"You are only assuming 'normal' situations and situations greater than normal... a false premise.... for there to be normal and greater than normal, there must inherently be situations that are less than normal..."
Normal or norm, or whatever term you choose brings into consideration the average, the median, the mean or whatever base line you select at the start.
I began with the premise that each player has his own individual norm, or neutral point and I plot the progression from that base, which clearly makes it more difficult to proclaim blockbuster results.
Had I opted to start with a norm, around .650 or so, the results would be skewed and exaggerated. I am NOT attempting to sell a hot, new rare commodity that shines against 'nil. What I am attempting to do is to call attention to trends I've never seen used to make any case for player performance in heightened situations:
1. Each player has a performance base @ neutral, which I selected a None on;
2. There are distinct classes of offensive players, for example .700 OPS; .800 OPS; 1.000 OPS, and, of course, the norm you suugest, @ .600-.650 OPS.
3. I selected players on 2 points: those I knew were outstanding by reputation or particular offensive numbers and those I suspected were pressure players despite less headline-grabbing offensive numbers;
4. I am suggesting a sea change in the way we explore clutch - not the needle in the haystack but a trend to offensive opportunism.
At the bottom line, I'm suggesting that opportunistic tendency is at the heart of clutch. I do not claim it's a flawless predictor of success in every tense situation. However, if you have such a guy on you team/bench, you might have this consideration as an added [and valuable] tool in your toolbox.
|