SNY: Salfino: Is Wright clutch? Does it even matter?

Now, while Daniel Kahneman might have won a Nobel Prize in Economics...Daniel Johnston should have won a Nobel Prize in Mountain Dew points. And that, dear friends...is something Francesspool could truly understand.

I don’t want to pick on Francesa. He suffers only from human nature. His inability to be rational here when it comes to Wright’s clutchiness is not a moral failing.

Psychologist Daniel Kahneman of Princeton won a Nobel Prize in Economics in part for identifying this universal predisposition to “confirmation bias.” Once we make up our minds on something, we generally remember only what confirms our view and reject any evidence to the contrary by simply not choosing to remember it. This screws up the stats in our heads, creating an illusion that the number of instances of real-world proof of our beliefs is completely overwhelming and thus overwhelming evidence that the opinions we hold are correct.

If and when the Mets ultimately win a championship with Wright playing like Wright always does, the calculus will change. But until then, his failures will be highlighted. The games he wins, late or early or in the middle, will be forgotten. What will matter most will be the games the Mets lost, because that’s all that ever matters for losers. And there’s a good chance that Wright will come up short in big moments of big losses (in hindsight) because all hitters, no matter how clutch, fail more than they succeed.