1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Just how important is "clutch", really?

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by Pauly, May 30, 2016.

  1. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    You're not really factoring those things though. You are using rough estimates instead of getting the hard data that you use with the QB.

    Also, not sure why this isn't clear.....you are NOT saying the definition of clutch is the absence of choking. You are saying the definition of clutch is choking slightly less than the league average of choking. You have to see how those are different.

    And yes, its no surprise, every stat assessment with questionable logic and/or procedure you do, (like changing the definition of words then saying its the same as the scientific community, which was just shown to not be true) always ends up painting Thill in a negative light. Pauly, OTOH, goes where ever the data takes him.....you? Well.......
     
  2. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    This is your quote;
    That is abundantly clear, you are saying that cold doesn't exist.

    In terms of pigment, white is the absence of color, there are no combinations of color that can make white, but all colors combined will make black.
     
  3. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    I know what i said. I stand by it.

    To refute it however, you said the absence of heat does exist. I'm merely trying to point out to you, I never said the absence of heat doesn't exist. I said it did exist. Before we go further in the discussion, do you understand that, yes or no?

    Color: Yes in pigment. Care to take a guess at how we perceive those colors if not for light and the visible spectrum? Also, the absence of colored pigment does not mean white either.
     
  4. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Factoring in means I understand the QB isn't responsible for the entire stat. Yes, I'm factoring it in, and no we can't get the data to determine what percentage of performance is due to the QB (no one has that kind of data).

    Same as with "hot" and "cold". There is never a total absence of heat, yet we say it's "hot" or "cold" relative to some reference point. That's true even if you define "cold" as the absence of "heat". Same here. There's a degree to which something is clutch or choking, and we can define that relative to some reference point.

    btw.. even definitions of "hot" and "cold" had to change. Those are really sensations and not physical attributes. You can feel cold with greater heat depending on which neurons are being stimulated.

    You're just making up lies here. Back to your old self eh? I go wherever the data goes, probably more than anyone else here.
     
    roy_miami likes this.
  5. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    That's not the data I'm talking about. I'm talking about the receivers and how 'clutch" are they? How clutch is the person calling the plays? How clutch is the line? Do these things not significantly affect a QBs performance? Without that data, you cannot make an accurate determination. That's like trying to determine the tides without factoring in the moon's orbit.

    Please pay attention. I understand hot and cold, that is NOT what you are saying though.

    "science" says: Clutch is the absence of choke.

    "cbrad" says: Clutch is choking slightly less than the league average of choking.

    Do you or do you not understand those statements are not the same?

    As far as your BTW, those aren't changed definitions. You are conflating the scientific definitions with layman versions of words.

    I made up nothing. You are the one literally making things up to paint Thill negatively. You've done that a lot actually and you're doing it now. Like the definition of clutch for example. I know, I know, you're done talking about this, you're never wrong.
     
    resnor likes this.
  6. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yeah, I get it.. once again QB isn't responsible for the entire clutch stat. So what? As long as it's untenable to argue everything other than the QB was responsible for the stat, my approach is fine. So yeah all those other factors are and have been factored in, and no you can't get that data. No one has it.


    Look.. saying clutch is the absence of choke (which is true for most scientific studies and also true for me.. even if you don't understand this) means you can measure the degree to which there's an absence of choke. Just like the degree to which there's an absence of heat. Just like with Fahrenheit and Celsius put their zero points at different points on a scale, the reference point here can be defined the way I defined it (average drop-off league-wide).

    There is nothing inconsistent there, whether you understand it or not. And I'm pretty sure the scientific definition came about after people debated many different ways of defining clutch, including saying it was performance better than normal under pressure. What people end up using as definitions in science usually occurs after many proposed ones are thrown out.


    You made up a ton. Show me where in my mathematical analysis there was "questionable logic" or where in this entire debate on clutch the focus was on Tannehill. Not sure I even mentioned the guy in the thread, and if I did the focus was never on him. Saying I don't go where the data goes is also totally made up.

    Regarding this "changing definitions" thing, you need to step back a bit and learn how science operates better before pushing further with it. Science isn't some monolithic thing where everything is set in stone and it's black or white (black or white applies to math, but often not to science because you can't pin things down in many cases). The goal is to come up with a simple model that fits the data where your parameters represent physical quantities (as opposed to just mathematical constructs with no physical basis). If that means you change definitions to do it, so be it.
     
  7. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    This is where it begins and ends so don't even bother. Any stat that paints Thill in a bad light, is going to be viewed as being presented with a bias or agenda, even if it wasn't.
     
    roy_miami and Finster like this.
  8. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    I will post your quote again;
    To which you answered;
    Then go on to say;
    So you are directly contradicting yourself.

