Teams that Pickup the Rotten Core

[Weave]

Just google "clutch" on bing and I'm sure you'll find something.

 

[SwampD]

I thought there was no such thing as clutch?

 

http://www.radiolab.org/story/91684-stochasticity/

 

Go to 22:30 in.

 

It changed my life. I actually had to apologize to my wife on why she always had trouble with the washing machine and I didn't. It also showed me that I had to start doing the laundry more. Dammit.

[Eleven]

Well played :lol:

 

I am a big fan of a very clever troll who goes by Ken M.  I am trying to learn his craft:

 

 http://gizmodo.com/ken-m-is-the-most-epic-troll-on-the-internet-1739028329

 

https://upvoted.com/2015/10/03/ken-m-interview-internet-troll/

 

And maybe his best moment:  

 

 

EDIT:  Also, this:

 

Edited February 19, 2016 by Eleven

[darksabre]

I'm convinced that Ken M is the Dread Pirate Roberts of internet trolls.

[Eleven]

I'm convinced that Ken M is the Dread Pirate Roberts of internet trolls.

 

Nope, it's just one dude.  One really hilarious dude.

[WildCard]

To the first, that's precisely my point. I don't think that's even remotely common. If 90% of great players show up in clutch moments, are we really so sure that they're clutch, or just great players doing what they do all the time? Speaking to your second question, maybe performing "when it counts" isn't actually a positive trait so much as lack of a negative trait. So the standard expectation would be performing in key moments the same as one does in "regular" situations--I don't think there's anything special about meeting this expectation. I get the sense that most people do think there's something special about it. Even if a player performs better in the playoffs than the regular season (I don't think this happens often, but Briere comes to mind as someone who did this)...is that a sign of being clutch, or is it simply that player giving lower than 100% effort the rest of the time?

 

As to your last question, although fair, I don't have a particularly good answer for it beyond "a lot." Which is, of course, a bad answer. I think the real answer lies in a number that is almost certainly larger than a quantity we would actually observe. After all, even players like Kane and Toews who go on long playoff runs seemingly yearly, still have over 5x the number of regular season games played as they do playoff games. I'm not sure I could reasonably get to the point where I'm comfortable weighing 1/5 or 1/10 of a player's games played more heavily than the other 80-90% for the purpose of evaluating their psyche. And this is all without even getting into a debate over whether situations are truly dichotomously clutch or not clutch, and whether the impact of pressure situations is linear or has a strong impact early on and the impact lessens as the player is exposed to it more frequently, and so on.

Well, to your first point, I can't agree that 90% of great players come up in big moments. Some of the greatest players of all time in sports have failed in the spot light. I can see the rational behind it being a negative trait, to not play how you normally would, but still, isn't that to be taken into account for? If we're valuing players on positives, as originally purposed behind the premise of being 'clutch', then can we not devalue those same players on the same basis?

 

I'll start with your last sentence first: I would argue that it is very reasonable that the impact of pressure situations lessens as exposure increases. After all, why can we afford rookies the same lenience but not playoff players? The playoffs are a different game, in every facet. Now, it's certainly obvious that players are limited in their playoff/clutch opportunities, and to judge them off one run or one series is a little harsh. As you say, it's nearly 1/5 of their games played that season. However, is the mental comparison not valid for that difference in games? That is to say, if player N plays 7 seasons in the league, or upwards of 560 games, but fails miserably in 13 games in the playoffs, far below average, then why is it not safe to say that the pressure got to him? Conversely, if that same player produces well above average, is it not safe to say he's clutch? I'm not saying throw money at them as though they replicated that same 13 game magic over their 560 games, but I am saying it's valuable and not to be discounted. There are certain players where every postseason they just play better, and even the greats have to get used to playing in the limelight, across all sports

As for the clutchness argument: I think it's important to consider that regular-season games and playoff games -- especially the later rounds -- are not an apples-to-apples comparison. Everyone's intensity is dialed up in the playoffs and the talent/coaching/productivity of the opposition is higher -- i.e. the conditions are simply more challenging. I think there are quite a few players (like, for example, the failed core that is the subject of the OP) that are able to produce when the opposition is at a certain level, but not when the opposition is at a higher level.

