. It's up to the assert-er to prove their point it's not up to the opposition to disprove the point. Until someone can prove the point I chose to sit back and enjoy the moment and not worry about such silly stuff.

It is entirely not true that "science and math" all go against the ideas of players going on streaks of good or poor performance. For example, look at the time history a batter's hitting performance and you will see periods of good performance and periods of poor. Sometimes these variations are explainable simply by statistical variations - whether mroe balls fall in than usual or whether more line drives are hit right at a fielder. But sometimes they're not. Sometimes the fact that hitter is 1 for 16 is because he's swinging poorly at pitches, striking out, popping up. Detailed analysis of results would show this.

Athletic performance over a large sample usually can be represented by a random variable. But the underlying activity is NOT a random variable. There are actual reasons for many of the fluctuations aside from pure statistical variabiliy.

If you're looking at a player's performance at the end of a season and trying to project future performance, it's perfectly reasonable to simply look at the statistics, given a large enough sample. That doesn't mean that the actual games are essentially the same as an invisible hand rolling dice.

Statistical variations do not say you can't explain what happens on any at bat, rather that they occur to everyone who plays. Good hitters hit good pitchers better than bad hitters, it's not a random variable. But you have to prove that something such as streaks occur, just saying it doesn't make it so. You say that sometimes you can't explain streaks by random variations, well show me the evidence. Come up with a streak that was somehow out of statistical variation. Then I'm willing to start believing. Otherwise it's just a belief, like religion. Now I know to some, sports is a religion, so it all makes sense.

I think the thing that one needs to demonstrate is that there's a model that consistently fits the data better than a stationary random variable. The problem is that the "streakiness" hypothesis is difficult to formulate in a way that can make quantitative predictions. What determines when the "hot" and "cold" periods occur? I guess one thing you could try is a model where the probability of success had some parametrized correlation or anticorrelation built into it, and try to measure that parameter.

"Steakiness" is not even wrong?
Trying to build a testable hypothesis you would have to take into account the opposition. Thinking baseball, if you're on a road trip playing three games against three teams all with better records than your team's record, you would expect a higher probability of a "batting slump" than during a home stand of the same duration against lower performing teams. How about taking the B-T approach up another notch to analyze the performance of individual hitters against individual pitchers?

I believe the conspiracy theory that Christopher Marlowe wrote Shakespeare's works. I hold this belief not because I have any really good evidence for it, and in fact in spite of the fact that there's no good evidence for it. I believe it not because I have a good reason to do so, but rather because it's a fun theory and it doesn't actually matter, so I'm okay having fun even while knowing that I'm very probably wrong.

You may apply this allegory to discussions of the unbiased scientific validity of streakiness, clutchiness and several other ideas in the world of sports -- including, actually, that it makes any sense to root for any one team over any other.

(That said, I argue about stats in the same light; I know that the discussion is pretty much impossible to resolve, but then again, it doesn't matter and it can be fun.)

ftyuv
I believe the conspiracy theory that Christopher Marlowe wrote Shakespeare's works. I hold this belief not because I have any really good evidence for it, and in fact in spite of the fact that there's no good evidence for it. I believe it not because I have a good reason to do so, but rather because it's a fun theory and it doesn't actually matter, so I'm okay having fun even while knowing that I'm very probably wrong.

You may apply this allegory to discussions of the unbiased scientific validity of streakiness, clutchiness and several other ideas in the world of sports -- including, actually, that it makes any sense to root for any one team over any other.

This is exactly why we believe in jinxes and superstitions even though we know they're nonsense: it's fun.

jtwcornell91

ftyuv
I believe the conspiracy theory that Christopher Marlowe wrote Shakespeare's works. I hold this belief not because I have any really good evidence for it, and in fact in spite of the fact that there's no good evidence for it. I believe it not because I have a good reason to do so, but rather because it's a fun theory and it doesn't actually matter, so I'm okay having fun even while knowing that I'm very probably wrong.

You may apply this allegory to discussions of the unbiased scientific validity of streakiness, clutchiness and several other ideas in the world of sports -- including, actually, that it makes any sense to root for any one team over any other.

This is exactly why we believe in jinxes and superstitions even though we know they're nonsense: it's fun.

No, those follow logically from the known (a priori) existence of Woofing Gods.

RichH

Jim Hyla

Tom Lento

adamw

I would generally agree with you .... I just believe there are people who can rise to the occasion. Just from playing sports myself, I have seen players that wilt under pressure, and seen players who do better under it. Does it play itself out enough in statistics to be noticed -- that's the question. And I know Bill James et al says that it can all be explained through random fluctuation. I get it. I agree....

