2004 ALCS was pretty "clutch". So I will go with yes.

just curious...by using Z-score correlations, are there *any* hitters who are clutch?

so if a hitter is 9.5% better in BA, 27% better with home runs, 18% higher in XBH, and 6% higher in non IBB OPS (which i think completely skews the computations), and he's only very good and not significant, then who is significant? (and let's not turn this into a "does clutch hitting even exist" debate).

also, how valid is it that he's comparing ortiz' non-CL BA to his CL BA, but then correlating that statistically with all BA vs CL BA (not to mention that he "glosses" over a 2% difference between a 10 year and 5 year period). to match up with the .012, shouldn't he be matching .322 (CL) with .298 (overall numbers).

The problem with the study, and its true of many such studies, is that it assumes that a clutch hitter will have this ability in roughly equal amounts for much or all of a player's career. Watching Ortiz pretty closely over the past several years, I believe the following:
A) Ortiz was a clutch hitter, in that he had the ability to raise his performance in some situations.
B) His period of being able to do this lasted for a few years. It no longer exists, it didn't exist last year, and probably didn't exist when he first came over the Red Sox.
C) This ability did not extend to all situations which someone might describe as "Clutch", but most likely in select situations when the game was on the line or something similar.

Studying this issue is really really hard, because not only is there no definition of what is a clutch situation, but that the definition could be different for different players.

Let's say that you figured out some way to do a study, and it showed that Ortiz raised his performance in select situations in 2004 to 2006, of course in a small sample size. Does this mean he was in fact a clutch hitter for those three years, or that it was random chance that a great hitter became even greater in a small number of at bats? Who knows? I believe he was a clutch hitter for a few years, and you'll never convince me otherwise, but I can certainly understand holding the opposite point of view.

So, in general, Ortiz’s performance in the clutch is very good but not significant.

Ummm, I think we have a little disagreement of what the word "significant" means.

Ummm, I think we have a little disagreement of what the word "significant" means.

even as a red sox fan, i can differentiate between personal significance and statistical significance.

let's not belittle david ortiz to the level of joe carter =P

A) Ortiz was a clutch hitter, in that he had the ability to raise his performance in some situations.
B) His period of being able to do this lasted for a few years. It no longer exists, it didn't exist last year, and probably didn't exist when he first came over the Red Sox.
C) This ability did not extend to all situations which someone might describe as "Clutch", but most likely in select situations when the game was on the line or something similar.

The problem I have with this analysis is that it so neatly fits into the tendency of the human brain to find patterns even (especially?) where none really exist. How in the world can we even remotely begin to separate the biases that come from hindsight and that fit our perception of reality from an analysis of whether or not Ortiz is a clutch hitter? Of course, it seems like Ortiz had/has a clutch hitting ability: he got a lot of clutch hits, many very high profile. I just can't see how saying that Ortiz didn't have an ability, then gained it, then lost it can be a remotely reasonable conclusion, especially given that you've provided an intentionally vague definition of "clutch" that neatly allows for confirmation bias to prove you correct.

I don't want you to perceive this as a personal attack. I myself do similar things, though usually with Jeter instead of Ortiz. That's just the way the human brain is wired. The beauty of statistical analysis is that it sets the bar so high that our own personal tendencies to elevate the importance of events where we believe we have detected a pattern simply cannot apply.

a "Z-score" that Pete Palmer usded in his article Clutch Hitting One More Time. It involves how much better or worse a guy does in the clutch compared to how he hits in other situations

While logical, this approach is never going to be entirely convincing. If Ted Williams hits .406 overall and .390 in the clutch, while Sibby Sisti hits .211 overall and .240 in the clutch, then Ted Williams is the better clutch hitter by all common-sense definitions.

I just can't see how saying that Ortiz didn't have an ability, then gained it, then lost it can be a remotely reasonable conclusion, especially given that you've provided an intentionally vague definition of "clutch" that neatly allows for confirmation bias to prove you correct.

I understand what you are saying, but I don't agree. Ortiz, for a period of three or four years, did absurdly well in certain situations - in other words he did better with the game on the line than in other situations than he did in other situations for a period of a few years. He did not raise his game in such situations last year, and I don't think he did before 2003 or so. I also don't think he raised his game that much in situations that others might describe as clutch.

The most logical argument is that the performance with the game on the line was just statistical noise. That it is certainly possible given about 12 or 15 at bats with the game on the line, he could hit .800 with 8 home runs, or something like that. On the other hand, it is also possible, that in a few select situations (i.e., the most pressure packed group of at bats each year), Ortiz was able to gain some additional psychological advantage, that led to a physical advantage. We will never know which is true, but I believe the latter.

I myself do similar things, though usually with Jeter instead of Ortiz.

Except that its really hard to use statistics to show that special ability in Jeter, no matter how you use the numbers. Those of us who say that Ortiz had some advantage with the game on the line, actually had some stats to back us up (although in a small sample size). It wasn't that he hit a couple of big home runs. Its that virtually every time he came up with the game on the line, he either got a hit or a homerun, usually the latter.

The beauty of statistical analysis is that it sets the bar so high that our own personal tendencies to elevate the importance of events where we believe we have detected a pattern simply cannot apply.

Statistical analysis does no such thing. There was a pattern to Ortiz's at bats with the game on the line from 2003 to 2006. We have no idea if that was a result of a real ability or statistical chance, and statistical analysis doesn't answer the question for us. Not being able to reject the null hypothesis is not the same thing as proving the negative.

The most logical argument is that the performance with the game on the line was just statistical noise. That it is certainly possible given about 12 or 15 at bats with the game on the line, he could hit .800 with 8 home runs, or something like that. On the other hand, it is also possible, that in a few select situations (i.e., the most pressure packed group of at bats each year), Ortiz was able to gain some additional psychological advantage, that led to a physical advantage. We will never know which is true, but I believe the latter.

If you believe the former is more logical, why do you believe the latter? Which do you think you'd believe if you hadn't watched him play? Or if you weren't a Red Sox fan?

If you believe the former is more logical, why do you believe the latter?

Good question. And I don't really have a good answer, except that, its really hard to watch a player hit 8 homeruns in 15 at bats with the game on the line (its something like that - I don't recall the exact number), without thinking something is up. I can tell myself all I want that it was just chance, but I just don't believe it.

Except that its really hard to use statistics to show that special ability in Jeter, no matter how you use the numbers.

Actually, it's not.

-- MWE

Actually, it's not.

Point taken. Didn't mean any slights against Jeter.