['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by SuckForLuck

Yes, but we should clarify what "clutch" constitutes. If we unpack the fangraphs definition, I'm not sure those statistics portray as much as you think. Their definition measures "clutch" individually, measuring a player's performance in high leverage situations compared to his usual level of performance in context neutral situations. Crucially, this definition considers a player "unclutch" if he does not RAISE the level of his performance in high leverage situations. In other words, even if a player hits .335 over the course of the season, the fangraphs statistic considers him unclutch if he does not hit higher than .335 in high leverage situations. Hitting .335 in high leverage situations hurts his clutch rating. To their credit, fangraphs issues a caveat about this statistic: (I would post the link, but as a new poster I don't have that forum privilege.)

"As I pointed out this morning, just 3 of the 33 NL MVP winners from 1974-2007 finished in the top ten in clutch. Barry Bonds, who won the award from 2001-2004, had clutch scores ranging from -0.49 to -1.14 from 2001-2003, and I better not hear anybody discuss those seasons not being insanely productive. His negative clutch score just means that he did not post a 1.980 OPS (exaggeration) in high leverage situations. His high leverage OPS was likely higher than everyone else’s but this statistic works to measure a player against himself since, after all, clutch refers to raising your individual game..."

Is that really the best measure of "clutch" if it exists at all?

Then you would expect a slight negative lean, like Pujols' rating. Compare that to A-Rod's or Holliday's.