post 100

please thank everyone and let them know you will be playing here all week

I like agreeing with people. I'm just a contrarian like that.

A meta-mobius strip. Or something like that.

100 is too good to be lost at the bottom of the page:

HW: you may have just lost your bbtf decoder ring. a true bbtfer argues anything

PF: No he doesn't.

Watson's long game was good enough for him to be a hole away from winning a major at 59 (!). After getting screwed by the hard green on his approach to the 72nd, he had that 9-footer uphill to win and everyone who knew anything about golf knew he had no chance.(*) Ninety-five percent plus of 10-handicap players would have hit a better putt there than Watson, who yipped it short and wide right in one of the more deflating sports moments of the 21st century.

This would have been the greatest moments in sports in my lifetime and I'm not even a fan of golf. Easily the most disappointed I've been watching sports since I was a child. As it is, I still think it might be the greatest accomplishment I have ever witnessed. If he had made that putt there is no doubt.

It's silly that a bunch of BBTRs are sitting around arguing something so easily proven.

Historically, how often do baseball players get a hit after they just go a hit, or two hits?

How often do they strike out after they just struck out?

How often do 0 for 4 hitters go 0-5? How often do 4-4 hitters go 5-5?

It's not that hard to adjust for significant factors and compare to expectations. If you believe in confidence, choking, and the "hot hand" it should be easy to provide compelling evidence. If you think there is no pressure playing in front of 20,000 fans in the regular season, you can do it with post-season games to amp up the "pressure" level.

My own theory is that EVERYONE performs worse when under pressure, and it's the Jeters whose performance degrades the least who appear to "excel" under pressure. I wrestled in college, and can remember my brain turning to mush when facing a weaker opponent (because of the fear of humiliation), and being sharp and focused against tougher opponents (because of the opportunity to do the unlikely and unexpected to help my team). But that's probably my own biases filling in blank memories, my mind was probably mush every time I stepped out on the mac (and my record supports that). Thinking clearly is much easier done without distraction, threat, fear, anticipation, etc, all welling up inside you at once.

I have a friend who is still in his early 30s, and is such a good golfer he once played in a PGA event, but never made the tour. He recently got a backer to put him in a bunch of these $1,000 buyin tourney against competition he should have a substantial edge against. And he pretty much finished last every time, and the stories I heard about him make it clear why. He stood over a tee shot for an excessive time in one tourney where he was off to a bad start, and finally pulled back and turned to his caddy, and said, "all I can think about is that I'm going to whiff it entirely in front of all these people".

I believe his problem is he hates losing too much. I've played a lot of poker with him and he hates losing so much that he seems to freeze up and stop thinking clearly. If he could accept that every hand and every shot aren't going to be perfect, and replace his hatred of losing with the ability to just focus on trying to do the best he can in the moment, regardless of what happened just before and what is possible after, god knows how good he could be at both.

It's not that hard to adjust for significant factors and compare to expectations.

Horseshit.

Also, I have no idea what point you're making. You lead off with what seems to be a statement that clutchness has been statistically proven to not exist, then you say that you think pressure affects different players differently, and you finish with anecdotes on how emotions can significantly impact play.

please thank everyone and let them know you will be playing here all week

I had to do it. It was just sitting there on a tee.

Also, I have no idea what point you're making. You lead off with what seems to be a statement that clutchness has been statistically proven to not exist, then you say that you think pressure affects different players differently, and you finish with anecdotes on how emotions can significantly impact play.

Who said I took sides? I clearly stated that I believe that pressure makes all players perform worse, and some worse than others.

My amusing, well written, and mostly true anecdotes completely support that statement, except for the parts that don't.

And my point about performance measurement to "prove' either side's points is apt. There are huge databases of actual game performance online. It's clearly possible to do a study to demonstrated the hot hand theory, that players doing well recently will have a higher performance expectation than normal, and those doing poorly recently will have a worse expectation than normal, and establish convincingly whether mental outlook is important or not to results.

My own theory is that EVERYONE performs worse when under pressure, and it's the Jeters whose performance degrades the least who appear to "excel" under pressure.

I have a recollection of Reggie Jackson saying something along those lines in one of his autobiographies. If I remember it right he said it wasn't that the "thrived" under pressure so much as he "survived it."

Hello. I should be renewing microfilm subscription. But instead, I will drop in and say that way too often on this wonderful site I start reading an interesting discussion & it turns into a bunch of guys picking at Ray, arguing with Ray, talking about Ray.... Do you realize how boring that is? How completely separated from the actual joy & wonder of baseball that is?

Way later in this discussion, I see, Harveys said some interesting things, but then the discussion is: what does what Harveys said have to do with Ray?

So I will close up this discussion & see if there is another. Go Tigers!

fran

thanks for the kind words