    It's time for you to be clear, are you retracting your first comment;

     
  9. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    No one has WR stats? No one has oline stats? No one has coaching stats? Interesting.

    You are defining clutch differently than "science" does. You are looking at different degrees of clutch. Your argument is that clutch is X + Y, when science says clutch is X. You are spinning here. Science doesn't define cold as less than the average amount of heat in Guam, so you shouldn't define clutch as less than the average amount of choke in the NFL.


    No I didn't. I am (and have) shown you where your logic is faulty. You leave out data, change concepts and definitions, then act as if these are laws that can't be questioned. You don't have to mention Thill. You know the numbers, the way you've scripted them, will show he isn't "clutch". Its always your motivation. Name one time on this forum you did a stats analysis that didn't show Thill in a bad light? You can do that because you really are disregarding the other factors involved. I know, I know, you say you didn't disregard them but then you turn around and say those numbers are impossible to get (another logic problem).

    I understand this stuff just fine. Science defines hot and cold one way, laymen define them another. Science defines clutch one way, layman another and now we've learned you also made up your own definition of clutch as well. Based on that, I guess its good enough that it can be said you failed to prove clutch matters based on the scientific definition and the layman definition but its dead nuts accurate on your own definition. Which is good for you I guess.
     
  10. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    No I'm not.

    Why do you do this? That's not what happened.

    I said cold and clutch don't exist as they are just the absence of heat and choke. You then proceeded to act like I said the absence of heat doesn't exist, when I literally just said it did.
     
    resnor likes this.
  11. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    Are you serious? Sometimes I just can't tell.
     
  12. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Then as I pointed out, you really don't understand what is being said.

    I'm saying cold technically, doesn't exist, but the absence of heat does exist.

    You earlier in the thread, acted as if I said the absence of heat doesn't exist. When you said:

    So, that tells me you don't understand what I'm saying if you think I said the absence of heat doesn't exist. This has been one giant misunderstanding on your part.
     
    resnor likes this.
  13. Fineas

    Fineas Club Member Luxury Box

    18,217
    23,524
    113
    Jan 5, 2008
    This isn't a Tannehill thread, but I was curious to see how he might compare to Brady with respect to some of the stats being discussed as somehow measuring clutch. Tannehill was 5-6 (45.4%) in close games when trailing at the end of the 3rd quarter. That is hardly surprising because the Dolphins have been a 45.3% win percentage team since Tannehill has been here. So Tannehill's Dolphins have performed at their normal win% level in such situations. Brady's teams have won 76.3% of their games (playoffs included) during his career, but are only 25-21 (54.3%) in close games when they were losing at the end of the third quarter. That is obviously a notable dropoff from their normal winning ways, albeit not unexpected. So relative to their respective "norms," Brady's teams were worse than Tannehill's in such "pressure" situations. Having said that, it is worth noting that the Dolphin defense gave up 10+ points in the 4th quarter in 3 of those 11 games, which is something Brady pretty much never had to deal with. Tannehill did win one of those games, which is also something Brady has never done.
     
    resnor and Fin D like this.
  14. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    No one has the stats necessary to figure out what portion of the final outcome is due to the QB. So yeah, best you can do is say it's untenable to argue the QB had nothing to do with the clutch stats.

    Science does the same thing. Where the reference point is will differ based on the study. Some that study individual athletes (e.g. golfers) will only look at drop-off from that individual's average, not average drop-off of all golfers (because it's not a team sport), but this idea of looking at drop-off relative to average drop-off is a natural extension of that for team play because others on your team influence the results so you have to try and account for that. It's the same definition in principle.

    You haven't shown my logic is faulty at all. Neither in the math (and there's tons of that in this thread) nor in its interpretation.

    Nor is this thread about Tannehill (not even in my mind was it, just in yours). And sure I've shown stats that don't paint Tannehill in a bad light. First of all, showing he's average isn't painting him in a bad light, and most of his stats in the last two years are average. I've also repeatedly shown he's not as inconsistent as it seems if you look at variance in his stats. I've also been on the side of arguing there's statistical evidence of improvement his first 3 years (trend didn't continue in the 4th) so you can't just look at the first 2 years the same way as the last two (variance in many stats also decreased over those years too, showing greater consistency). So you're just selectively ignoring or forgetting the cases where I actually do defend him. The only important negative thing about Tannehill this thread validates is that <4 minute trailing stat of his where he's really bad.
     
  15. Da 'Fins

    Da 'Fins Season Ticket Holder Staff Member Club Member

    34,739
    47,801
    113
    Dec 19, 2007
    Birmingham, AL
    I was actually in agreement with you on Smith. But, measuring playoff passing stats is a completely flawed measurement for "clutch" because the competition is better. The reality is, no QB would have performed well against the 1986 Giants defense in their playoff run (particularly not from the AFC which was the weaker conference throughout the decade of the mid-80's to early 90's). That's why stats are a flawed way to measure this. You have to look at plays made in the clutch and whether a player has performed in tight situations - and not just look at "well, they had this or that bad game or this or that bad stats."

