batmagadanleadoff wrote: Because if a batter had the ability to elevate his hitting in order to bring home the runner on third base, then he'd know enough about the importance of being that runner on third base in the first place. And so therefore, he'd try just as hard in those at bats when no one was on base to get to third base on his own. If a batter had the ability to bat better at key moments, why wouldn't he use those "magic clutch powers" to hit safely at all times, instead of limiting his use of the clutch to RISP's. Wouldn't he wanna bat 1.000 for the season? Wouldn't he wanna hit a homer every time up? And where the hell is the pitcher in all of this? Clutch hitting proponents act as if the pitcher is a superfluous bystander in all of this, without the ability to clutch up himself, and offset the batter's clutchness. With no say or sway in how the at bat ends up. It's all supposedly on the batter's clutchness, who apparently has total control of the at bat. It's absurd. And illogical. Well, if that's your definition of clutch, then yes, it's absurd to think it exists. I think of clutch as a situation more than a personality trait. But if a player is "clutch" I think it means that his knees won't get wobbly when the game is on the line. It's not that he's likely to do better in such situations, but he's also less likely to do worse. Keith Hernandez was clutch. So was Mike Piazza. Is there a stat that can prove it? I would doubt it. But they had a fire in their eye when the game was on the line. They wanted to be at the plate at that big moment. I don't know that that's true of everyone.