Anyway .... Jim's right .... the discussion was about "most useless" not totally useless. So OK. On that note, you win

I'm way too lazy to look it up, but someone actually did an analysis of "clutch" players and determined that, with one exception, none of the clutch performers were actually clutch at all. Statistically speaking, the clutch performances for players was within their normal range. I don't think anyone has done an "anti-clutch" analysis. Personally, I find it far easier to believe that some players consistently choke under pressure than that some players are basically mediocre and then consistently do heroic things when the pressure is high. I don't believe in clutch, and I see no evidence to support it, but I haven't seen any evidence about choking and it makes intuitive sense that it would happen.

So, there is no Mr. October?

In fact, doesn't that prove the point? Reggie Jackson is a HOF'er regardless of the month. That he excelled in October is no surprise because he was an excellent power hitter normally.

I think the one thing I believe in that staunch Sabermetricians don't is "streakiness." Timing, muscle memory, and physical well-being can come in and out of sync, I've felt that feeling where the ball seems like a beach ball, or I know I'm hitting the sweet-spot every time. I believe in "streakiness" more than I do "clutch."

Warning thread drift:

I bet there are several football coaches (Phillips, Wade; Turner, Norv) that might believe in "clutch" and that their kickers define the opposite of "clutch". What a time to go on a bad streak. Yikes.

Rita
I bet there are several football coaches (Phillips, Wade; Turner, Norv) that might believe in "clutch" and that their kickers define the opposite of "clutch". What a time to go on a bad streak. Yikes.

Well - I came here to say just that .... Try telling the San Diego Chargers there is no such thing as "choke" and "clutch" .... Nate Kaeding is the most accurate regular-season kicker in NFL history. In the postseason, he is something like 8-for-15, with 4 misses inside 40 yards ... where he otherwise has hit 67 in a row.

Jim Hyla
So what you are saying is that streakiness and clutch are religions. You can't prove them, nor can you disprove them, but all science and math goes against them. I personally hate the "you can't prove that it doesn't exist" position. It's up to the assert-er to prove their point it's not up to the opposition to disprove the point. Until someone can prove the point I chose to sit back and enjoy the moment and not worry about such silly stuff.

To Jim -- and to Tom Lento as well -- who both jumped on my back, completely unfairly, you really need to question your own absolutes.

KeithK said it best in a nutshell:

"Athletic performance over a large sample usually can be represented by a random variable. But the underlying activity is NOT a random variable. There are actual reasons for many of the fluctuations aside from pure statistical variabiliy."

I am someone who thoroughly believes in math ... and absolutely can't stand when people blindly use anecdotal evidence to support a claim ("The Metrodome is a homer haven" - is a famous one that Bill James easily shot down)

However -- just because something cannot be proven - yet - by math, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. "ALL" science and math once went against the theory of relativity too. It doesn't mean that ALL anecdotal and personal observations are wrong.

To say that my contention is the equivalent of "religion" - is asinine.

Once again, I'll repeat ... there's no bigger proponent of shattering myths and using math than Bill James ... founder of Sabermetrics. But he has long stated himself that he isn't suggesting "clutch" doesn't exist - just that the end result -- the season composite - looks the same. That if you're playing a dice recreation - like Strat-o-Matic (something I've played, studied, and dissected infinitely) - that it's useless trying to account for clutch, because random variation matches reality. That doesn't mean, however, that random variation is the CAUSE. There's a big difference.

Defining when "the clutch" is, is difficult, and the same sizes are too small. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Sorry. Again - please tell that to Nate Kaeding. I think "choke" and "clutch" are WAAAY overused. WAAY. .... But if you don't think Nate Kaeding choked yesterday - again - then you just don't know sports. ... And if there's such a thing as "choke" - then there is such a thing as "clutch."

Jim Hyla
But you have to prove that something such as streaks occur, just saying it doesn't make it so. You say that sometimes you can't explain streaks by random variations, well show me the evidence. Come up with a streak that was somehow out of statistical variation. Then I'm willing to start believing. Otherwise it's just a belief, like religion. Now I know to some, sports is a religion, so it all makes sense.

First of all Jim - I was referring to "clutch" - not streaks. And there is a difference.

However - your assertion that this conversation is akin to "religion" - really strikes me as way off the mark.