    On Elway, for example, 4th quarter stats over his career do not tell anything about how good or bad he was in the clutch.

    1) You completely ignored the point that stats cannot measure "clutch" in the NFL. There are too many variables - in those 4th quarter games ... Was Denver behind, ahead, or was the game out of reach - in either direction? Was the game important? Who was the competition - both defensively and offensively (B/c if the other team had a dominating run game that took the ball out of Elway's hands, that is going to hinder him)? How crucial was the moment? At what point was it in his career? (Both Marino and Elway had their peak play early on; Elway's SB wins were team wins, and that gave Elway better wins and stats but not because he was a better player; he simply had a better team and a running game; he became a more efficient - all those come into play).

    2) The majority of Elway's 4th quarter great play and many of those key drives were made with his legs. He did that throughout his career but he was not nearly as fast late in his career as early on.

    3) Even on Elway's stat splits by quarter (not that those are measurables of clutch, as I noted already - because so many other variables are in play), I'd like to see a link for Elway's quarter by quarter stats of which you speak - because the only thing I've ever found on quarter-by-quarter stat splits for all QBs is from 1991 forward (which eliminates his peak for making big plays late in games - from '83-'90 where he earned his reputation). Perhaps you have a source by I'd like to see that. However, again, this doesn't even come close to telling the story of game score, situation, etc. as I noted in 1) above.
     
  16. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Don't know if you realize this, but you just argued cold exists (and clutch ...)

    Your words, clutch portion taken out.

    You also said twice, absence of heat does exist.

    So ... cold = absence of heat. Absence of heat exists, therefore cold exists.

    Symbolic logic/philosophy 101 for the win
     
    roy_miami likes this.
  17. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    So I'm clear....its too complicated to decide how much a QB plays into wins/losses clutch/not clutch....therefore clutch is all on him. Makes perfect sense.

    Stop. You aren't doing what science is doing. Science finds degrees, you aren't. You are saying clutch (not degrees of clutch) is defined as less chokey than league average. What are not understanding this?

    I have shown, you just can't stomach me pointing out you're wrong. Don't worry you're not alone in that.
     
    resnor likes this.
  18. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Yeah....no.
     
    resnor likes this.
  19. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Purposely obtuse or you just can't understand? How many times have I said clutch is NOT all on the QB precisely because we know other factors exist yet can't quantify it properly.. then you come back with the above statement.

    I'm finding degrees of clutch (or choking) relative to the reference point defined by average drop-off. Same principle as they're using. Only difference from study to study will be the reference point.

    You haven't shown what you think you've shown. Don't worry, it's not the first time.
     
  20. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Yeea, yeah. You can't run from your own words.

    By the way, there is no such thing as dark, just the absence of light.

    There is no such thing as poverty, just the absence of stuff.

    There is no such thing as losses ... nevermind there are the Jets!.

    (and yes, I'm familiar with the silly argument there is no such thing as cold)
     
  21. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    So you're just trolling then?
     
  22. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    And yet, you're still determining who is and isn't clutch with too little info. Like I said you were....

    Right, you decided what the reference point was because you made up your own definition. Again, not sure why you aren't understanding this.

    Not to you. In truth I wasn't expecting I would....
     
  23. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    No, I'm disputing your insistence of the silly argument.
     
  24. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    There's enough info as long as the QB has some responsibility for the stats.

    Of course I did because that definition works best. Definitions are like hypotheses. You try different ones out until you get one that helps you model phenomena best. Think of how you'd define "gravity" differently if you thought the Earth was the center of the universe and everything revolved around it vs. thinking that any object with mass attracts other objects with the gravitational force. What I did is propose a more carefully thought out definition than some I've seen others use.

    Not to anyone in science for sure.
     
    Pauly likes this.
  25. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Like hell you are.
     
  26. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Arguing cold doesn't exist is arguing love doesn't exist, or darkness doesn't exist, or sadness and empathy doesn't exist.

    Cold is a sensation one feels, and it absolutely exists. Scientists and wannabe scientists who get too cute for their own good want to argue because you can't hold it, measure it, weigh it, it doesn't exist.

    Well how much does love weigh. How much does sadness weigh. When it's below freezing does the scientist sit there and proclaim, my the rate at which heat is leaving the atmosphere is rapidly increasing.

    No you say it's bloody fracking cold outside!

    As for clutch, cbrad is measuring something he calls clutch. It is measurable.
     
    Fin-O likes this.
  27. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    No there isn't.

