[nanwynnfan]

The ex post facto nature of record keeping to nullify "clutch" is merely one of several viewpoints available to an unbiased observer.

If one wants to use the observable clues as to what may be clutch and what may suggest a lack of sufficient concentration and adaptability to qualify as clutch as a crystal ball to predict future results in given situations, then I would suggest the individual is deluding himself.

I'm suggesting that a GM looking to fill slots on a roster with an emphasis on getting guys whose records suggest comfort in tension-heightened situations [relative to their overall performance in neutral batting situations] would be well-advised to look to more general situations than the narrowly defined limiters, like close-and-late or later than 6th inning, RISP.

A hitter whose neutral OPS is .700 with a K rate of 16%, who has career indicators of advancement to, say .750, 17% with men on and 2 out, and .810, 9% with runner on 3B <2O is sending subtle signals that he's attentive to more dramatic situations and adaptable to prevailing game dynamics.

I'm saying there are clues to a general tendency that, while not handing the GM a crystal ball, can at least provide him with reasons for making a roster decision based on that observable tendancy.

The biggest single common sense argument as to why there SHOULD be clutch is the psychological factor against the pitcher, already stated but repeated here:

1. loss of windup and full motion fluidity;
2. general loss of push-off from stretch, with slide step adjustments and the like;
3. mechanical adjustment to follow through in a fielding position because men are on base;
4. distraction of holding men on base;
5. added distractions of battery-mate in keeping runners honest.

A batter with confidence in his own abilities SHOULD see these factors as opportunities that have the pitcher at a disadvantage - time to cash in.

Of course we're dealing with human beings here, so nothing is set in concrete.