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. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    Cold exists, it's how we store food, a refrigerator manufactures cold, while the freezer manufactures freezing temps, so if cold doesn't exist, how can we create it?
     
  2. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,488
    8,397
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    Look, you're arguing with science here. A freezer works by removing warmth from the container.

     
  3. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,252
    43,682
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    I'm not squirming, you're just ignorant to the scientific definitions of cold and hot.
     
  4. Fineas

    Fineas Club Member Luxury Box

    12,371
    13,085
    113
    Jan 5, 2008
    Seems like we have gotten pretty far afield from clutch with all this hot/cold talk.
     
  5. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,252
    43,682
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    I've learned my lesson, don't make incredibly accurate and obvious analogies, else people lose their collective ****.
     
    resnor likes this.
  6. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    Not really. This whole thread/discussion can be summed up with one word:

    Semantics.
     
    Dol-Fan Dupree likes this.
  7. Fin-O

    Fin-O Initiated Club Member

    10,971
    10,694
    113
    Sep 28, 2015
    Just can't understand for 400 Alex.
     
  8. Pauly

    Pauly Season Ticket Holder

    3,378
    3,376
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    That's a topic of serious debate in quantum physics currently because our understanding of science is expanding.
     
  9. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,252
    43,682
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Science can change which is why its amazing. What you can't do, however, is just up and decide a definition is different, just because you want it to be. Which is precisely what happened here.
     
  10. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    I'm the ignorant one , lol, first off, it's a physics theory, not the scientific definition, secondly, the "absence of" doesn't negate the "existence of", what is the absence of light, dark, dark exists, what is the absence of sound, silence, silence exists.

    If you can create something, then it exists, what happens when you put water in a freezer, you get ice cubes, so cold also creates, and can be created, so it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that cold does exist.

    You have taken both sides however, you have said that it does exist, and that it doesn't exist, and it's in black and white for all to see, but you can't even admit that, and in this same thread, you've accused others of changing their story, and not being able to admit when they're wrong, when you are the one guilty of those things.

    Same stuff, different thread.
     
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2016
  11. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    Yes, and thereby creating cold, so how can something that doesn't exist be created?
     
  12. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,252
    43,682
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    lol, its physics not science he says.....but I';m the ignorant one.

    Jesus.
     
    resnor likes this.
  13. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    Lol, just admit it, it won't hurt, I promise.

    And here you are, trying to twist words again, you do realize that that shows the weakness of your stance when you start twisting words, because facts are no longer your friend, so you try to twist words to create a new point of contention.

    Which one is it Fin D?, does cold exist or not?
     
  14. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,252
    43,682
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    lol, you hate it when I do the same **** to you that you did to me, don't you.

    No you don't produce cold. You never even heard of this concept till yesterday, and since then you've tried to study it online. You and I both know it.
     
    resnor likes this.
  15. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    [​IMG]

    I just remembered this chart from a year ago I think.
     
    Finster and cbrad like this.
  16. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    8,697
    10,251
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Do you happen to know precisely how they're defining "opportunities"? I ask because I don't understand how you get a fraction of a win or an opportunity.
     
  17. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,488
    8,397
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    You're not creating anything. You're removing heat. A vacuum had nothing in it, hence, no heat. You keep saying "create cold," but that isn't accurate. Water freezes in the absence of heat. Nothing is being created.
     
    Fin D likes this.
  18. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,488
    8,397
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    What is this chart supposed to show?

    Are those QBs out on the field all alone?
     
  19. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,488
    8,397
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    This whole exercise in futility exists because cbrad has redefined "clutch," making it mean something that no one in the world means when they say someone is "clutch." Even if his definition makes sense to him, if he goes anywhere but this forum, and calls someone "clutch," people will not be thinking the same thing he's thinking when he says it.
     
    Fin D likes this.
  20. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    Don't know, its third hand information. Don't even think its available to the public. I'm guessing the 0.5's are ties though.
     
  21. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    I think what you think everyone in the world thinks the definition of clutch is is inaccurate.
     
    jdang307 likes this.
  22. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    8,697
    10,251
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    I don't see what the issue is. It's been stated many times that the way many non-scientists might define clutch - better absolute performance under pressure conditions - does not exist except in rare cases. That's been acknowledged several times at different points in this thread so this shouldn't be a source of debate.

