18 deep deep derp

but, since Tiger and Jack are both more than 3 standard deviations removed from the population doesn't that render Perkins and marriage obsolete?

Does anyone else but me see why this is the single dumbest thing I have ever read on the internet?

Please, someone else come up with the answer why this statement is completely moronic before my head explodes.

I believe I see why you would think it dumb...

It is an obviously correct statement though.

I think this is a little too theory driven.

When the heat is on, clutch players can use determination and will to hone their focus to a greater height than their "normal average". I obviously have zero facts and data to back this up, but I believe they can lift themselves to temporarily outperform their "average" when the time is needed.


If we're just hanging around the course, practicing our short games, and I tell you to go make 10 attempts at a 10-foot putt, in this specific no-pressure scenario, I will agree with your logic that over infinite trials, you will perform to whatever your average stats are.

Now, let's say once a year, I tell you to do the same trial, but I'll give you ten grand for every one of the 10 putts you make, if you're a clutch player, you're going to try your absolute damned hardest. If you're not a clutch player, the nerves may actually negatively affect your make%.

Again, this is just a mental exercise with so many variations from person to person that we could never do it, but I would think that over a 20 year sample, we would have enough data to show that a clutch player will make more than their average make% when the pressure is truly on, and a choker will perform worse than their average.




Or you know, you can discount psychology entirely because lol math.

You even say something here about it:

If choking is possible, why can't the opposite be true?



Is it though? People aren't machines. Different people perform differently under different circumstances.

Reid talking sense in the no sense thread will only end poorly. It's the geek perspective on this site lately to say that choking is really variance and that choking barely exists. Of course for this to be remotely true most humans would have to react similarly to pressure which of course we know is not even remotely true.

It is incorrect. Please tell me why.

Donks gonna donk

You want me to explain why, if Tigers probability of making 10 foot putts is 40%, he will make 40% of them over an infinite sample?

I don't mean to be rude, but we do have a beginners section on 2+2 that may be more appropriate if you need that explained.

Sorry to be rude as well, but you are wrong. Well, I shouldn't say that definitively. I have no idea. But I am pretty sure.

Here's my explanation.

Because every putt he attempts will have an impact on the future percentage.

So if a player has historically made 40 percent of his putts, the next putt he has will either push that percentage higher (if he makes) or lower (if he misses).

Therefore, the next putt after that won't have a 40 percent chance of going in, but a percentage either higher or lower than 40 percent, depending on the most recent result.

And since there's an infinite number of putts, there will always be shifting of the percentage.

Honestly, I'm not sure if this is right or wrong since I am not a math guy (I still don't fully understand any of the charts I have read in the thread.) But if it's wrong, let me know why that is.

Wrong but I understand what you're trying to say, its just incorrect

This is correct in itself - it's just that it isn't relevant

NXTs example stipulates a putt that has a 40% chance of going in - it is used to make a point about whether or not 'clutchness' will affect that 40%, not about whether or not the 40% will increase/decrease as further samples are added.

The infinite sample would all be made with the same conditions - all with the 40% chance, and given that it would be made 40%.

That said, I don't think NXTs point in itself is that solid. A player can have one make% in certain pressure situations and another in other pressure situations. Some players deal better with pressure than others and it can/will vary during a career - whether you call it clutchness, experience or whatever doesn't seem that interesting to me. Or it's very possible that I don't get what the debate about 'clutch' is all about - I haven't been paying much attention to it.

I agree wholly with Reid. I don’t think Reid is implying the make rate goes from 40% to 90%, but I do believe it would move up a few points. Furthermore, I can assure you that there are people who perform worse under pressure and their rate would absolutely go down.

If you think about it, all of this would be built into the 40% make rate. If humans were machines and truly did play every shot in exactly the same manner then I doubt it would matter. However, after caddying in the final group at the State Am for two days I can assure you that the players mental routines and shot selection/execution absolutely changed as the pressure intensified. Being there purely to observe allowed me to really get into the mental side of what was going on versus if I were playing and in contention and had to focus on execution.

Furthermore, a large portion of the 40% make rate entails the first few rounds of an event when I can assure you the focus is not as high as it is in the final round. For “chokers” the increase in focus and attention leads to performing lower than average, and for “clutch” the increases lead to playing above average. They then sum to an average in the middle.

NXT, do you not think the above happens at all?

I recently saw an interview on the Golf Channel that really illustrated this point, I can’t remember who it was with. They said that Tiger played the first hole of a 72 hole event with the exact same focus and intensity as the 72nd hole. The mental stamina that requires is amazing, most players would completely burn themselves out by Saturday if they tried to keep that level of focus for an entire event. Earl Woods specifically trained Tiger in this from the time we were kids, I watched it in person.

