Long-time fans, tell me why I ought to be excited about Branch.

[West Philly Patriot]

Really??

I'm dying to read more of e money33's dissertation about Yastrzemski's on-base percentages on third Fridays of months beginning with the letter J.


More to the point about his position that "I don't think clutch is a skill, i'm not going to say something just to make you feel like you've won something." - - clutch is not a skill. It is partly biological and partly psychological. There have been numerous studies regarding heart rate and breathing patterns. Some folks have it, some folks don't.

I just want him to write that Michael Fu*kin Jordan wasn't a clutch performer so i can make it my sig. But yea this thread does suck.

P.S Sorry JSN kinda helped derail this one.

 

[Deus Irae]

I just want him to write that Michael Fu*kin Jordan wasn't a clutch performer so i can make it my sig. But yea this thread does suck.

P.S Sorry JSN kinda helped derail this one.

Sure..... blame the Canadian for derailing his own thread.

 

[West Philly Patriot]

Sure..... blame the Canadian for derailing his own thread.

Lol. No deus sorry I should've maybe put a comma there. I was saying sorry because I helped derail his thread

 

[JSn]

Sure..... blame the Canadian for derailing his own thread.

I thought that was just a case of a missing comma...

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Clutch is just a state of mind and nothing else. Its about being able to perform to your level on the big occasion.

Sometimes people believe that players up their game in the big ones but thats not the case. Its that their opponents are affected by the pressure of the situation and don't play to their level which makes the clutch guy look like he is doing better than normal.

Like for instance a WR who is feeling the pressure of the occasion and misses two balls thrown his way and they both get caught by the same defender. The defender hasn't upped his game, he is just playing to his normal level but the WR has made him look better by not catching balls he should have and normally would have caught.

Oh, I get it. There is no such thing as clutch, just un-clutch...LOL

 

[emoney_33]

Making a 3 point shot in the 4th quarter when your up 15 in the regular season Is different from making a 3 point shot with 5 seconds to go and your down by 2 in the conference finals.

Any sports fan should understand this. Even if your shooting percentage is close to the same emoney have some context and appreciate the gravity of situation.

I agree with like 90% of your post especially regarding all the moss hate around these parts, but i can't ride with you on this one bro.

I know I will generally come up against a lot of doubt when I say clutch as a skill doesn't exist, but I do my best to argue logically with facts. Yes making a 3 pointer doesn't always have the same -meaning- depending on the situation. My only contention is that Jordan does not have a GREATER ability to hit a shot because the situation changed. He was great when it didn't matter, he was great when it did matter, he was simply great. He DID come through in the clutch, but he was the same player he did not elevate his game and find MORE skill or talent in specific situations.

So, from your recent barrage of posts I can only conclude that you think regular season and playoff games are exactly alike. By that I mean you give ZERO credence to a longstanding NFL notion that the intensity level of playoff football is ramped up appreciably beyond that of a regular season game.

I never once said that, nor intimated that. I'm arguing the individual's talent and abilities are the same.

OK, so YOU are right and NFL coaches, players,network TV analysts and everyone else directly associated with the game are wrong. Players don't play with more urgency, hitting doesn't become more intense and the tempo and pressure are exactly the same as a regular season game.My point is, if you are wrong about that then there has to be a factor applied to post season statistics to take this into account,in which case your house of cards falls apart.

My argument is that the "pressure" generally does not effect the professional athlete's performance.

Really??

I'm dying to read more of e money33's dissertation about Yastrzemski's on-base percentages on third Fridays of months beginning with the letter J.

It would have about the same merit as his OBP in the playoffs.

More to the point about his position that "I don't think clutch is a skill, i'm not going to say something just to make you feel like you've won something." - - clutch is not a skill. It is partly biological and partly psychological. There have been numerous studies regarding heart rate and breathing patterns. Some folks have it, some folks don't.