    The only difference between my definition and the most popular scientific one is the reference point of "relative to that individual's performance" vs. "relative to league performance". And I think I understand why the former is mostly used right now: science tends to start off with simpler to study cases and prefers definitions based on more careful studies, which in this case deal with clutch in non-team sports, and the former definition is the natural one to use there. Once transition to team sports becomes the norm, the definition almost certainly will go to what I'm suggesting (wouldn't be surprised if it's already used somewhere).

    But the one thing common in all definitions is "relative performance in pressure conditions". That's intuitively what clutch or choking refers to and that basic spirit is incorporated in all three. Like I said, I have no problem labeling it something else while keeping the definition the same, but it seems like using the words "clutch" and "choking" are still the best choices of words.
     
  23. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    So, what you're saying for all and sundry to see, is that a refrigerator does not create cold?

    OK then...
     
  24. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    Brad's stance is the same as it is for anyone, a person who is less affected by pressure, a person who is less likely to succumb to pressure, a person who is less likely to choke.
     
    cbrad likes this.
  25. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    8,697
    10,251
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Maybe this is a good time to try and end this side debate because you're both right. It's true that the absence of heat is what correlates with our sensation of "cold", but it's also true that you can create a difference in temperature, which allows heat to be transferred away from the body so you feel cold.
     
  26. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,252
    43,682
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    No, his definition is a QB who chokes slightly less then the league average of choking in one or two stats.
     
  27. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,252
    43,682
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Feeling cold is not creating cold, which is what Finster is saying. There's specifics in this language for a reason.
     
    resnor likes this.
  28. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    8,697
    10,251
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    You're not letting go of your definition when evaluating mine. Of course if you a priori define choking differently from the way I'm doing it my definition doesn't make sense. What Finster said is correct.
     
  29. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,252
    43,682
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    No.

    Again, your definition is different than what he said and what "science" has said. You acknowledge it when you say its ok for it to be different cause definitions are like hypotheses, then you turn around (when it suits your argument) and they aren't different.

    Maybe you don't understand the language....I dunno....
     
  30. roy_miami

    roy_miami Well-Known Member

    1,385
    560
    113
    Oct 11, 2013
    Somebody doesn't...
     
  31. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,252
    43,682
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Yeah, that somebody is you. If you can't figure out I've been talking in scientific terms, then well........

    Also, in the post you quoted I was talking about clutch. So yeah.....
     
  32. Finster

    Finster Finsterious Finologist

    3,087
    2,038
    113
    Jul 27, 2013
    I agree Brad, that cold is the absence of heat, I haven't been arguing against that, my point is always that cold does exist, and that cold is actually created by the absence of heat, as darkness is created by the absence of light, as anarchy is created by the absence of law, etc, basically ying and yang.

    Resnor and Fin D are making pretend that "science" is on their side, as far as cold being non existent, but the collective world of "science" is not on their side, it is a physics theory alone, and even that, it's more of a thought provoking exercise, practical science proves the existence of cold, an open and shut case, which of course you already know, I'm just taking them to task.

    It's refreshing to argue with these two over something that is not QB17 :yes:
     
  33. Fineas

    Fineas Club Member Luxury Box

    12,371
    13,085
    113
    Jan 5, 2008
    I keep seeing references to how "science" defines "clutch." I'm fairly confident the scientific community has not come together to agree on a universal scientific definition of "clutch." What are people talking about here?
     
  34. Fin D

    Fin D Sigh Club Member

    72,252
    43,682
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Wouldn't matter if they did, you can change it at will....so I've learned.
     
  35. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    8,697
    10,251
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    There is currently no universally agreed upon definition of clutch in science because it's still too fluid an area of research, but there is definitely a trend towards a definition that's more carefully thought out than many previously proposed ones (and there are a ton of those). Unsurprisingly, a lot of the critique of different proposed definitions comes from people trying to control for variables that weren't controlled for in previous studies. These researchers tend to study individual sports like golf where you can control for all kinds of factors. In golf, the golfer's score is completely due to that golfer, the course and conditions are the same for everyone, and there's tons of historical data to go on.