The fact that something is within statistical variation, does not necessarily speak to its cause. They are not necessarily equivalent. If the effect is the same - it doesn't mean the cause is the same. That might be a useless distinction ... granted ... but it's not necessary to accuse others of just blindly believing in something.

Just from having played sports myself - there are certainly days and moments where I feel good, and where I don't. My feelings may be within my physiological statistic norm .... and thus result in something that's within statistical norms .... but they nevertheless contributed to my performance in that specific instance.

But again - this is separate from "clutch" ... which again, there's too small a sample size to judge mathematically, and it's too hard to define. Therefore, it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that it exists - even though it can't be proven mathematically. All great theories first came about from personal observation.

Adam, I sorry you think I jumped on your back. If you mean I disagreed with you, I did. However I sense from that comment that you feel I was somehow unfair to you. If so, please show me where and I'll apologize.

Now to get back to the points. I reread your first post and you're correct you referred to clutch. I should have only responded to that. However my belief is still the same. People who believe in clutch have to show me the science to prove it. Otherwise I'll leave you to your beliefs, and you can leave me to mine. Just don't try and say that you know it occurs based upon your observations. You believe it occurs based upon your observations.

I do think my reference to religion is fair. Religion is a belief that you can't prove. You can't disprove it either, but that in no way proves it. Just because Bill James doesn't say it doesn't exist has no relevance to the point. He has disproved some myths, is that a better word than religion?, but because he says he can't disprove clutch doesn't mean it exists.

Let me go back to the Mr. October example. you could try and prove it. If you look at a number of players who have a similar number of postseason appearances, some will have done better than their season results and some will have done worse. Now you may want to call all those who did better, clutch, and all those who did worse, choke; that is your option.

However to really prove Mr. October, you need to show that his performance is outside the statistical norm. In most biological sciences showing that there is less than a 5% chance that the result is by chance would get you started on proof. If his results could not be shown this way, then they aren't proof of clutch. After all, someone's results have to be better, just as someones results have to be worse. Label them clutch and choke if you want, but remember it's only a belief, not a fact.

Finally, if I were picking a baseball team, I'd still put ARod on it, even though prior to last season he was a choke.

adamw
To Jim -- and to Tom Lento as well -- who both jumped on my back, completely unfairly, you really need to question your own absolutes.

KeithK said it best in a nutshell:

"Athletic performance over a large sample usually can be represented by a random variable. But the underlying activity is NOT a random variable. There are actual reasons for many of the fluctuations aside from pure statistical variabiliy."

However -- just because something cannot be proven - yet - by math, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. "ALL" science and math once went against the theory of relativity too. It doesn't mean that ALL anecdotal and personal observations are wrong.

Like Jim, I didn't feel like I jumped all over you, so I apologize if you felt that way. However, at the risk of sounding like I'm jumping all over you again, I'm going to repeat that anecdotal evidence and personal experience are TERRIBLE ways of evaluating a claim. That doesn't mean they're all wrong, it just means they're terrible ways of evaluating a claim.

Keith is right, but his comment is also more applicable to streaks than to clutch since streakiness is not affected by exogenous factors whereas clutch is defined by outside circumstances at the time of the performance. If there's something to clutch players, then they should be significantly better under the appropriate circumstances than they are under normal conditions.

I don't think I need to examine any absolutes at all. If anyone ever finds solid evidence that clutch players exist I'll happily admit I'm wrong. Until then, I'm not going to buy it, just as I would hope the scientific community would be skeptical of a theory challenging the fundamental basis of physics until someone found evidence to support it. You're welcome to claim that clutch players exist - I won't stop you - but until you show me some real evidence there's a chance I'll challenge you and your anecdotal assessments.

Why am I so opposed to clutch players? Because I don't think the mechanism is reasonable. Think about it - in order to really, truly be a clutch player you need to somehow elevate your game when the pressure is on. The most reasonable explanation for this phenomenon is that somehow the added pressure and importance of the situation sharpens your focus so much that you perform far better than you normally would. Yet when we examine the evidence we see that great players play just as great under pressure as not, and mediocre players play just as mediocre under pressure as not. Now, it's possible that there are clutch players, but based on the mechanism and the evidence at hand I'm going to claim that if they exist clutch players are actually talented guys who *lack* focus under normal conditions and only really sharpen up when the game is on the line. We typically call these guys perennial under-achievers, not clutch players, which just speaks to how subjective the whole concept is in the first place. Anyway, perennial under-achievers don't usually have the long, productive professional careers we need to examine their clutchitude, and I'm guessing they'll tend to have high-variance performances anyway so even their clutch achievements will fall in line with statistical variation. However, I doubt these guys ever make it to the top levels to begin with, and they probably don't merit much playing time at critical moments, so my position is that there's no such thing as a clutch player at all. I'm not likely to change my mind on this one based on anecdotes, since the only anecdotal evidence I've seen for the existence of clutch players is either a classic case of selective memory (see Boone, Aaron or Mazeroski, Bill) or all-around great players doing what they do (see Schilling, Curt or Jackson, Reggie).


