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. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yeah, he's trying to distinguish between "physical" and "chemical" properties, so he says a physical property is something that doesn't change the chemical nature of matter. And that's a general distinction people make. For our purposes that's still OK because temperature on its own isn't doing that.

    The ability to identify a substance is NOT a requirement to say something is a physical property. "Angular momentum", "area", "volume", "mass", etc.. all are physical properties that really won't help you identify anything. Temperature is another. And it's not just wiki, but physics books that will say this.
     
  2. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I just answered that.. they don't have to worry about thermal conductance or differences between physical properties and sensations for a huge mass of air because the temperature is similar enough to sensation in that case. You don't ask a meteorologist for a precise definition of "sensation" or "physical property" (sensory neuroscientists and physicists, respectively, are probably better sources because they have to worry about the consequences of different definitions there).
     
  3. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    You're really going to play this game? His point was that the ice cube cools off the drink.

    It doesn't. The drink "gives" it's excess heat to the ice cube, thereby lowering its own temperature.
     
  4. Fineas

    Fineas Club Member Luxury Box

    18,216
    23,519
    113
    Jan 5, 2008
    I've done this several times and the main point is that it has to be something that measures the player's performance on something unaffected (or almost unaffected) by other players, coaches, conditions, etc. I suggested you look at FT shooting in basketball, maybe serve stats in tennis, or if you need to use football, use FG kicking. You can use those to see if there really is any difference between how players perform in pressure situations v. non-pressure situations (as those terms would apply to professional sports and not performance with a gun to one's head). I believe you will find clutch doesn't really exist. But if you don't find that, I would say that for whatever you are measuring, to be clutch one would have to have improved one's performance by a statistically significant amount in pressure situations in order to be considered clutch AND that your performance in those situations has to be above the league average by a statistically significant amount (which of course should take sample size into account). The NFL average make % for a 45 yd FG is 75.1% since 2000. In the last 4 minutes and OT of +/- 3 pt games, NFL kickers have made 77% of such kicks. It's nominally better, but surely well within the standard deviation based on the number of those late and close FGs. Theoretically, if you had a kicker who normally makes only 50% of such kicks, but makes 70% in late and clutch, I don't think that should be considered clutch because he's still worse than the league average. Needless to say, if he makes only 50% of his 45 yr kicks he won't be in the league long enough to have a meaningful sample size.
     
  5. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Yeah, situations where the player is unaffected by others are easy to analyze so let's focus on the bold.

    The problem I have with your bolded part is this: suppose we're looking at QB stats in pressure situations for team sports and some other unit (say OL or defense) on average just plays worse under pressure. Hypothetically, suppose that on average the QB stats drop by 10% due solely to those other units, yet the QB is otherwise playing better than normal, and also better than average.

    Your definition wouldn't say the QB is clutch even though I'd think you'd want to. That's why you need to compare to league-wide drop-off to remove that effect. So in particular, you can't just compare the QB to himself (your first condition).

    Your second condition I'm ambivalent on. I can see its utility if you want to select a "clutch" player for your team, but I can see its disutility if you want to focus on an athlete's differential response to pressure, so including it or not really depends on the question asked, but I'm not against it.
     
  6. Fineas

    Fineas Club Member Luxury Box

    18,216
    23,519
    113
    Jan 5, 2008
    But that's why QB stats are not good measures of clutch. None of them exclude or filter the impact of other players, coaches, etc. Those other factors have a huge impact on every QB stat. You simply can't statistically measure clutch for QBs in a meaningful way that actually measures the QB's response to pressure unobscured by a host of other factors and variables. Certainly W/L stats are pure folly in that regard. Measuring passer rating or other stats in certain circumstances is a little better, but still riddled with problems.
     
    Pauly and resnor like this.
  7. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Hey I'll admit every weakness of the measure I'm proposing. I've been saying forever that there's no way to truly isolate the influence of the QB from that of the team.

    All I'm saying is that the best way I can think of to try and isolate a QB's differential performance in more pressure vs. less pressure conditions is the measure I'm proposing, by comparing to league-wide drop-offs. And like I said, if you want we can add your second condition.. won't change the results much.

