View Single Post
Old
10-12-2012, 10:41 AM
  #22
Grind
Stomacheache AllStar
 
Grind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 4,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gump Hasek View Post
Perhaps; but it is also that same player's proven level of reliability, performance, and drive that causes the coach to put him on the ice late in a playoff game to be in the position to score a key goal to begin with. He garners the opportunity to be put on the ice at that time to score a clutch goal precisely because of an innate drive, compete, and an ability to perform at peak levels in times of high stress that separates him from a player of similar skill level. That is what makes a clutch player.
A perfect example here is Michael Jordan. The guy had amazing skills, but those were coupled with an additional drive that enabled him to step on yet another gear in the playoffs.
the problem is, he isn't "getting" unfound talent drive/etc when the games on the line. It's not hiding. His physiology doesn't improve at a clutch moment. His brain doesn't get smarter. His legs don't get stronger. He just "tries" harder (consciously or subconsciously).

the issues is then, why the **** isn't he trying that hard in every game?

I guess my biggest issue is this,
we are either assuming
A )the player isn't playing at 100% when it's NOT clutch
B) most NHL players aren't capable of playing in clutch moments (thus making the "clutch" player important)
C)Clutch players have a magic power that increases their intelligence, reflexes, talent, strength, or general ability to play hockey when it counts.

of these three, A and B are possible . A is the most likely, but not something that should be rewarded. B is harder to believe but is most favorable to the clutch theory.

I haven't checked the bunks articles but i'm going to read it now.

I think a big issue with "clutch" is, as i stated in a post on the bottom of the last page, there's also been Psych studies that highlighted peoples tendancy to give "noticable" performances, actions, and people more importance in retrospect then the mundane events. (examples: a flashy goal as opposed to an innocuous one. A loud/outgoing person in a discussion group was considered "most important" in solving the problem the group was tasked with-that person purposefully put forth only superfluous contributions, none of which we used to build the solution).

the problem with the coach having this guy as a "go to" clutch player, is that if he gave the opportunity to almost anyone else (except those who do actually "float") statistically, the probability that they're just as effective will be similar. But it builds this idea cult by being a self-fulfilling prophecy. You can't prove your "clutch" if your never on the ice in a "clutch" situation...

Grind is online now   Reply With Quote