Choke-artists should be the result of the same mechanism applied in reverse - the pressure and magnitude of the situation overwhelms the player and he basically falls apart. From my perspective (both as a spectator and as an athlete) this is eminently more believable than the mechanism behind clutchiness, and at some point I tried to find evidence that choke-artists really do exist. I didn't work hard at it, but I didn't come up with anything either, so I've decided I'm not going to buy it until someone shows me decent evidence that these guys are out there. Again, most of the anecdotal evidence I've seen so far is the result of small sample sizes (see Bonds, Barry), unreasonable expectations (see Roddick, Andy) or absolutely ridiculous cases of selective memory (see Rodriguez, Alex, who was a monster in the postseason in Seattle *and* in his first divisional series with the Yankees before going on a bad post-season run, and at the height of his chokiness was actually outperforming Captain Clutch in that particular postseason). Again, it's also possible that choke artists are out there but never make it to the highest levels so we can't track them - after all, high-school try-outs are high-pressure situations, so if you consistently choke under pressure you probably won't even make your high school team.



I think we can all agree that evidence for either will be hard to find, because top athletes are the best at what they do in part because they do it so consistently well.

OK Tom and Jim - I take back that you "jumped on me" -- but I still think calling it religion is unfair. I'm as unreligious as they come, and I'm also a huge adherent to Bill James - and a self-proclaimed charter member of the math police .... And again, I agree that terms like "clutch" and "choke" are vastly overused ... Bonds, A-Rod, good examples. And I'm fully aware of the concepts of variance, statistical norms, etc.... And I realize that, obviously, there will be some players whose postseason numbers are above their norm, and some below, and it doesn't necessarily mean anything.

However - again - I don't think if you've ever played sports at any sort of competitive level, that you couldn't personally feel, or tell, when yourself, or opponents, or teammates - could focus better, perform better, etc... under pressure ... and for some people, vice-versa. ... But my own personal experience gives me enough evidence to believe that such characteristics exist in human beings. Whether that can be sufficiently proven from the numbers or not.

If that makes it akin to religion that I believe that, then so be it. But I don't believe it's the same thing. What I objected to mostly was the idea that it's easy for me to claim something exists without evidence, because it's impossible to disprove, just like religion. Since I can't stand religion - I object that my beliefs are being equated to it

Personal experience may be a horrible way to prove something ... I agree ... but since the numbers can't prove or disprove it, that's all I have to go on. But I believe my observations are empirical in their own way -- and not just trying to after-the-fact create a reason for something (like with religion).

I also notice you conveniently left Nate Kaeding out of your response ... Someone please run the variance numbers on that one.

More food for thought ....

Here are some links - among the first hits when google searching for "does clutch exist" ... with the top links giving mathematical support for it. I didn't selectively grab links - just some were redundant, etc... so I didn't list them .... Feel free to do the same google search.

The most interesting is a direct response to Jim's assertion that my Bill James reference was meaningless. I meant to address that in my above post, but forgot. James' assertions about clutch go far beyond what you are saying. In fact, this article here cites a more recent James assertion that there could very well be something to clutch-ness, and it may be support-able...

[www.sabr.org]

Cramer was using random data as proof of nothingness—and I did the same, many times, and many other people also have done the same. But I’m saying now that’s not right; random data proves nothing—and it cannot be used as proof of nothingness.

Why? Because whenever you do a study, if your study completely fails, you will get random data. Therefore, when you get random data, all you may conclude is that your study has failed. Cramer’s study may have failed to identify clutch hitters because clutch hitters don’t exist—as he concluded—or it may have failed to identify clutch hitters because the method doesn’t work—as I now believe. We don’t know. All we can say is that the study has failed.

