Theo Fox: Clutch Hitting
A retrospective on the clutch play of Bryan Bickell and whether the Blackhawks can hit upon restocking the roster with more clutch players.

Good blog. I always liked Bickell, and really didn't mind his contract. I would have liked to see what would have happened if he didn't have MS. I wonder if he could have lived up to his contract.

Also, do you ever sleep?

The regular season game seemed to be too fast for him - he didn’t seem to be “instinctual” enough to see where he needed to get to, and then get there in time.

The playoff game is slowed down a bit - he could find and get to the right spot while the play was still there (or even before).

I liked him too - good hands, not knocked off or away from the puck - just frustrating that he often just “missed it by that much”.

Hope he’s doing well with his family....

The regular season game seemed to be too fast for him - he didn’t seem to be “instinctual” enough to see where he needed to get to, and then get there in time.

The playoff game is slowed down a bit - he could find and get to the right spot while the play was still there (or even before).

I liked him too - good hands, not knocked off or away from the puck - just frustrating that he often just “missed it by that much”.

Hope he’s doing well with his family....
- StLBravesFan

Idk about that. He did score 17 one season. The intensity just didn't seem to be there during the regular season and I think his goal totals would have gone up if he'd have taken a page out of Shaw's book and went to the front of the net with regularity.

Thanks for the Monday morning blog Theo! Afa as Strome and Nylander go, I'll take both of them becoming consistent performers over clutch ones. Both need to find that level this season.

The theory of 'clutch' players in any sport has been disproven many times.

https://vault.si.com/vaul...-to-the-guys-on-the-field

Bickell also was caught in a numbers game. Sharp, Saad(even a couole of years of Panarin), Bickell wasn't going to see top 6 minutes, nor any minutes on the PP, where he probably could of become a very efficient NFP with his big body and scorers touch. He came through in 13, and ended up being the LW on oews line, and started there the next year for only briefly until playing 3rd line minutes.

But in the playoffs, when "big boy" hockey was needed, he played more and he stood out more, either with his goal scoring or his physical play. Would love to have seen him go against Reeves in this years tournament. I beleive would have made him and his line much less effective against the Hawks.

You could’ve easily combined the Rat blog with the clutch blog. No one more clutch than 36.

Also...Put me firmly in the Lehner is definitely not “all that” camp. In fact I would argue he’s barely partially that.

You could’ve easily combined the Rat blog with the clutch blog. No one more clutch than 36.

Also...Put me firmly in the Lehner is definitely not “all that” camp. In fact I would argue he’s barely partially that.
- Ogilthorpe2

Nope, I will argue that Scott Darling was more "all that" than Lehner has ever shown.

Thank you for the collection of Bickell moments. That man made quite a few memories for himself and Hawks fans in a fairly short window of time. What a legend.

Nope, I will argue that Scott Darling was more "all that" than Lehner has ever shown.
- LAHawk

I think we sometimes let our nostalgia for the last good playoff run the Blackhawks had, as well as his backstory, color our opinions of Darling.

He had a good couple of good games against Nashville in the 2015 tournament - a good relief job in game one, and then wins in games 2 and (in 3 OTs) in game 3.

But he wasn't very good in the loss in game 4, and Crawford "bailed him out" in game 5.

He then did pretty well as a back-up in the next two seasons. Perhaps - had he stayed in that roll instead of becoming a starter in Raleigh, he could have had a much longer effective career. Perhaps his historical demons returned to plague him, I don't know.

But even with his arrogance and "throw them under the bus" mentality, I think that Lehner is having a more effective career than Darling.

I think we sometimes let our nostalgia for the last good playoff run the Blackhawks had, as well as his backstory, color our opinions of Darling.

He had a good couple of good games against Nashville in the 2015 tournament - a good relief job in game one, and then wins in games 2 and (in 3 OTs) in game 3.

But he wasn't very good in the loss in game 4, and Crawford "bailed him out" in game 5.

He then did pretty well as a back-up in the next two seasons. Perhaps - had he stayed in that roll instead of becoming a starter in Raleigh, he could have had a much longer effective career. Perhaps his historical demons returned to plague him, I don't know.