    Otherwise, the only other issue is the interpretation of the measure. There, I see absolutely no problem in interpreting the results by saying player X is "more clutch" or "more of a choker" (or less clutch or less of a choker) than player Y because the measure occurs on that theoretical continuum from "choking" to "clutch".

    Agree to those points and we have no serious disagreement on this issue.
     
    Pauly likes this.
  8. Fineas

    Fineas Club Member Luxury Box

    18,216
    23,519
    113
    Jan 5, 2008
    I think clutch and choke are both loaded terms, so I wouldn't use those. And without evidence that there are actual league-wide drop-offs for many supposed "clutch" stats, I don't think that makes sense. It should be who, if anyone, actually "steps it up" in pressure situations, not who drops off more than others. But I can put that argument aside for now. The "statistically significant" difference is an important point. All too often people make clutchness claims based on a handful of plays or games or examples. Sample size should be taken into account. And if any of these things truly measure or reflect an inherent ability to handle pressure well, a few different clutchness measures should be taken into account and the guy should have to "pass" all of them. We see so many different measures being tossed around, with guys appearing clutch based on one measure and appearing to be a choker based on another measure. If the ability to handle pressure is a real thing, we should see some consistency among the various measures. So while Joe Flacco may seem to handle pressure well based on a partial sample of his playoff games, he appears to be hot garbage in Late and Close (last 4 mins game within 7) with a 64.9 rating. If he was really clutch in the sense that he handles pressure and rises to the occasion, one wouldn't expect him to be so bad in those Late & Close situations. Nobody ever seems to label Matthew Stafford as clutch, but he does quite well in those Late & Close situations (88.7 rating) even though he's never won a playoff game. Tom Brady, like Flacco, isn't very good in Late and Close over the last 8 years (66.9 rating), but is offered as the paragon of clutchness according to other measures.
     
    Pauly likes this.
  9. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    We're getting somewhere.

    First thing that's easy to deal with is the concept of "drop-off". That can be negative or positive or zero, so it's really just referring to an average difference between two conditions. Second thing easy to deal with is the idea we have to look at many stats. I've insisted on that throughout the discussion. Third thing about "statistically significant" (which takes into account sample size) I've calculated when appropriate.

    Which terms to use.. we have to use something other than the definition itself (which is long), so if you have suggestions I'm all ears. But what won't change is that the measure is on that choking to clutch continuum whether those are the words used or not.

    Anything else?

    As far as individual athletes, I do think when you look across many "clutch" stats Brady will probably pass. Flacco I doubt.
     
    Pauly likes this.
  10. Fineas

    Fineas Club Member Luxury Box

    18,216
    23,519
    113
    Jan 5, 2008
    If you want a label, how about APUP ("Appears to Perform Under Pressure")?

    So I'm playing along, knowing full well that some QBs will seem APUP and people will claim that is proof of clutch and that the existence of players who don't seem APUP will be evidence of choking. And for all the reasons I have repeated numerous times, that won't really be the case.
     
  11. cbrad

    cbrad .

    10,659
    12,657
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I'd suggest staying neutral with the interpretation and making it more like statistical terminology: DPUP = Differential Performance Under Pressure.
     
    Pauly likes this.
  12. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    But is Gucci Mane gonna Gucci?
     
  13. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    So you can't. You should retract then, and maybe apologize. You shouldn't infer his point, as he wrote it out in plain English.

    Dispute that. Prove to us, that putting ice in a drink, doesn't make it colder. You can't, it's indisputable, if you take cubes of frozen water, and put them into a beverage, it will get colder.

    He never once said it was the ice cube giving off cold energy to the room temp drink. And you didn't quote it, because the quote isn't there.

    One more chance: Find in his post, where he says what you think he said, and is wrong.

    It's already tough enough to debate you guys with your ever changing positions, but it's damn nigh impossible if you start inferring things that aren't there ;)
     
    Finster and roy_miami like this.
  14. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Listen, it was a conversation. He didn't simply make one post about cold, that being the ice cube one. It's clear from his previous posts that he was saying that ice cubes cool the water.