Here's two more .... I won't bore you all beyond that ... feel free to google search

[footballstatblog.blogspot.com]

[www.tangotiger.net]

adamw
OK Tom and Jim - I take back that you "jumped on me" -- but I still think calling it religion is unfair. I'm as unreligious as they come, and I'm also a huge adherent to Bill James - and a self-proclaimed charter member of the math police .... And again, I agree that terms like "clutch" and "choke" are vastly overused ... Bonds, A-Rod, good examples. And I'm fully aware of the concepts of variance, statistical norms, etc.... And I realize that, obviously, there will be some players whose postseason numbers are above their norm, and some below, and it doesn't necessarily mean anything.

However - again - I don't think if you've ever played sports at any sort of competitive level, that you couldn't personally feel, or tell, when yourself, or opponents, or teammates - could focus better, perform better, etc... under pressure ... and for some people, vice-versa. ... But my own personal experience gives me enough evidence to believe that such characteristics exist in human beings. Whether that can be sufficiently proven from the numbers or not.

If that makes it akin to religion that I believe that, then so be it. But I don't believe it's the same thing. What I objected to mostly was the idea that it's easy for me to claim something exists without evidence, because it's impossible to disprove, just like religion. Since I can't stand religion - I object that my beliefs are being equated to it

Personal experience may be a horrible way to prove something ... I agree ... but since the numbers can't prove or disprove it, that's all I have to go on. But I believe my observations are empirical in their own way -- and not just trying to after-the-fact create a reason for something (like with religion).

I also notice you conveniently left Nate Kaeding out of your response ... Someone please run the variance numbers on that one.

I've played competitive sports at a reasonably high level, and I can't think of anyone who actually performed better under pressure. The only possible exceptions are guys who were basically talented and lazy and who only showed up when they felt the game counted - but that's not better performance under pressure, that's shitty performance in other conditions, and I believe that distinction is important. I have seen (and felt) negative effects of pressure in competition. I've also seen, and used, effective techniques to neutralize the negative effects of pressure, and I contend that most good athletes have their ways of dealing with pressure and performing at their normal levels regardless of the situation.

That said, I do believe pressure can get to an athlete and degrade performance, but based on what I've seen I believe that's strongest the first time you encounter it and then players adjust and perform as expected. Some players seem to handle that initial experience better than others, and in some sense that means they do a better job of delivering in the clutch, but things even out in the long run. Pressure situations may highlight a person's quality, or they may cause sub-par performance, but I don't see any support for the mechanism behind the concept of a clutch player, and I will admit that's part of the reason I take the "clutch doesn't exist" position in this debate. The almost total lack of evidence just affirms that position (fwiw, the football article you linked is fatally flawed since it uses quarterbacks and qb rating without any apparent controls for anything else, and I don't have the time to investigate the second one but something seems totally wonky in their methodology - even if it isn't, their evidence is minimal - it opens the door, but doesn't change my mind).

Personal experience is also why I spent some time trying to find evidence of choke-artistry - I believed it had to exist. I failed to find any evidence. Admittedly, this was a half-assed attempt one day when I was bored, but I decided that, in all probability, there aren't really choke artists at the professional level because they wouldn't get that far if they couldn't produce consistently. I didn't mention Keading because I suspect his playoff performance is such a small sample that it's not statistically meaningful. Again, that doesn't mean he isn't a choke artist, it just means he hasn't been a choke artist for long enough for it to mean anything statistically. Also, it would not at all surprise me if the pressure did get to him a little bit, and it would not surprise me to learn that he's making adjustments and finds a way to deal with it. Assuming, of course, that he has a job next year.


I agree with Bill James - the existing studies of clutch are flawed, but nobody can refute that there is limited evidence that clutch players even exist, and the best studies to date have not turned up anything compelling. So I take the available evidence and combine it with my assessment of the mechanism itself, which is that there's no good logical reason why clutch players should exist at all. There are great illogical reasons - because we want a joe average player to have some magical ability to be something greater than himself when it really counts, or because it makes a nice story, or because the world needs heroes, or whatever - but logically speaking I don't really see it. Maybe clutch players are out there, as statistical outliers on the fight-or-flight response curve, but this seems unlikely to me (at least in the context of baseball - I may have to re-assess for certain sports, like track).

Adam, I was using religion as the topmost belief without science example. Sorry if I hit a nerve with you. But you also obviously hit a nerve with me. The problem I have is well exampled by your footballstatblog example. In it he shows 3 quarterbacks who do better at the end of the game than during the rest and 11 who do worse. The rest, I gather, are the same. Then at the end he says "so now, the truth is out there. Clutch exists, and not everybody has it."

But really, I started to say "But my god" but figured that was a poor choice of words here, don't you expect some to be better and some worse and some the same? That proves nothing. That's what makes me upset.

edit: Thread drifts like this is why eLynah, and CU athletics in general, can be so much fun, win or lose.

