"Clutch-ness" and the Value of Goals
- Thread starter aufheben
- Start date
The Stig
Your hero.
LT
Global Moderator
- Jul 23, 2010
- 41,777
- 13,319
Depends on when they're scored, IMO. Tons of variables go into it - its just kind of one of those things where you know a big goal when you see it.
See above. Same situation. Late game GWGs have a lot more value to me than a GWG in, say, the second period. One could just be a fluke, but multiple late GWGs is a sign of a player picking up his game when the pressure is on - usually points to a better, more valuable player.
If he lost 1-0? Yes, he got outplayed - the other goalie shut him out and didn't have a gaffe like he did. Not sure I'd say he played poorly, though.
It would almost certainly be discussed and worked on, though. Those types of goals are simply inexcusable at the NHL level, mistakes or not.
Machinehead
GoAwayTrouba
I do believe clutch exists but it only exists over a large sample. Too often, players get labeled "clutch" for scoring a few big goals which has more to do with variance than anything else.
To take an example from the Rangers, people say Kreider is "clutch" because he has 7 career playoff GWG. Yes that's nice, and Kreider does see a slight increase in production in the playoffs. But he has no control over whether or not his goal is a game-winner. All he can do is score, and he does so at a slightly better rate than in the regular season. How big those goals are depend on the game which he has limited control over.
Derick Brassard on the other hand, sees a massive increase in production in the playoffs night in, night out, every series. Derick Brassard is clutch.
So to answer your question, if player 2 does have more value it's very slight, because scoring "big goals" is coincidence more than anything. Unless you're Justin Williams and have been doing it for almost 10 years. He's a different story entirely.
To take an example from the Rangers, people say Kreider is "clutch" because he has 7 career playoff GWG. Yes that's nice, and Kreider does see a slight increase in production in the playoffs. But he has no control over whether or not his goal is a game-winner. All he can do is score, and he does so at a slightly better rate than in the regular season. How big those goals are depend on the game which he has limited control over.
Derick Brassard on the other hand, sees a massive increase in production in the playoffs night in, night out, every series. Derick Brassard is clutch.
So to answer your question, if player 2 does have more value it's very slight, because scoring "big goals" is coincidence more than anything. Unless you're Justin Williams and have been doing it for almost 10 years. He's a different story entirely.
ottawa
Avatar of the Year*
Joe Sakic is the answer... closest active player equivalent is Patrick Kane.
As for the goalie losing 1-0 on a goal from center ice... people would say that he choked. Didn't play poorly overall, but choked away the game on what should've been a "gimme" save.
aufheben
#Norris4Fox
This how I sorta feel.
Why would scoring a 3rd period goal be more valuable than 1st period goal?
Like a GWG can't win a game without the goals that preceded it (i.e. a 2-1 win), unless it's a 1-0 victory, in which case, there's no other goals to compare it's "value" to.
aufheben
#Norris4Fox
My question is: what makes a later goal more valuable than an earlier goal. I know it sounds silly but I haven't really seen anyone give a logical justification.
Closer causal connection to a win. We associate that player more closely with the win than a player who scored earlier. It's usually not fair, but it's a common and somewhat natural perception.
Finlandia WOAT
js7.4x8fnmcf5070124
- May 23, 2010
- 24,192
- 23,870
To perform a skill, your brain has to access the relating neurons to the task and then send this information throughout the body. Imagine your brain is a book; any task requires a reading of this book and applying it to real life.
Practice can reduce this reaction time AKA muscle memory. You ho ftom teading the book to full memorization. Your brain is a powerful natural supercomputer anyway: beyond the first tries, this will be very, very quick. To put it subtly.
In high pressure situations, reading this book can be disturbed. The cause is excessive adrenaline in your body. Stress causes the release of adrenaline; too much is overload, and inhibits reading the above book. Imagine you went from having memorized the book to having to read it again.
There is clutch. It's your ability to handle stress, and the corresponding adrenaline.
Though, only one player has ever scored two overtime game 7 goals; and no one ever names him among "most clutch" players of all time.
Practice can reduce this reaction time AKA muscle memory. You ho ftom teading the book to full memorization. Your brain is a powerful natural supercomputer anyway: beyond the first tries, this will be very, very quick. To put it subtly.
In high pressure situations, reading this book can be disturbed. The cause is excessive adrenaline in your body. Stress causes the release of adrenaline; too much is overload, and inhibits reading the above book. Imagine you went from having memorized the book to having to read it again.
There is clutch. It's your ability to handle stress, and the corresponding adrenaline.
Though, only one player has ever scored two overtime game 7 goals; and no one ever names him among "most clutch" players of all time.
It's simple. Pressure. In the first the world doesn't seem to implode just because you got scored on. Down by a goal in the third you have to be focuesd and determined AND the opposition will throw everything they have defensively on you.
aufheben
#Norris4Fox
These are very good points. Just to play devil's advocate: scoring goals earlier in the game will prevent high-pressure scenario's later in the game.*
*Similar to a goalie making a miraculous rebound-save after misplaying the initial shot.
gphr513
Watch the world burn
That is true. Just a difference in perception. The early goal isn't as dramatic.