    That was his point. And it was wrong.
     
    Fin D likes this.
  15. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Here you go, lawyer man, I bolded the parts you said didn't exist:

    He is dead *** wrong on this.

    He's not even comparing like things, though, as adding ice, or cooled water, to another liquid is not really the same as air temperature. He's wrong, because the warmer liquid warms the ice until it is no longer ice. Then, that homogeneous mixture, if it's left sitting long enough will then warm to the room temperature. It won't lower the temperature of the room. The room will add heat until the drink is the same temperature as the room.
     
    Fin D likes this.
  16. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,696
    3,743
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    Actually most of the energy goes into transferring the solid state crystal into liquid form. That's why ice at 0 degrees C is a more efficient coolant than a block of iron of the same mass at -20 degrees C.
    So for melting ice, it is a case of the ice taking energy from its surroundings.
    But for other coolants its a case of the excess heat being transferred, or equalized.
     
    resnor likes this.
  17. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Either way, heat is going into the ice, not cold going into the drink.
     
  18. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,696
    3,743
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    Just did up the correlation for all QBs with 100+ starts since 1960.

    86 QBs
    Correlation of win% in 0-7 games to 8+ games: 0.32

    All 100+ games started QBs
    win% in 0-7 games 52.3%
    Std Dev. 6.7%
    N = 6026

    win% in 8+ games 55.2%
    Std Dev, 14.8%
    N = 6828

    Hof QBs
    win% in 0-7 games 56.8%*
    std dev 5.9%
    N = 1690

    win% in 8+ games 64.1%
    Std dev 22.9
    N = 2243

    Correlation 0.306

    Non HoF QBs
    win% in 0-7 point games 50.4%
    Std Dev 6.2%
    N = 4297

    win% in 8+ games 51.9%
    Std Dev 14.1%
    N = 4365

    Correlation: 0.17


    * Difference to previous figures is that YA Tittle and Bobby Layne who had the majority of their careers pre-1960 removed from analysis and Ken Stabler is changed from Non-Hof to HoFer.
     
    cbrad likes this.
  19. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Again, you have not. I've been 100% consistent and I'm stating science fact not my opinion. I've given actual evidence and explanations. Your argument proves you do not understand what is being told to you. Hell, the fact that you're arguing with me as if this was a theory I came up with proves you don't understand it.

    Your accusations aren't just hollow, but shine a ginat spotlight on not only your general ignorance on the subject but your clear and obvious bias of negativity towards me.

    I gave actual facts and you're arguing with opinions based on little more than you not understanding the difference between layman cold and scientific cold.
     
  20. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego

    I just went to the kitchen. I got a cup of water. I put ice in the water.

    Putting ice in the drink made the drink colder. No doubt about it.

    It was room temp. Now it's ice cold.

    Again, putting ice in my drink, made the drink colder. The drink, is now of lower temperature on the gauge, then it was before.

    Would you like me to video this? I have a GoPro, an iPhone, a Nikon D750 and a few webcams. If you lack ice or liquid in your house, I will recreate this carefully crafted experiment again.

    Putting ice in my drink, made the drink colder.

    If I didn't put ice in the drink, it wouldn't have gotten colder.
     
    Finster likes this.
  21. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    I stand by my statements. It's a bunch of nerds wanting attention so they create a purposefully nonsensical statement so they can pretend to be intelligent when explaining it.

    If you said, "cold energy doesn't exist." Nobody bats an eye. But its not attention grabbing, not catchy enough. Not incongruous enough.

    So you have to change it to "cold doesn't exist." Now it's incongruous. Now it piques curiosity. What do you mean cold doesn't exist? When it snows I get very cold, oh please wise gentlemen, explain to me, how cold doesn't exist? Because I'm sure it does!


    Cold doesn't exist. Neither does hot. Notice both terms don't describe an element, or form of energy? They're descriptions, or adjectives of the state of a matter.

    Both describe the absence, or presence, of heat energy. It's the dumbest thing I've heard in quite a while. And reading these forums, I've heard quite a bit.
     