Exactly. Mr.October? Mad-Bum's WS? LeBron failing year in and year out? Tiger Woods clutch puts/chips? Now, True, I know those are all great players, some of the best to play in those sports. But, Aaron Boone? Lindros? Claude Lemieux? Eli Manning?? Edited February 19, 2016 by WildCard

[Thorny]

There is no agreement to be had :lol:

 

I think emphasizing winning (a team achievement) causes people to underrate good players on bad teams and overrate bad-average players on good teams. And as far as clutch play goes, I think there's a giant wall between clutch performance and clutch ability. The former surely exists, but it is usually confused for the latter (which I think is nearly impossible to actually observe), and I think the latter is simply a different way of saying "good player." I probably have a half dozen diatribes on this, which I'd be happy to link if I wasn't below replacement level with the search function.

 

This is a great post. Perfectly sums up exactly how I personally view the matter.

 

Exactly. Mr.October? Mad-Bum's WS? LeBron failing year in and year out? Tiger Woods clutch puts/chips? Now, True, I know those are all great players, some of the best to play in those sports. But, Aaron Boone? Lindros? Claude Lemieux? Eli Manning??

 

Tiger woods is the perfect example of what True was alluding to about clutch being an "absence of a negative" trait. Tiger was so unbelievably brilliant because when the pressure was on, he didn't crumble like so many others, especially those trying to go toe-to-toe with him. He continued making remarkable shots when the microscope was on, just as he did in early rounds when there was less pressure, where others facing the same opportunities would so often crumble. I don't think Tiger made more shots when the going got tough, he just kept being his normal amazing self.

 

Eli Manning. Bah! His great defense held him in those games for long enough that eventually he would be able to come up with a couple plays and drives. He wasn't clutch, he just had a bunch of chances to get it done, and eventually converted.

[MattPie]

I thought there was no such thing as clutch?

 

It changed my life. I actually had to apologize to my wife on why she always had trouble with the washing machine and I didn't. It also showed me that I had to start doing the laundry more. Dammit.

There's a clutch in a washing machine; it's how it goes from wash to spin cycle.

[SwampD]

There's a clutch in a washing machine; it's how it goes from wash to spin cycle.

After doing more laundry, I realized that there actually was a problem and we got rid of it for a new one. Dammit.

[TrueBlueGED]

Well, to your first point, I can't agree that 90% of great players come up in big moments. Some of the greatest players of all time in sports have failed in the spot light. I can see the rational behind it being a negative trait, to not play how you normally would, but still, isn't that to be taken into account for? If we're valuing players on positives, as originally purposed behind the premise of being 'clutch', then can we not devalue those same players on the same basis?

 

I'll start with your last sentence first: I would argue that it is very reasonable that the impact of pressure situations lessens as exposure increases. After all, why can we afford rookies the same lenience but not playoff players? The playoffs are a different game, in every facet. Now, it's certainly obvious that players are limited in their playoff/clutch opportunities, and to judge them off one run or one series is a little harsh. As you say, it's nearly 1/5 of their games played that season. However, is the mental comparison not valid for that difference in games? That is to say, if player N plays 7 seasons in the league, or upwards of 560 games, but fails miserably in 13 games in the playoffs, far below average, then why is it not safe to say that the pressure got to him? Conversely, if that same player produces well above average, is it not safe to say he's clutch? I'm not saying throw money at them as though they replicated that same 13 game magic over their 560 games, but I am saying it's valuable and not to be discounted. There are certain players where every postseason they just play better, and even the greats have to get used to playing in the limelight, across all sports

Exactly. Mr.October? Mad-Bum's WS? LeBron failing year in and year out? Tiger Woods clutch puts/chips? Now, True, I know those are all great players, some of the best to play in those sports. But, Aaron Boone? Lindros? Claude Lemieux? Eli Manning??

1) Of course you can, I just don't agree with doing any of that kind of valuation with the numbers of games we typically have to work with.