But even with his arrogance and "throw them under the bus" mentality, I think that Lehner is having a more effective career than Darling.
- StLBravesFan

The fact of the matter is that Khabibulin outplayed Lehner this year. the Isles with Lehner in nets last year were bounced in the first round. I will take when a player steps up when it really matters, instead of having great stats during the season and at the end of the day, getting outplayed when it really mattered.

Case in point Crawford against Boston and Tampa. He had some wonky games during both cup runs, but who would you rather have in nets when it meant game, set, match?

Nice blog Theo ! Thinking about one of the new Hawks, Nikita Zadarov. Maybe you can check this out. I seem to recall, that during the Avalache-Stars series, the Avs were hit with the injury bug and had to play few games with shortage of defensemen. Zadarov was one of the healthy defensemen that not only dressed, but were asked to play more minutes. I think that he might have stepped up and been clutch to his team at that time. All the more reason, that I like having the big guy around

The theory of 'clutch' players in any sport has been disproven many times.

https://vault.si.com/vaul...-to-the-guys-on-the-field
- scottak

The topic here piqued my interest. This article does not really do a good job of answering the question. Aside from the fact that it looks only at hitting in baseball, and not anything else, it sort of cherry picks the examples to investigate. I think a better evaluation (for this particular example) would be to not compare improvement in stats vs the regular season, but to compare the absolute difference in performance between "regular" situations and "high stakes" ones. It could simply be that those who are considered "clutch" simply maintain their high performance in those situations, where others seem to wilt a bit.

In hockey, I have not dug into the numbers (mainly because I don't have a strong enough grasp of what they are actually measuring), but I think there is ample evidence that there have been a number of players that, at a minimum, can be counted on as consistent producers - if not elevate their games - in the playoffs. Look at Keith and Seabrook. Their playoff numbers are measurably better than their Reg seasons.

There are so many factors to consider when answering this question, but it's at least an interesting topic to discuss.

https://www.tsn.ca/chicag...velopment-coach-1.1555481

Is that Juan Gonzalez the former Texas Ranger?

https://www.tsn.ca/chicago-blackhawks-hire-kendall-coyne-schofield-as-player-development-coach-1.1555481

Is that Juan Gonzalez the former Texas Ranger?
- LAHawk

More importantly maybe we won't see
Kendall Coyne Schofield and Pastrnak on those Dunkin commercials anymore.

And kudos to the Hawks for bringing her into the organization. Best wishes for her.

The theory of 'clutch' players in any sport has been disproven many times.

https://vault.si.com/vaul...-to-the-guys-on-the-field
- scottak

The bolded is incorrect.

The topic here piqued my interest. This article does not really do a good job of answering the question. Aside from the fact that it looks only at hitting in baseball, and not anything else, it sort of cherry picks the examples to investigate. I think a better evaluation (for this particular example) would be to not compare improvement in stats vs the regular season, but to compare the absolute difference in performance between "regular" situations and "high stakes" ones. It could simply be that those who are considered "clutch" simply maintain their high performance in those situations, where others seem to wilt a bit.

In hockey, I have not dug into the numbers (mainly because I don't have a strong enough grasp of what they are actually measuring), but I think there is ample evidence that there have been a number of players that, at a minimum, can be counted on as consistent producers - if not elevate their games - in the playoffs. Look at Keith and Seabrook. Their playoff numbers are measurably better than their Reg seasons.

There are so many factors to consider when answering this question, but it's at least an interesting topic to discuss.
- Chunk

It's due to randomness. The same reason a guy that scores 30 goals ahs some long droughts, followed by a period where he scores a bunch. Under the 'clutch' theory, a guy that is clutch one year would be clutch every year. It doesn't happen.

An easy expectation on the uptick in the playoffs, trying harder. Do you think Keith, Seabrook, Kane, et.al. are clutch, or do they take some games during the course of the regular season where their focus is less that optimal.

The bolded is incorrect.
- mohel

PhD's say you are wrong.

http://research.sabr.org/...-mirage-of-clutch-hitting

https://www.psychologytod...ch-thing-clutch-performer

https://bleacherreport.co...-the-nba-once-and-for-all

It's due to randomness. The same reason a guy that scores 30 goals ahs some long droughts, followed by a period where he scores a bunch. Under the 'clutch' theory, a guy that is clutch one year would be clutch every year. It doesn't happen.