Tom Lento
Personal experience is also why I spent some time trying to find evidence of choke-artistry - I believed it had to exist. I failed to find any evidence. Admittedly, this was a half-assed attempt one day when I was bored, but I decided that, in all probability, there aren't really choke artists at the professional level because they wouldn't get that far if they couldn't produce consistently. I didn't mention Keading because I suspect his playoff performance is such a small sample that it's not statistically meaningful. Again, that doesn't mean he isn't a choke artist, it just means he hasn't been a choke artist for long enough for it to mean anything statistically. Also, it would not at all surprise me if the pressure did get to him a little bit, and it would not surprise me to learn that he's making adjustments and finds a way to deal with it. Assuming, of course, that he has a job next year.

The problem, Tom, is that there isn't ever enough sample size to prove it. There aren't enough situations, and it's also difficult to define. But I'd say hitting 69 straight FGs from inside 40 yards, yet missing 4 times from that distance in the playoffs, is pretty darned out of whack. But true, the sample size is small -- but the guy would never have a job long enough to get a high enough sample size.

I also agree it's possible that guys who are "clutch" were merely not playing up to their potential otherwise. And I understand your distinction. But that would still suggest that there is such a thing as a player's performance being different depending upon other circumstances.

And Jim - 99% of the time, I'd be right there with you on these kinds of arguments. Well - 99% is an estimate - I haven't empirically validated that figure

adamw

Tom Lento
Personal experience is also why I spent some time trying to find evidence of choke-artistry - I believed it had to exist. I failed to find any evidence. Admittedly, this was a half-assed attempt one day when I was bored, but I decided that, in all probability, there aren't really choke artists at the professional level because they wouldn't get that far if they couldn't produce consistently. I didn't mention Keading because I suspect his playoff performance is such a small sample that it's not statistically meaningful. Again, that doesn't mean he isn't a choke artist, it just means he hasn't been a choke artist for long enough for it to mean anything statistically. Also, it would not at all surprise me if the pressure did get to him a little bit, and it would not surprise me to learn that he's making adjustments and finds a way to deal with it. Assuming, of course, that he has a job next year.

The problem, Tom, is that there isn't ever enough sample size to prove it. There aren't enough situations, and it's also difficult to define. But I'd say hitting 69 straight FGs from inside 40 yards, yet missing 4 times from that distance in the playoffs, is pretty darned out of whack. But true, the sample size is small -- but the guy would never have a job long enough to get a high enough sample size.

I also agree it's possible that guys who are "clutch" were merely not playing up to their potential otherwise. And I understand your distinction. But that would still suggest that there is such a thing as a player's performance being different depending upon other circumstances.

And Jim - 99% of the time, I'd be right there with you on these kinds of arguments. Well - 99% is an estimate - I haven't empirically validated that figure

I just looked up Kaeding on Wikipedia, and I find it funny that his nickname in college was, apparently, "Big Game Nate." Of course, he was kicking for the University of Iowa, and they weren't exactly competing for the Rose Bowl at the time (Kaeding was a respectable, if unspectacular, 7-9 in 3 bowl games while he was there, so I guess Iowa was better than I thought during that time). I skimmed his college stats and the totality of his NFL career - regular season + playoffs - is pretty much in line with what he was doing in college so I think the jury's still out.

I don't think anyone would claim that player performance is the same under all conditions. After all they're human. But on average, across the course of a player's career, they tend to perform similarly across a variety of conditions. Well, maybe that's only true for the ones who are good enough to do it for a living, but that's who we track with all these fancy statistics.

Speaking of choking and unexpected outcomes, while it would be ridiculous for anyone to suggest that Roger Federer can't play under pressure he is in big trouble in the first round of the Australian Open right now.

Tom Lento
I don't think anyone would claim that player performance is the same under all conditions. After all they're human. But on average, across the course of a player's career, they tend to perform similarly across a variety of conditions. Well, maybe that's only true for the ones who are good enough to do it for a living, but that's who we track with all these fancy statistics.

My $.02 from my personal experience (sorry Tom) is that there definitely have been times when I'm doing anything - playing sports, playing my violin, working on engineering problem sets - where I just feel "on." And during those times, I really do perform better than at other times; everything slows down, the pieces just fall into place, and the end result is better.