 

2) I honestly don't think we should be placing any special significance, positive or negative, on a dozen games regardless of how different the situations are. Maybe even because of how different the situations are.

 

3) LeBron doesn't fail, outside of that weird Finals against the Mavs. Tiger never wins majors when down. Peyton can't win it all. Brady always comes through. Blah blah blah. I could keep going, but I really think it's all just a bunch of white noise thrust onto us by sports media in search of easy stories.

[nfreeman]

1) Of course you can, I just don't agree with doing any of that kind of valuation with the numbers of games we typically have to work with.

 

2) I honestly don't think we should be placing any special significance, positive or negative, on a dozen games regardless of how different the situations are. Maybe even because of how different the situations are.

 

3) LeBron doesn't fail, outside of that weird Finals against the Mavs. Tiger never wins majors when down. Peyton can't win it all. Brady always comes through. Blah blah blah. I could keep going, but I really think it's all just a bunch of white noise thrust onto us by sports media in search of easy stories.

 

I don't mean to misstate your position -- are you saying that you believe regular-season performance is a rock-solid indicator of playoff performance?  And that when some players (like the rotten core) fade in the playoffs while others (like Drury and Briere) consistently deliver, it's just a statistical glitch?

[TrueBlueGED]

I don't mean to misstate your position -- are you saying that you believe regular-season performance is a rock-solid indicator of playoff performance? And that when some players (like the rotten core) fade in the playoffs while others (like Drury and Briere) consistently deliver, it's just a statistical glitch?

Close enough. Playoff failure is a statistical glitch or more nuanced team effects, mostly yes. Again, for emphasis, I don't reject in its entirety (although I am skeptical it's anywhere near as prevalent as common discourse would lead one to believe) the notion that some players have something that allows them to rise to the occasion while others shrink. I don't think we can confidently observe or measure it, and I'm not nearly as comfortable as most seem to be that we can draw the proper inferences from what we see in super small samples when it contradicts the overwhelming amount of other performance evidence we have. Substantive variance could mean something, but I think many (most?) believe it does mean something, and perhaps more importantly, they believe they know what it means. This is what I'm quite uncomfortable with.

[qwksndmonster]

I've always thought that we lost in the playoffs because of overall roster suckage, not because Pommers, Vanek, and Roy were wilting under pressure. If those 3 guys are your top 3 forwards, you're pretty much going to get what we got.

[nfreeman]

Close enough. Playoff failure is a statistical glitch or more nuanced team effects, mostly yes. Again, for emphasis, I don't reject in its entirety (although I am skeptical it's anywhere near as prevalent as common discourse would lead one to believe) the notion that some players have something that allows them to rise to the occasion while others shrink. I don't think we can confidently observe or measure it, and I'm not nearly as comfortable as most seem to be that we can draw the proper inferences from what we see in super small samples when it contradicts the overwhelming amount of other performance evidence we have. Substantive variance could mean something, but I think many (most?) believe it does mean something, and perhaps more importantly, they believe they know what it means. This is what I'm quite uncomfortable with.

 

Would you agree that regular-season performance against playoff-level teams (i.e. the top half of the league) should be a better indicator of playoff performance than regular-season performance, full stop?

[TrueBlueGED]

Would you agree that regular-season performance against playoff-level teams (i.e. the top half of the league) should be a better indicator of playoff performance than regular-season performance, full stop?

Yes, but then you're also cutting the sample by about 50%, which is less than ideal.

[WildCard]

Would you agree that regular-season performance against playoff-level teams (i.e. the top half of the league) should be a better indicator of playoff performance than regular-season performance, full stop?

I don't agree with that. The playoffs are a different game

[TrueBlueGED]

I've always thought that we lost in the playoffs because of overall roster suckage, not because Pommers, Vanek, and Roy were wilting under pressure. If those 3 guys are your top 3 forwards, you're pretty much going to get what we got.

This is precisely how I see it.

[SwampD]

Would you agree that regular-season performance against playoff-level teams (i.e. the top half of the league) should be a better indicator of playoff performance than regular-season performance, full stop?