I think, for the most part, "clutch-ness" is sort of made up based on narrative. These players who are labeled clutch are usually pretty good players, so more often than not, i just chalk it up to a good player doing his job rather than that particular player raising his game better than others in high pressure situations.
However, there are some exceptions. David Ortiz in the playoffs during the Red Sox World Series run ('04 was it?) comes to mind.
Hippasus
1,9,45,165,495,1287,
I like to think of all goals as equal, but I could see it as possible that one applies a multiplier, less than one, for less clutch goals. Then clutch goals would have an inverse multiplier slightly greater than one. The sum of all these values using multipliers would be the same as total goals. The multiplier for a given case would be determined by a function of some sort, It's just that clutchness is so vague that there's no way to tell what that multiplier is. How could clutchness, or "closer causal connection to a win" (to use QuennevillesDoghouse's expression), be definitely determined? Or the opposite for that matter. How could unclutchness be determined?
Last edited:
This is the same site that thinks nothing Joe Thornton does in games 1-6 matters if he isn't "clutch" in game 7, so I think the answer around here will be yes, yes, no.
For the record...Max Talbot. Clutch can be scoring more than one goal in a game 7...think only 9-10 guys have ever done that. Max did it in the same period and on mistakes made by the same guy (Brad Stuart). Maybe that makes Stuart the 'anti-clutch'?
IMHO, 'clutch' could be elevated more than it is in this game and should be. high salaries and stardom work against that it seems. Teams and the league should pay for 'clutch'. The level of play would rise, the stars would feel pressure to produce and marginal players would be afforded the chance to be great and make real money. $1 Million for a game 7 SCF goal? You'd see a rather intense game for sure.
But, it won't happen.
IMHO, 'clutch' could be elevated more than it is in this game and should be. high salaries and stardom work against that it seems. Teams and the league should pay for 'clutch'. The level of play would rise, the stars would feel pressure to produce and marginal players would be afforded the chance to be great and make real money. $1 Million for a game 7 SCF goal? You'd see a rather intense game for sure.
But, it won't happen.
ThorntonFightClub*
Registered User
I agree clutch is built over time, but i think players that are clutch have that break out "clutch" run that kickstarts it
for example, Nathan Horton in 2011.
Game 5 - Mtl - 2OT GWG
Game 7 - Mtl - OT GWG
Game 7 - TB - GWG (only goal in game)
Bergeron in 2013.
Game 7 - Tor - Ties the game with less than 1 minute left
Game 7 - Tor - GWG OT
Game 3 - Pitt - GWG 2OT
Ralph Spoilsport
Registered User
- Jun 4, 2011
- 1,234
- 426
It would be easy to measure the clutch value of any goal by how much it can be expected to increase a team's win percentage, based on the effect it has on the score and how much time is left on the clock.
(Easy for someone with a skill for crunching numbers and access to the relevant data. I have neither.)
To give an example of what I mean: it's good to take a lead early in the game, but even better to take a lead later in the game...less opportunity for your opponent to respond. The winning percentage of teams who take a one-goal lead 10 minutes into the game may be .550 (just making these numbers up for the example), whereas the winning percentage of teams who take a one-goal lead with 10 minutes left in the game may be .700. When the score is tied both teams are at .500, so the clutch value of the first period goal would be .050 and the clutch value of the third period goal .200.
An overtime goal would carry the maximum value. Sudden death so it doesn't matter how much time is left on the clock. The winning team goes from .500 to 1.000, the overtime goal is worth .500.
There may be goals scored in the late stages of blowout games that simply don't matter, but otherwise any goal can be weighted this way, whether it extends a leads or reduces a deficit, it should in some way increase a team's chances of winning.
Pretty simple concept so I wouldn't be surprised if it's been pitched already. Also wouldn't be surprised if I've overlooked some obvious flaw.
(Easy for someone with a skill for crunching numbers and access to the relevant data. I have neither.)
To give an example of what I mean: it's good to take a lead early in the game, but even better to take a lead later in the game...less opportunity for your opponent to respond. The winning percentage of teams who take a one-goal lead 10 minutes into the game may be .550 (just making these numbers up for the example), whereas the winning percentage of teams who take a one-goal lead with 10 minutes left in the game may be .700. When the score is tied both teams are at .500, so the clutch value of the first period goal would be .050 and the clutch value of the third period goal .200.
An overtime goal would carry the maximum value. Sudden death so it doesn't matter how much time is left on the clock. The winning team goes from .500 to 1.000, the overtime goal is worth .500.
There may be goals scored in the late stages of blowout games that simply don't matter, but otherwise any goal can be weighted this way, whether it extends a leads or reduces a deficit, it should in some way increase a team's chances of winning.
Pretty simple concept so I wouldn't be surprised if it's been pitched already. Also wouldn't be surprised if I've overlooked some obvious flaw.