    The main thrust of these studies regarding the definition of clutch is that one needs to control for conditions as much as possible, and one needs to explicitly calculate expected performance, comparing performance for some individual to that expected level (nothing controversial you'd think except that many previous studies don't even do this). For a game like golf, that expected level is either calculated based only on that golfer's history or on joint probabilities using multiple golfers (a way of increasing sample size). So when I say science tends to use such a definition, I don't mean everyone uses it, just that the trend is in that direction.

    Why is it not universally used? Because people in different fields don't always communicate with each other, and they still want to study things that matter to them even if you can't define things precisely. So it takes awhile before you see the convergence, but history of science shows the convergence will go towards the definitions used in the more carefully controlled studies because they can pin things down more.

    Where my definition comes in is that it's almost certainly going to be the natural extension of calculating expected performance when you study team sports (in a rigorous way.. more rigorous than I think many are doing). The one additional problem with team sports is that drop-off (if any) from expected could be due to the team, not the individual, so you have to try to adjust for that, and the natural way to do it is to look at drop-off relative to league-wide drop-off. Of course, some of the league-wide drop-off will be due to the individual and not the team, but that won't matter anyway because all you want is differential response to pressure.

    Also, one advantage of the definition I'm proposing is that it is equivalent to the one used in those more careful studies IF "team" = "one person", assuming one goes the joint probabilities route. So I think what I'm proposing not only is what will likely be used, but helps you create a model of who is statistically better at responding to pressure situations than other athletes. If you have a better definition, I'm all ears.


    btw Fineas.. there are a bunch of such studies supporting your position that the better golfer wins not because he's better under pressure conditions but because he's the better golfer on average (notably regarding Tiger Woods). So the definition itself isn't the problem.
     
  36. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    According to what you say science says about cold, vacuums don't exist either.

    Cold doesn't exist, because it's just an absence (or removal of) heat.

    Vacuums are just the absence of ... anything. Therefore, vacuums don't exist.

    Is that your position?
     
    cbrad likes this.
  37. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    8,697
    10,251
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    Nice deduction! That actually gets around "cold" being a sensation and not a physical property.

    Only one problem: technically true vacuums don't exist because there's always some level of quantum fluctuation. haha!

    But it will (technically) work if by "vacuum" you only mean there's no matter particles.. other types of "virtual" particles will still exist.
     
  38. jdang307

    jdang307 Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    39,159
    21,798
    113
    Nov 29, 2007
    San Diego
    I find it funny that for something to exist, it has to be matter, or measurable in some way. It's like arguing homeostasis doesn't exist, because it's just a stable equilibrium between two or more other systems.

    again, it's some nerds who got too cute for their own good. It's hipster science.
     
  39. cbrad

    cbrad . Club Member

    8,697
    10,251
    113
    Dec 21, 2014
    In quantum mechanics the wave function (the probability distribution of a particle) is deterministic and exists, but a particle only exists once two wave functions (one from a photon used to measure, and the other from the target particle) somehow interact and collapse (that wave function collapse math isn't really worked out yet btw).

    That's not nerds getting too cute for their own good. It's a consequence of one of the most successful theories in the history of science fitting the data (in the subatomic realm) extremely well.
     
  40. resnor

    resnor Derp Sherpa

    14,488
    8,397
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    New Hampshire
    How do you create cold?

    You remove heat. Yes, cold is a state of existence, in that we say "Hey, it's COLD out here!" Yet the way it is is cold, is because of the removal of heat. We don't "create" cold, we rejoice heat. We don't measure cold, we measure the lack of heat, just like we measure hot by the abundance of heat.

    We "create" a vacuum by removing all substance from a space. We don't actually create anything, we simply remove everything. A vacuum exists because we have physically removed everything. As far as size being a vacuum, it is a vacuum because nothing exists in it. It's nothing. How can nothing be something?? Now you're arguing that we create nothing?

    Important to realize, this came about with FinD comparing "clutch" to "cold", in that cold is the absence of heat, just as "clutch" is the absence of choking. But just because we have a name for the absence of something, doesn't mean that it exists as something that we can do our create.
     
    Fin D likes this.

Share This Page