Point me to any study that shows numerous professional athletes where "some" have it and "some" don't. Then point me to the study that shows the physiological effect has an impact on performance. For example a higher or lower heart rate puts a professional athlete at higher or lower chance of success. Surely you can't believe their heart rate is CONSTANT at all points in time except for the playoffs. People have tried many data points to find evidence of "clutch" impacting performance, and by and large they simply can't. There exist only outliers with small sample sizes.

Clutch is just a state of mind and nothing else. Its about being able to perform to your level on the big occasion.

Sometimes people believe that players up their game in the big ones but thats not the case. Its that their opponents are affected by the pressure of the situation and don't play to their level which makes the clutch guy look like he is doing better than normal.

This explanation is one that would make logical sense to me rather than a player becoming better. But if his peers become worse, this should show up in the statistics. I'll have to look more into the studies and see if there's been anything like this.

Like for instance a WR who is feeling the pressure of the occasion and misses two balls thrown his way and they both get caught by the same defender. The defender hasn't upped his game, he is just playing to his normal level but the WR has made him look better by not catching balls he should have and normally would have caught.

So the question really is, how prevalent is something like that. My contention is that most professional athletes aren't impacted, either positively or negatively by "pressure". Maybe rookies or inexperienced players are at greater risk of this, but I just haven't seen any evidence yet to show that pressure impacts performance on any large scale.

 

[Deus Irae]

I thought that was just a case of a missing comma...

The case of the missing comma. I've got just the man for the job!

 

[RayClay]

No there's a greater chance that out of the thousands of MLB players, Yaz didn't possess a special ability that he forgot to use in the 1975 WS.

Obviously it's not worth trying to get you to understand the concept, but what are you talking about 1975?

unedited copy/paste from the "greatest WS ever played" website.

The 1975 season was a difficult one for Yastrzemski. Since the 1970 season, Yaz's numbers had dropped off significantly, and '75 was no different. That season he batted just .269 and had the fewest RBI's in his career. Everybody's hero in 1967 was suddenly being booed off the field for every ground and pop out.

But Yaz was about to have his second wind. In the 1975 playoffs, he wowed the crowd and the Oakland A's by hitting .455, then .310 during the World Series. Yaz had resurrected his career, hitting in the clutch and driving in runs. Yaz once again won the hearts and minds of Red Sox fans everywhere.

1975 And The Greatest World Series Ever Played

That's proving your point?

 

[Joker]

The case of the missing comma. I've got just the man for the job!

positively brilliant, Holmes...

 

[emoney_33]

Obviously it's not worth trying to get you to understand the concept, but what are you talking about 1975?

Your concept is that Yaz is the only player in the history of baseball to possess the ability to raise his game in the playoffs. What is your explanation of this "concept"? Was he simply too lazy to try all year to help the red sox get to the playoffs in other years? If he had the ability to hit .455 whenever he felt the situation warranted it, why wouldn't he do that in OTHER important situations. Surely you won't argue that games that were lost or times that Yaz failed to come through in regular season games are simply meaningless at bats.

unedited copy/paste from the "greatest WS ever played" website.




1975 And The Greatest World Series Ever Played

That's proving your point?

In the 1975 WS he had 0 extra base hits. He slugged .310, signficantly below his career average and significantly below his 1975 average. He went 1/5 in game 7 and in his absolute BIGGEST moment of his professional career, made the last out.

Like all other baseball players, he simply had no control over WHEN his hits would come, only of the overall rate at which they would come.

 

[RayClay]

Your concept is that Yaz is the only player in the history of baseball to possess the ability to raise his game in the playoffs. What is your explanation of this "concept"? Was he simply too lazy to try all year to help the red sox get to the playoffs in other years? If he had the ability to hit .455 whenever he felt the situation warranted it, why wouldn't he do that in OTHER important situations. Surely you won't argue that games that were lost or times that Yaz failed to come through in regular season games are simply meaningless at bats.