The problem is that only *I* know how I'm really feeling in those moments, and there's no way to measure that emotion. And of course, if you had a bunch of guys in lab coats asking me how I feel during those moments, then the measurements interfere with the experiments too significantly for the results to matter. And it's no good asking after the fact, once I already know the results - if the results were bad, I'm going to say that I felt bad at the time, because the results would taint my recollection.

Over time, if I do the same activity enough, there are times when I'm on and times when I'm off, so there will be fluctuations in my performance that would lead someone to say, "oh, he's a 94% tonally-accurate violinist," and they'd be right. I can't completely control when I'm on and when I'm off, so the next time I pick up my violin, there probably really is a 94%, essentially random, chance whether I'll play in tune. Now, there are lots of factors that I *can* control, but when we're talking about professional athletes, they already do control all the factors that they can (getting enough sleep, timing their pre-game meals, etc), so all that's left are the parts they can't control - the randomness. That doesn't mean that the on-and-off periods aren't real - just that they can't be predicted.

It's a very common fallacy for people to assume that things they can't predict are random. If I tell you that there are some red balls and some green balls in a bin and ask someone to pick one out, a lot of people would assume that there is a 50/50 chance of getting a red or green. But what if there are only 2 red balls an 1000 green ones? So maybe I tell you there are 50 reds and 50 greens - now what's the probability - 50-50? Well, what if I arranged it so that all the green balls are on the far side of the bin where you really can't reach very well? Etc. Before we pull out the ball, we don't know what we'll get, but that doesn't mean that what we do get is actually random. Similarly, just because we can't predict whether a player will hit his next free throw does not prove that it's a random event.

Robb
It's a very common fallacy for people to assume that things they can't predict are random. If I tell you that there are some red balls and some green balls in a bin and ask someone to pick one out, a lot of people would assume that there is a 50/50 chance of getting a red or green. But what if there are only 2 red balls an 1000 green ones? So maybe I tell you there are 50 reds and 50 greens - now what's the probability - 50-50? Well, what if I arranged it so that all the green balls are on the far side of the bin where you really can't reach very well? Etc. Before we pull out the ball, we don't know what we'll get, but that doesn't mean that what we do get is actually random. Similarly, just because we can't predict whether a player will hit his next free throw does not prove that it's a random event.

Thanks Robb ... you put it a lot more scientifically (and succinctly) than I was able to. But that common fallacy is basically what I was trying to get at ... and Bill James as well, in his follow up paper that I linked.

adamw

Robb
It's a very common fallacy for people to assume that things they can't predict are random. If I tell you that there are some red balls and some green balls in a bin and ask someone to pick one out, a lot of people would assume that there is a 50/50 chance of getting a red or green. But what if there are only 2 red balls an 1000 green ones? So maybe I tell you there are 50 reds and 50 greens - now what's the probability - 50-50? Well, what if I arranged it so that all the green balls are on the far side of the bin where you really can't reach very well? Etc. Before we pull out the ball, we don't know what we'll get, but that doesn't mean that what we do get is actually random. Similarly, just because we can't predict whether a player will hit his next free throw does not prove that it's a random event.

Thanks Robb ... you put it a lot more scientifically (and succinctly) than I was able to. But that common fallacy is basically what I was trying to get at ... and Bill James as well, in his follow up paper that I linked.

I'm not assuming they're random, rather I'm saying there is no proof that the idea of clutch, streak exists. Til someone proves it, I'd rather keep an open mind. Keeping an open mind is what science is all about. Having your mind made up beforehand limits your possibilities of success.

Jim Hyla
Keeping an open mind is what science is all about.

Maybe, but hanging on to your hypothesis until they pry it from your cold, dead fingers is what science funding is all about.

Robb
My $.02 from my personal experience (sorry Tom) is that there definitely have been times when I'm doing anything - playing sports, playing my violin, working on engineering problem sets - where I just feel "on." And during those times, I really do perform better than at other times; everything slows down, the pieces just fall into place, and the end result is better.

Funny you should say this: I was remarking to a teammate a few weeks ago that right before I scored a goal in a recent game, I looked up and everything seemed to be going in slow motion. It was kind of freaky. I need to figure out how to reproduce this reliably.

Kyle Rose
I need to figure out how to reproduce this reliably.

One way.

Trotsky

Kyle Rose
I need to figure out how to reproduce this reliably.

One way.

No, he'd be in slow motion, everyone else full speed. That is unless you find a way to put it in pizza.

Kyle Rose
I need to figure out how to reproduce this reliably.

Aye - there's the rub... The fact that we can't makes it seem random.