Is that anecdotal and an observational thought from a peer? Yes, but I think we can all agree that Tiger has a level of intensity throughout an event that is well above “average human”. The notion that regular players play every shot with the same focus is silly. As a result the notion that a blanket expectation rate applies to every scenario is also quite silly.

I was really running a fine line with Will of not wearing him out while trying to dump as much information on him as possible. While telling him what shot to hit throughout the event I also tried to explain the logic to him so when by himself he could come up with the correct decisions. I can assure you that kid was as exhausted after those 72 holes as he has ever been mentally. I truly believe we were in the zone or flow working as a team for the entire event. I always enjoyed caddying for buddies when I was playing full time as I believe it is a great mental exercise. One of my notes I always put on the cover of my yardage books was "Be your own caddie".

From the sounds of it, you do get it, but because it's not the heart of a math debate, maybe you haven't thought about it enough.

Do you think that "dealing with pressure" just means not dropping below their normal make%? Do you think there are times that are so much more meaningful to a player that they are able to harness their heightened senses during rushes of adrenaline and whatever else happens under pressure so that they can actually perform above their average?

Ship said:

I think this may be at the heart of what I was trying to convey. Like, the level of intensity just isn't there on every single shot/putt. I think this is why Tiger dominated for so long. He 'brought it' on every shot.

I think that even with an infinite number of putts given the SAME EXACT circumstances, which includes ample time periods between trials to sustain/maintain the same type of pressure, there are some people that will putt above their lifetime average for that series of putts.


NXT, I know you play for money. When you're looking at a putt to get ahead on hole 4 of a match, you're don't have your "try hard" turned up as hard as you do on 18 when you're down a bunch and you pressed all ways. That level of "try hard" and intensity is what we're judging. I posture that a clutch putter that makes 40% of their putts probably makes a greater percentage when the "try hard" is turned up to full blast. I also think that at this point in the discussion, it's fair for me to concede that if that person could put their "try hard" on max at all times, we'd end up with a higher average and the clutch putter would then of course, like you say, putt to their average.


Maybe the argument is just that people don't normally try hard

This. The "zone" is an elusive state. It's not that they don't try hard it's simply that people have hormones and are volatile in general. Getting out the volatility is how you play consistent golf.

Anyone who doesn't think their internal clock varies from day to day (let alone intra-day as pressure builds) has never paid much attention to how they are feeling and more importantly, reacting. That or they have never been in a position to win a tournament.

The kid that finished second in the State Am made some very poor decisions off the tee on the back nine, and was completely too aggressive on the second shots. There was no question in my mind when we made the turn he was going to make a few mistakes and that if we kept to our plan Will would prevail.

I told Will on our walk to the 10th tee that he needed to commit to the plan and stay patient. He had a 4 shot lead evaporate quickly when the kid in second played a 5 hole stretch -5 from 6-10. The other kid was getting too excited and too confident. This confidence had him challenging every pin and that simply won't work out. I told Will that would happen and it is exactly what went down. He short sided himself 3 times on the back 9 all leading to bogeys and missed opportunity.

If you go 5 under over a 5 hole stretch, I wouldn't call that getting too confident or over hyped. I'd call that finding a groove. Maybe his plan was to stay aggressive. You had a plan with your guy why can't he have one? What do you tell your guy if he didn't end up short siding himself on those holes and winning... that his opponent got lucky, that his strategy to stay patient was sound.... or do you get in your guys ear again to change the strategy when what you assume would happen didn't. Lot of variables fit your story nicely here.

Tie

Ship and Reid,

Read this.
http://academics.holycross.edu/files...aadre_Jeff.pdf

Another interesting point from the paper for those that aren't interested in reading the whole thing. Am I correct in assuming most golf fans would consider Tiger's performance at the 08 US Open his most "clutch" performance and at the opposite end of the spectrum would be his 09 PGA performance vs YE Yang?



Note, Rocco Mediate had a roughly 7.74% chance to catch or pass Tiger in the final round. In 09, YE Yang had an 8.03% chance to beat Tiger.

Both of the above situation's occurred and coincidentally they had almost the exact same chance of happening except one is now labeled as Tiger at his most "clutch" and the other is Tiger's biggest choke job of all time.

Hmmmm

If performances by Tiger Woods can't even be quantified as "clutch", how can "clutch" possibly exist in golf? Where is the proof?

If someone can point me to some good, hard evidence (not something you witness or you feel happen) then I would be very interested in taking a look at it. As it is now I will side with the following conclusion

I find it odd that this even needs to be discussed? Isn't it obvious that it's true?