    The definition works best.....for your already held belief. Definitions are not like hypotheses. You do not try out different ones. Hypotheses are like hypotheses.

    Says the guy that thinks definitions are nebulous and who also makes sure results tell the story he wanted to tell.
     
  28. Fineas

    Fineas Club Member Luxury Box

    18,217
    23,524
    113
    Jan 5, 2008
    I agree that playoff performance is not a good way to judge clutch. And I agree that in football there are almost no stats that define it well because everything is dependent on so many other factors. I don't believe clutch exists in the sense of players elevating their performance in pressure moments. For that general proposition in sports, I look to things like FT shooting in basketball and maybe FG kicking in football because those are largely unaffected by other players (not entirely for FGs, but mostly) and the fact that those events happen after pauses in action and with everyone's eyes on that one player. And when you look at those stats at the professional level, you don't see meaningful differences between performance in "clutch" and regular situations when looking at a big enough sample size.

    I don't agree that nobody could have performed well against the 1986 Giants. John Elway actually performed pretty well in the Super Bowl -- 22 for 37 for 304 yards, 2 TDs (1 rush and one pass) and 1 INT (83.6 rating). Montana's big playoff turd can't be simply dismissed by saying the Giants defense was so great that it excuses Montana's truly terrible performance. That Giants defense didn't hold every QB to a 34.4 passer rating.

    As for Elway, I am not the one claiming 4th quarter QB stats are some great or true measure of clutch. His 4th quarter splits are available on his Pro Football Reference page at the splits link. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/E/ElwaJo00/splits/ The 4th quarter splits are only from 1994 forward, but that was the most successful period of his career. He averaged 3.2 4th quarter comebacks/game winning drives per season during that time period. That's slightly higher than the 3.1/season he averaged over his first 11 seasons.

    Again, we can only go by the evidence and stats that are available and I'm not the one claiming anything is evidence of clutch. I'm the one saying there are no reliable stats that show that clutch even exists.
     
    resnor likes this.
  29. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yeah.. maybe someday you'll learn more about how science works and see I'm right.
     
  30. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    I'm not arguing cold doesn't exist. I and science for that matter, state it doesn't exist.

    What I'm arguing is a fundamental problem with you and the people you felate on this board not understanding the English language. Whether you agree with science or not about cold, I very clearly and succinctly said numerous times the absence of heat exists and Finster acted as if I didn't.

    If you and him and whoever the hell else don't understand that, the problem isn't me.
     
  31. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Riiiiiight.

    Hey, I can just change the definition of gravity.....cause you know....its just a hypothesis.
     
  32. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Cold is a sensation, not a physical property. It tends to correspond to low temperatures (a physical property), but "low" is relative to whatever is having the sensation. So cold exists as a sensation that is highly correlated with temperatures lower than whoever is having the sensation (that's your reference point).

    Regarding heat.. that's a type of energy transferred from one system to another when you have a difference in temperatures between those systems. You either have more heat or less heat and you can never really get to absolute zero temperature where no heat could be transferred from it to another system.
     
  33. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Nope I just learned cold can be anything I want it to be, you know like all definitions.
     
  34. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    lol.. try not to advertise your ignorance TOO much dude.

    Definitions are like hypotheses in that they have to "fit" the data well. They stabilize once they do fit well.

    Definitions of "hot" and "cold" totally changed once people became aware of the need to distinguish between a physical attribute and a sensation (e.g. light vs. color.. the former is a physical phenomenon, the latter is a sensation). There was a time where no such distinction was made in the definition itself.
     
  35. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Sure, sure. <-----those don't mean I agree......of course nothing means anything now. It must be nice to live in a world where nothing is defined until you personally define it.
     
  36. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    Yeah, we get you, cold is the absence of heat, which doesn't exist, except that the absence of heat does exist.

    You're making perfect sense.
     
  37. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Look man I don't care if you understand the concept anymore, as I'm just accepting you don't and likely never will. Now I'm wondering if you'll even understand I didn't invent this whole thing and that it is actually a science thing.
     
  38. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    What you are still trying to squirm out of, is the fact that you have said it does exist, and it doesn't exist.

    Nothing new here, same old stuff, different thread.
     
    Fin-O likes this.
  39. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    You're really just jerking him around now. He compared clutch to cold, something which we have a nave for, but, in reality, doesn't exist. Heat is the transfer of energy, whereas cold is simply the absence of heat. It's literally nothing. Just like clutch.

    But, I know you understand exactly what he was saying.
     
    Fin D likes this.
  40. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Both "hot" and "cold" are sensations that correlate with transfer of heat. You feel cold when heat is transferred from you to another object (rate depends on temperature difference and conductivity of the materials/medium). So from that point of view they involve the same process, but in reverse. It's certainly not "nothing".
     
    jdang307 likes this.

Share This Page