In the 1975 WS he had 0 extra base hits. He slugged .310, signficantly below his career average and significantly below his 1975 average. He went 1/5 in game 7 and in his absolute BIGGEST moment of his professional career, made the last out.

Like all other baseball players, he simply had no control over WHEN his hits would come, only of the overall rate at which they would come.

ha ha.

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

PatsFans.com: "Hi, Deion. This is a thread about you."

Branch: "Well, thank you. It's good to be back in New England..."

PatsFans.com: "Hold up, Deion...before we continue I'd like to introduce you to a good friend of our forums. His name is Jack."

Branch: "Hi, Jack..."

Regards,
Chris

 

[MoLewisrocks]

PatsFans.com: "Hi, Deion. This is a thread about you."

Branch: "Well, thank you. It's good to be back in New England..."

PatsFans.com: "Hold up, Deion...before we continue I'd like to introduce you to a good friend of our forums. His name is Jack."

Branch: "Hi, Jack..."

Regards,
Chris

LOL That's become the leading exception to the rule here lately...

 

[rabthepat]

Coffee Cooladas excite me more than Branch. I am neutral on him rejoining the team.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

 

[unoriginal]

You're too smart for this, so I know you're putting me on. It is virtually impossible, given all the statistics they keep in baseball, not to find one category that contradicts.

But I didn't find "one" category that contradicts. I took the one playoff series where Yaz faced a team he had played that year in the regular season and compared his stats for getting on base and for batting in runs. Those two stats, more than any other commonly available stat, should show his clutchness at the plate.

The comparison indicated he wasn't doing better against Oakland in the ALCS versus the regular season.

You'd be hard pressed to evaluate every possible matchup, especially those in the series from the other league, being likely the only times they have met, and come to the rational conclusion that he just coincidentally owned those particular pitchers.

That being said you might have to make some general assumptions. Was the quality of pitching in must win/playoff and World Series competition worse than average pitching matchups of lousy teams in games with less import? Just logically, it seems it would be much better.

In a World Series with a batter and pitcher who've never faced each other, who has the advantage? I believe most baseball people would say the pitcher by a large margin. It's the pitchers job to fool the batter with a variety of pitches, change of speeds, deceptive motion etc. Batters study pitchers every day.

First, I think there are much fewer assumptions in a stat pool consistling solely of Yaz vs. Oakland, then Yaz vs. the entire AL compared to Yaz. vs. two teams.

Second, my comparison specifically avoided the World Series. Yaz had already played the A's that season and done well.

Third, if the pitching in the playoffs is incomparable to the pitching in the regular season, how can we measure clutchness and/or choking? You're now talking skill difference instead of atmospheric pressure. That's like finding a guy who succeeds in AAA because he can work the count against pitchers who can't locate, but then strikes out in the bigs because he can't protect the outside corner, and calling him a "choker" on the "biggest stage" because he "freezes up" with two strikes. I understand people, especially sportwriters, do that all the time because it tells an emotional story instead of a technical one, but that doesn't make it either true or enlightening, only entertaining.

I agree with emoney that "clutchness" is almost always overrated. I think a lot of the people we think of as chokers or clutch players would trend towards the mean if given sufficient chances.

 

[VJCPatriot]

Because the chemistry between he and Brady had little to do with knees... He and Brady had a subliminal connection based on their ability to read defenses. Much like Welker and Brady quickly established. Knees don't impact that much...brains and determination and focus do. One of the reasons he couldn't match up with Hasselback in Seattle is they run a strictly timing offense, no brain involvement - all physical.

You're contradicting yourself there. Timing offenses are finesse offenses by nature and cannot be run by 'brainlessly' running around. That's like calling the 49ers West Coast offense 'brainless'. A lot of it was timing based and creating routes that could be run before the defense could react and get there. The timing and spacing had to be very precise.