    Pauly likes this.
  22. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    One more time.

    http://highschoolenergy.acs.org/content/hsef/en/energy-theories/cold-doesnt-exist.html

     
    resnor likes this.
  23. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Cold absolutely exists. You define it as the absence of heat energy. Right here, in my freezer, is a severe lack of heat energy.

    I can put a cup of water in this space experiencing an absence of heat, and eventually, that cup of water will also lack any heat, and turn into ice. In fact, as long as I don't overload the freezer, EVERYTHING I put in there will experience a severe loss of heat.

    It's right there, in my freezer, It's bloody cold, and it's right there.
     
    Finster likes this.
  24. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    You. Don't. Understand. Just. Stop.
     
    resnor likes this.
  25. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Dude, I know how heat transfer works. I learned it in grade school. I don't have issue with the statement "cold energy doesn't exist." When you truncate it to, "cold doesn't exist" is where I take issue.

    There is no such thing as cold energy. It doesn't exist.

    There is such a thing as cold, and if I put you into my freezer, or fridge, you won't last long.
     
    Finster likes this.
  26. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Sooooooooo, you're just trolling then? Got it.
     
    resnor likes this.
  27. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    The ice cube in the drink.

    Put ice cubes in the drink.

    Heat energy from the drink, transfers to the ice cubes. This has two effects (well three, eventually).

    The drink gets colder (Putting ice cubes in my drink, makes the drink colder) because it's lost heat, transferred to the cubes.

    The ice cubes get warmer because it's absorbed heat from the drink.

    And the ice cube will eventually melt, then the drink, now cold, will presumably get warmer because the air around the drink is warmer, transferring heat energy to the drink until they equalize. Unless you're sitting in my freezer. Where it's bloody cold.

    No. I'm battling nonsensical proclamations like, clutch doesn't exist (well technically, that's not nonsensical it's a valid opinion to have, even if wrong), and cold doesn't exist.
     
    Finster likes this.
  28. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    lol, you're basically doing the equivalent of arguing gravity doesn't exist because....airplanes.
     
    resnor likes this.
  29. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    [​IMG]
     
    Finster likes this.
  30. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    Umm, no. You're the one arguing something doesn't exist. I argue it does. So your analogy is half flipped, and wrong. As ugge.

    [​IMG]
     
    Finster likes this.
  31. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    Either way the drink is getting colder because of the ice.
     
    Finster likes this.
  32. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    No. It. Isn't.

    WTF is wrong with our education system in this country?
     
    Fin D likes this.
  33. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    You just posted what I've been saying, and you've been telling me in wrong.

    And you even said it, "heat energy from the drink, transfers to the ice cubes."

    Then you say that the ice cubes made the drink cold. No, the drink made the ice cubes warm, and they melted.
     
  34. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    No, you're arguing about a scientific concept based on layman's terms and understanding. You are doing what evolution deniers do when they argue evolution is a theory and think scientific theory is the same as layman's theory.

    But hey, you do you....
     
  35. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    I don't know, but try this one:

    Adding sugar made the drink sweet. What made the drink sweet?
     
  36. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Different principle at work. Water doesn't have glucose, first of all.

    See my previous comment about the education system.
     
  37. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    What made the drink sweet? Just say it.
     
  38. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh

    72,252
    43,684
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Its not the same thing, but it is pants ****tingly hilarious you think it is and think you just scored some major victory when all you've done is doubled down on your ignorance of the particular topic..
     
    resnor likes this.
  39. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    16,329
    9,874
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    It doesn't matter what made the drink sweeter, since it's not at all the same thing. With temperature, the water's heat is transferred to the ice, not vice versa. In your little example, you've added sugar to something. You're creating a solution. You remember those from middle school right? Aqueous solution, non-Aqueous solution...

    Anyway, your ignorance is astounding.
     
    LI phinfan and Fin D like this.
  40. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    Add sugar to water, what made the water sweet? The Sugar.
    Add dye to water, what made the water change color? The dye.
    Add ice to water, what made the water change temperature?
     
    Finster likes this.

Share This Page