Who was clutch?
Apparently not who you think.
almost 3 years ago
R.J. Anderson
5 comments
0 recs |
Comments
This whole thing is basedd on the fact that fans know who is and isn't clutch
and that’s a real problem. Wouldn’t it be more beneficial to take one year’s clutchiest players and compare that to the next season, while taking into account aging curves, etc.? Hasn’t this been done before?
by lookatthosetwins on Feb 20, 2009 2:11 PM EST reply actions
That's how the clutch research projects have been done in the past.
Basically, there’s so much noise that you need a TON of data to find anyone that’s clutch to a significant degree. And it’s usually not the guys we think of as clutch.
This is the best quote in Tom’s recent article:
Let’s let this clutch debate end today (please?), and simply agree that: a) yes, clutch exists, b) yes, fans can perceive clutch players, but c) the impact of clutch players is limited to less than the platoon advantage.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.

