Let's be realistic. Branch is no Jerry Rice. Heck he's not even Irving Fryar. A lot of what he brought came from his quickness and understanding of the Pats offense. He's not a burner by any means. But he was the best the Pats had when he was here. He's no Moss replacement, he's a guy who can get some catches and move the chains. And that can be helpful.

The Pats offense has a lot of option routes where the WR and the QB must read the same thing in the defense and then the receiver and the pass must go to the anticipated spot based on that read. When the receiver and QB read different things the ball goes to the wrong place which can result in an incomplete pass or even an interception. Therefore a lot of Branch's success was due to his reads jiving with Brady's a great deal of the time. And when you are at the place Tom expects you to be and at the right time, you're going to get the ball more.

Seattle's offense is certainly different from the Pats offense but I decline to simplistically label it 'brainless' just because Branch struggled at becoming the stud he thought he would be over on the West Coast.

 

[RayClay]

But I didn't find "one" category that contradicts. I took the one playoff series where Yaz faced a team he had played that year in the regular season and compared his stats for getting on base and for batting in runs. Those two stats, more than any other commonly available stat, should show his clutchness at the plate.

Well emoney said his 1975 world series performance was bad because of the slugging percentage, yet it was one of his worst years, he was thought washed up, yet his .310 average was second highest on the team and his 4 rbis, also the second highest totals.

You can find an instance of a solar eclipse to prove that the sun doesn't come up every morning, but I'll let it rest by saying the opposition arguments, more than any player or situation, prove that statistics can be cherry picked, misunderstood and misused in absolutely any situation and that has nothing to do with Yastrzemski.

[yes, i realize the sun doesn't actually come up, it's an expression]

 

[emoney_33]

You're contradicting yourself there. Timing offenses are finesse offenses by nature and cannot be run by 'brainlessly' running around. That's like calling the 49ers West Coast offense 'brainless'. A lot of it was timing based and creating routes that could be run before the defense could react and get there. The timing and spacing had to be very precise.

Let's be realistic. Branch is no Jerry Rice. Heck he's not even Irving Fryar. A lot of what he brought came from his quickness and understanding of the Pats offense. He's not a burner by any means. But he was the best the Pats had when he was here. He's no Moss replacement, he's a guy who can get some catches and move the chains. And that can be helpful.

The Pats offense has a lot of option routes where the WR and the QB must read the same thing in the defense and then the receiver and the pass must go to the anticipated spot based on that read. When the receiver and QB read different things the ball goes to the wrong place which can result in an incomplete pass or even an interception. Therefore a lot of Branch's success was due to his reads jiving with Brady's a great deal of the time. And when you are at the place Tom expects you to be and at the right time, you're going to get the ball more.

Seattle's offense is certainly different from the Pats offense but I decline to simplistically label it 'brainless' just because Branch struggled at becoming the stud he thought he would be over on the West Coast.

Good post and I especially wanted to highlight the bolded part. Brady won't necessarily "find the open receiver", but what he will do is find the person most likely to succeed on the play called based on the defense. Being "open" is frequently something that happens -after- Brady makes his decision. When he trusts you to be where he thinks you should be, he's more likely to throw you the ball. I think what we miss the most is Brady having 3, 4 or 5 guys he -trusts-. Lately he's only had 2 trustworthy targets (3 if you include Faulk but he's a bit different).

Now we know he trusts Welker, he's building trust in Hernandez (and Gronk in the red zone), he used to trust Branch so we believe he will again, we are all hopeful in Tate earning trust and Edelman building on what he started last year. Finding the guy most LIKELY to be open is Brady's forte, and with more guys LIKELY to be open we'll have more diverse options. Hopefully O'Brien continues to grow so we can get back to the uncalled for attacks on the playcalling, rather than fairly reasonable questions about the playcalling

 

[VJCPatriot]

Are we really having a discussion about 'clutchness'?
Know who were totally non-clutch? How about Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant. Walking proof. It's a myth. End of discussion.