Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sTiMa34
Does this feeling go for every other sport or just baseball? And if it just goes for baseball, why is baseball different?
Kinda seems like saying Michael Jordan wasn't clutch, he was just a good player all the time so he was able to be good at the end of the game. Samething would go for Adam Venateri as well, or Tom Brady. There are just good players that where succesfull a lot so they were succesfull many times in clutch positions - isn't that the definition of being a clutch player?
What it comes down to is a order of words really, "Player A is a clutch hitter" or "Player A is always a good hitter, and in clutch situations, he continues to do well"
|
I think basketball is different because you can always pass up the shot if you don't want it. In baseball if you're up, then you're up. Michael Jordan was the best player on every team he ever played on, so the last play was always designed for him. Jordan missed hundreds of "clutch" shots in his career but we only remember Jordan over Ehlo and the no-call offensive foul against the Jazz in '98. Jordan is at least one of the 3 greatest players of all time so obviously he is going to have lots of clutch shots. Just like Ortiz has made lots of outs when a hit would have tied/won the game but we only remember the walk-offs.
I disagree with clutch hitting because it's supposed to be a skill, like power hitting or contact hitting or bunting. How can you be skilled at clutch hitting? Most commentators will tell you a "clutch player" like Ortiz or Jeter can "elevate their game" when it's crunch time but I think that's such BS. If Ortiz can hit .400 in the clutch why doesn't he do it all the time? Does he not care unless it's the ninth inning?