I heard a story one time of a Broadway actor who somehow got in a zone and just absolutely nailed a performance that he had done dozens or hundreds of times before - more standing ovations than ever, etc. Everyone in the building knew it. After the performance, people were lined up to congratulate him, only to find that he was completely distraught and trashing his dressing room. They said, "but you gave such a fantastic performance - it was amazing; you should be ecstatic!" He replied, "I would be - if I knew how to do it again."

Robb

Tom Lento
I don't think anyone would claim that player performance is the same under all conditions. After all they're human. But on average, across the course of a player's career, they tend to perform similarly across a variety of conditions. Well, maybe that's only true for the ones who are good enough to do it for a living, but that's who we track with all these fancy statistics.

My $.02 from my personal experience (sorry Tom) is that there definitely have been times when I'm doing anything - playing sports, playing my violin, working on engineering problem sets - where I just feel "on." And during those times, I really do perform better than at other times; everything slows down, the pieces just fall into place, and the end result is better.

No apology necessary - I'm not arguing against the hot hand here. For the record, I have had the same experience in several different sports, including the first time I ever scored a goal in a hockey game, and based on my experience in the one sport I was any good at I could (sometimes) reproduce those moments by getting all the fundamentals ingrained and going through mental preparation routines. Yet even with those there were those vexing off days where you're the one moving in slow motion and the game is just blowing right by you and you have no idea what's going on. Sports are weird that way (and so is any performance, I'm sure). Anyway, the hot hand is one that's very hard to prove or disprove for just this reason - we're human, and there are some internal shifts in our performance or feelings that impact how well we perform at any given moment, so it may well be that our probability of hitting a shot on an "on" day is higher than on an "off" day - that is, that the individual moments that make up our overall performance may not be random and independent.

I've just been saying - at length - that I see no reason why a pressure situation would *increase* the likelihood that someone will have a good day, and the only available evidence suggests that pressure has no such positive effect (i.e., clutch players don't exist). Incidentally, the clutch debate should end as soon as someone figures out how to control for the external pressure of a situation. Once you've got that, the analysis is a straightforward matter of using the pressure of the situation to explain variance in performance. If pressure is not a significant predictor, then the variance must be caused by something else. It doesn't mean it's random variance, it just means it's most likely not caused by pressure, and therefore there is no observable mechanism for producing a clutch player.

Plus/minus has an air of randomness for a single game. Same with a shutout. But over the season or career, it's valuable. Plus/minus puts a number on a person's team play - such as getting to the clearing pass and keeping it in the attacking zone where it's touched three times before your team scores so you and one other skater don't get an assist. Mediocre player on a good line benefits but on average you're paired with people of like ability. For your career stats maybe there should be Adjusted Plus/Minus, relative to your team's plus/minus.

Maybe if GWG were conditional it would be more valuable. Something like a save in baseball: GWG only matters in the third period and not if you eventually win by three or more excluding an ENG. That baggage would make it too heavy to fly.

If you wanted a secondary-importance stat, how about Game's Final Game Tying Goal (Where Your Team Finally Won).

GFGTG(WYTFW). Pronounced "giff-gee-tig-whit-few". I like it.

ftyuv
GFGTG(WYTFW). Pronounced "giff-gee-tig-whit-few". I like it.

ftyuv, you would.

billhoward
For your career stats maybe there should be Adjusted Plus/Minus, relative to your team's plus/minus.

I'm sure one day there will be, if there's not already a site doing it.

billhoward
If you wanted a secondary-importance stat, how about Game's Final Game Tying Goal (Where Your Team Finally Won).

College Hockey Stats (collegehockeystats.net) keeps the stat "Last Lead" ... which is essentially the baseball rule of handling Wins/GWRBI.

adamw

Rita
I bet there are several football coaches (Phillips, Wade; Turner, Norv) that might believe in "clutch" and that their kickers define the opposite of "clutch". What a time to go on a bad streak. Yikes.

Well - I came here to say just that .... Try telling the San Diego Chargers there is no such thing as "choke" and "clutch" .... Nate Kaeding is the most accurate regular-season kicker in NFL history. In the postseason, he is something like 8-for-15, with 4 misses inside 40 yards ... where he otherwise has hit 67 in a row.

Seems like the "clutch/choke" debate has come up in the curling world this week (and yes, in the match vs. the Swiss, choke is the first word that came to my mind to describe what happened to the US team )

"shuster (adj.) — the inability to be successful in a tense or must-win situation; the opposite of clutch. "

From today's (2/19/2010) Soxaholic comic strip.