[quote=Yoda]Yet another bump.[/quote]

[quote=Yoda][quote]And no, let's take away Peyton's two INCREDIBLE Wild Card performances against Denver and what has he done? I'll come back and give you those numbers later to show you his total stats outside of those two games.[/quote]
If you're going to take away his games against Denver to make your point, there's no reason I can't take away the two against New England to make mine. All playoff games are pressure-packed. Pretending the New England games are fundamentally different defies logic, and moreover, it's meaningless if you wait until afterwards to do so.

And, again, even if you could demonstrate a tendency to perform poorer in big games, that still wouldn't substantiate the idea that it is innate, rather than the product of random variation. By definition, "clutch" situations must be rare. And that means small sample sizes, which inevitably leads to statistical fluctuations.

This is perfectly evidenced in the fact that Derek Jeter and Tom Brady, two athletes who have spent a great deal of time in the postseason (and whom are revered as "clutch" performers almost without exception), in fact have put up very similar numbers in the regular season. Why? Because random fluctuations average out as more games are played.

Of course, it's a lot more fun to pretend that players alternatively possess mythical poise or crumble under the spotlight. But there's nothing to support that idea, which is why when you ask someone for specifics, they never have them. They simply don't exist.[/quote]

[quote=Yoda][quote]Scattered at bats with A-Rod. I don't remember specifics, but it's happened.[/quote]
How do you know it's happened, then? If it has, why wouldn't there be statistical evidence of it? Is this all based on nothing more than a gut feeling?

[quote]Heck, he was a huge part of the greatest choke of all time. If A-Rod couldn't win when they had a 3-0 lead, then A-Rod won't be able to ever make it.[/quote]
"A-Rod couldn't win"? What about the other 24 Yankees? These were players who had come through in the clutch numerous times over the years en route to four World Series titles, and they all, collectively, choked. Now, if you wish you can try to attribute this to Rodriguez's mystical choking powers (I guess it's contagious?), but a far more sensible response is to recognize it as yet another rebuttal to the idea of "clutch" performance.[/quote]

[quote=BobbyB]Totals

7 Games
144 Completions
263 Attempts
54.7% Completion Percentage
6 Touchdowns 
7 Interceptions 
1627 Yards 

Averages

20.5 Completions
37.5 Attempts
0.8 Touchdowns
1 Interception
232.4

Take away those two Denver games and his stats aren't that great[/quote]

[quote=BobbyB]Scattered at bats with A-Rod. I don't remember specifics, but it's happened.

Heck, he was a huge part of the greatest choke of all time. If A-Rod couldn't win when they had a 3-0 lead, then A-Rod won't be able to ever make it.

And no, let's take away Peyton's two INCREDIBLE Wild Card performances against Denver and what has he done? I'll come back and give you those numbers later to show you his total stats outside of those two games.[/quote]

[quote=Yoda]So, yeah. Bump.[/quote]

[quote=Yoda][quote]Peyton Manning is a very good football player, but his lack of clutch play prevents him from being a great football player.

Joe Montana = Great
Troy Aikman = Great

Peyton Manning = Very Good

Those are my definitions[/quote]
See, this I agree with, but I think it is different than what was implied before. Saying that Manning will cease to be "great" until he delivers when it matters most is reasonable (if not my line of thinking, exactly). Ditto for A-Rod. But suggesting that neither of them will ever do so because they possess some inalterable choking gene is just silly.

These are professional athletes. They got where they are by performing in pressure situations. Rodriguez and Manning would've had to excel in what, at the time, were their most tense moments to get to this level to begin with. A-Rod must've done well when the scouts first started showing up at his high school games to garner the attention he did. Clutch. Manning had to excel in two consecutive playoff games in 2003 just to earn the right to play New England in the first place. Clutch. Are we really to believe that their insane levels of talent are nullified in certain pressure situations, even though they've gotten where they are only by triumphing in such pressure situations for most of their adult lives?[/quote]

[quote=Yoda][quote]Sounds like we have a difference of definitions of greatness here: Does being consistently good year after year make you a great player? Or are you a great player if you come through in a pinch? If you can do the second but not the first, are you greater than the player who's great on average but might not come through in a pinch?

Hmmm ... tough call, grasshoppa.[/quote]
I don't think it's a philosophical difference, because I completely agree that a player's performance in key situations should be factored into their greatness. I think the difference is about how we reach our conclusions: do we use facts, or vague unquantifiables and scattered memories?

Regardless, while you can make a case for greatness sans "clutch" performance, you certainly can't call someone great for the opposite. If we could, we'd have already inducted Edgar Renteria into the Hall of Fame right now for his single to end the 1997 World Series. Sports history is filled with players who came through in big moments, but never really did anything else particularly impressive. Francisco Cabrera, anyone?[/quote]

[quote=Austruck]Those examples make sense to me. There's nothing more frustrating than watching your otherwise-great quarterback screw up yet another crucial play in an important game. We've had quarterbacks like that... *cough*kordell*cough*[/quote]

[quote=Yoda][quote]Ever since he came to the Yankmees, he has choked. I don't care what numbers say, in the clutch at bat (Not at bats ) he has choked.[/quote]
Okay. What at-bats were those? Which handful of scattered at-bats have you arbitrarily decided are the best indicator of his performance under pressure? Moreover, how have you decided that they constitute a better summary than his total number of at-bats in playoff games (all of which are of crucial importance)?

[quote]Same with Peyton. When it really matters *COUGH*NEWENGLANDPATRIOTS*COUGH* he chokes[/quote]
So when you said he had "atrocious playoff numbers," what you really meant was "actually, he's very good in the playoffs, just not against New England"? To use an appropriate analogy, you're shifting the goal posts.[/quote]

[quote=BobbyB]Peyton Manning is a very good football player, but his lack of clutch play prevents him from being a great football player.

Joe Montana = Great
Troy Aikman = Great

Peyton Manning = Very Good

Those are my definitions[/quote]