An easy expectation on the uptick in the playoffs, trying harder. Do you think Keith, Seabrook, Kane, et.al. are clutch, or do they take some games during the course of the regular season where their focus is less that optimal.
- scottak

In theory, yes, but hockey more than almost any other sport (save for maybe football) is very dependent on teammate interactions. Toews with Hossa and Sharp is a different animal that with Saad and ADB (as an example). Not to mention the untold injuries that pile up every year in the PO's.

Try harder is my life motto! That said, I'm sure those guys do try harder in the playoffs, but so is everyone else. Are the players considered clutch trying that much harder than everyone else? Is their ceiling just that much higher at 100%?

Again, I'm not trying to insinuate that being clutch is or isn't a thing. I just think it is really interesting to contemplate.

PhD's say you are wrong.

http://research.sabr.org/...-mirage-of-clutch-hitting

https://www.psychologytod...ch-thing-clutch-performer

https://bleacherreport.co...-the-nba-once-and-for-all
- scottak

PhDs are wrong a lot. To say some people don't perform better under stress than others is silly.

PhDs are wrong a lot. To say some people don't perform better under stress than others is silly.
- mohel

The data doesn't back you up. And that's not the definition. It's that some players can elevate their performance in 'pressure' or high leverage situations. The data says that the better players are better, no matter the point in the game, and the less talented players play worse, no matter the point of the game.

You'd always prefer a .300 hitter up with runners on in the bottom of the 9th, over a .250 hitter. The .250 hitter does not become better because of the situation, and the .300 hitter does not become worse.

PhD's say you are wrong.

http://research.sabr.org/...-mirage-of-clutch-hitting

https://www.psychologytod...ch-thing-clutch-performer

https://bleacherreport.co...-the-nba-once-and-for-all
- scottak

These are all definitional arguments. From the Bleacherreport article:

"So, would I give the ball to Kobe or LeBron in a critical situation? Yes, absolutely. But I wouldn't be doing so because they're "clutch." I'd be doing so because they're great players and that greatness carries over into those crucial situations."

Another way to describe that is "clutch". They perform well regardless of the situation. I'd wager that a lot of this has to do with maintaining the aggression as the situation gets more critical instead of becoming more passive.

There are also a variety of situational effects that would need to be considered before trying to say anything definitively.

These are all definitional arguments. From the Bleacherreport article:

"So, would I give the ball to Kobe or LeBron in a critical situation? Yes, absolutely. But I wouldn't be doing so because they're "clutch." I'd be doing so because they're great players and that greatness carries over into those crucial situations."

Another way to describe that is "clutch". They perform well regardless of the situation. I'd wager that a lot of this has to do with maintaining the aggression as the situation gets more critical instead of becoming more passive.

There are also a variety of situational effects that would need to be considered before trying to say anything definitively.
- Chunk

To be 'clutch' by definition, Kobe or Michael or LeBron would have to make a statistically significant higher percentage of shots under pressure (or 'crunch' time). They don't. And the guys who appear to be 'clutch' in one season, don't carry it on from season to season. They revert to their mean.

The data doesn't back you up. And that's not the definition. It's that some players can elevate their performance in 'pressure' or high leverage situations. The data says that the better players are better, no matter the point in the game, and the less talented players play worse, no matter the point of the game.

You'd always prefer a .300 hitter up with runners on in the bottom of the 9th, over a .250 hitter. The .250 hitter does not become better because of the situation, and the .300 hitter does not become worse.
- scottak

The data also said for years that eating eggs was dangerous. Now the data says the egg is a super food...

Two .300 hundred hitters can react completely differently in a high stress situation. One might remain calm enough to still be a .300 hitter. The other might freak out and become a. 200 hitter.

To be 'clutch' by definition, Kobe or Michael or LeBron would have to make a statistically significant higher percentage of shots under pressure (or 'crunch' time). They don't. And the guys who appear to be 'clutch' in one season, don't carry it on from season to season. They revert to their mean.
- scottak

Why does it have to be higher? If they are already the top in the league (as the two mentioned were), simply maintaining that performance in the face of stronger efforts against (by presumably a higher echelon of teams - playoffs), would show a unique ability.

I hold to my previous statement. I think the much more interesting comparison would be the absolute deviation (up or down) of performance from regular games/situations vs the high pressure ones. I think you will find a much higher number of players who notably decline vs those that stay the same or improve a bit.