Good question. I had the same thought. I might also add "against more physical teams" to that as well.

[WildCard]

I've always thought that we lost in the playoffs because of overall roster suckage, not because Pommers, Vanek, and Roy were wilting under pressure. If those 3 guys are your top 3 forwards, you're pretty much going to get what we got.

Miller bombs in St.Louis, Vanek Vanishes in Montreal, and TBH I don't know how Pomminstein did in Minnesota. A quick look at his stats tells me 'alright'

[nfreeman]

I don't agree with that. The playoffs are a different game

 

Well, I still think that TB is missing something critical in his analysis (although I agree with him that you need a sufficient # of playoff games in order to draw any meaningful conclusions).  I just think that if you're going to look at regular-season performance as your primary predictor of playoff performance, you should at least limit it to regular-season performance against playoff-level teams.

[qwksndmonster]

STL was not ready to implement a completely different style of goaltending mid-season. Elliot and Halak were reflex guys, whereas Miller is an aggressive positional guy.

 

Vanek was hardly the only MTL forward struggling in the playoffs that year (5 goals and 5 assists in 17 games, hardly even struggling), but he was certainly the coach's chosen scape goat (probably due to him being a misused offensive specialist and his contract expiring). Not to mention Vanek was well past his scoring prime by the time he got to MTL.

[TrueBlueGED]

Well, I still think that TB is missing something critical in his analysis (although I agree with him that you need a sufficient # of playoff games in order to draw any meaningful conclusions). I just think that if you're going to look at regular-season performance as your primary predictor of playoff performance, you should at least limit it to regular-season performance against playoff-level teams.

Hey, I agreed with the playoff-level team thing! I just dislike throwing out data in its entirety, so if I were building a model I'd just end up weighting performance against playoff teams heavier. Then, of course, there's the notion that not all playoff teams are created equal. Scoring 10 goals in 5 games against Chicago is more impressive than doing it against Ottawa.

STL was not ready to implement a completely different style of goaltending mid-season. Elliot and Halak were reflex guys, whereas Miller is an aggressive positional guy.

 

Vanek was hardly the only MTL forward struggling in the playoffs that year (5 goals and 5 assists in 17 games, hardly even struggling), but he was certainly the coach's chosen scape goat (probably due to him being a misused offensive specialist and his contract expiring). Not to mention Vanek was well past his scoring prime by the time he got to MTL.

You complete me.

[WildCard]

Hey, I agreed with the playoff-level team thing! I just dislike throwing out data in its entirety, so if I were building a model I'd just end up weighting performance against playoff teams heavier. Then, of course, there's the notion that not all playoff teams are created equal. Scoring 10 goals in 5 games against Chicago is more impressive than doing it against Ottawa.

Your analysis implies every playoff team plays a regular season game like a game 7 game, when we know they don't.

STL was not ready to implement a completely different style of goaltending mid-season. Elliot and Halak were reflex guys, whereas Miller is an aggressive positional guy.

 

Vanek was hardly the only MTL forward struggling in the playoffs that year (5 goals and 5 assists in 17 games, hardly even struggling), but he was certainly the coach's chosen scape goat (probably due to him being a misused offensive specialist and his contract expiring). Not to mention Vanek was well past his scoring prime by the time he got to MTL.

I knew I should have slapped you earlier 

[Randall Flagg]

Miller bombs in St.Louis, Vanek Vanishes in Montreal, and TBH I don't know how Pomminstein did in Minnesota. A quick look at his stats tells me 'alright'

Since Miller left St. Louis and Vanek left Montreal, the results have been exactly the same for each team; equal first round loss for St. Louis, (both in six games I believe) and Montreal even made it one less round further than they did the year they had Vanek.

[pi2000]

Since Miller left St. Louis and Vanek left Montreal, the results have been exactly the same for each team; equal first round loss for St. Louis, (both in six games I believe) and Montreal even made it one less round further than they did the year they had Vanek.

 

None of those former core guys are all-stars.   Expecting them to carry any team on a successful playoff run is just wrong.     They're potentially nice complimentary pieces in the right situation, but not difference makers.