Obviously both the individual and the environment around them are constantly evolving states, right? A golfer on the first tee box is not the same golfer that walks off the first green, right? He has fundamentally changed, as has the conditions around him. Can we all at least agree on that?

Why even have a winner each week? Lets just count up total strokes for the year in December and give out one trophy



It might be hard to grasp the statistical significance of a small sample when looking at shotlink data, but it's often be easy to see when someone's choking if you watch the broadcast.

I didn't see any evidence of Tiger choking against Yang, he just got beat. Furyk definitely did choke at Olympic and Monty definitely choked on 18 at Winged Foot

With regards to over amped and over confident, the stretch wasn’t due to his being confident, aggressive, or amped. Finding a groove consisted entirely of running hot with the putter for 5 holes, nothing more, nothing less. He was not hitting miraculous shots that should brew confidence with the irons and driver. Yes he was hitting nice quality shots and then had a little run good with the putter.

His -5 stretch consisted of a basic par 5 birdie, a made 20+ foot putt after a very mediocre SW, a made 15’ putt after an average SW, and a made 10’ eagle on a par 5 that was only 480 so let’s really call that a birdie and a half. Point being, he didn’t have the -5 run due to aggression. He did it by having a little luck via a hot putter on his side. So yes, when he starts aiming at tucked pins when he has not been dialed in it is only a matter of time until it bites him.

The sum of the two rounds I saw him play yielded about exactly what his strategy should, if not more due to a hot putter. He simply hit it in too many fairway bunkers and missed too many greens with wedges due to poor target selection. In the 36 holes I watched he had 8 birdies, 1 eagle, 8 bogeys and a double, that is not the product of good strategy. He would clearly have been better off having a birdie or two LESS and 4-5 bogeys fewer, not to mention the double which was a poor tee shot selection followed by a poor escape selection.

If he does that over the final 36 it’s my horse that is having to make up ground instead of him.

He certainly can have one, but shouldn’t a sound plan be the one with the lowest expectation possible? His shot selection did not have the lowest EV possible, period. When he was down 4 with 12 to go it is actually fine to be a tad aggressive to try and get in the mix. However, once he pulled even with 8 to go that’s actually when he upped the aggression on the part of his game that was actually the weakest. It’s interesting how doing one phase of the game well (putting in this instance) can breed unfounded confidence in other areas. The issue comes from not having the experience to make rationale and impartial strategic decisions. That is simply a form of choking mental choking.


Clearly you would have to be in the arena watching up close to understand what I’m telling you, but rest assured, the kid did not use good strategy or game theory.

Yes, that is exactly what I would tell him. You understand the concept of getting it in ahead and losing. That is what I would tell him happened. However, given the same scenario and a 30 year career view, playing the correct strategy WILL YIELD MORE WINS, maybe not that specific day, but it will win more events.

If your strategy is strong, be patient, stick to the game plan that if applied correctly will have him shoot under par on the last 9, if the kid continues to run hot with the putter and get lucky not missing a single shot for 10 straight holes (6-15) and get a lead then we would consider altering approach shot targets accordingly late in the tournament. We would get more aggressive in order to introduce more birdies and accordingly more bogies then just hope we run good for 3 holes instead of the 13 holes he tried to run good for.


Stay patient, let the tournament unfold and as you get more information adjust on the fly accordingly…sound like anything else that involves math?

Will was the superior player with the superior strategy. That is clearly a deadly combination that I fully recognize got lucky as well to win that specific day. But it clearly had a lifetime edge and played out nicely.

I don’t have an opinion on what his most clutch performances were, sounds like you do though. But those percentages clearly show that it’s likely the outcomes would happen given any reasonable amount of trials, like 60+ majors in his career, it’s bound to happen.

Ok, I’ll try. I should note that I had to read a whopping two pages of the paper you posted to find proof. Maybe you simply didn’t make it that far and liked the synopsis on the title page and went with it, but here you go:



That to me is LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

They do. it's called the vardon.

Uh what proof?

What you are looking at..
That study only "proved" that choking does exist in the NBA and to me the above quote reads like they believe "clutch" MAY exist but they didn't test that hypothesis to prove it.

Here is the synopsis of their paper.
Maybe people define "clutch" differently than I do, but I would define "clutch" as performing at a higher level than you are generally capable of just because of a situation.

If Tiger and Sergio both make 10 footer on average 40% of the time, and on a 10 footer for a major Tiger's chances remain at 40% but Sergio's drop to 20%, is Tiger now "clutch" for just being able to perform like his normal self? I wouldn't say no but maybe others say yes? Now if Tiger's make % went up to 50% on a 10 footer just because it was for a major I would consider that clutch, but there is no proof(that I have come across) that such a phenomenon occurs.

How much money does that come with?