RotoGuru Baseball Forum

View the Forum Registry

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread


Self-edit this thread


0 Subject: Clutch/Choke/Collapse

Posted by: Bandos
- [52836313] Thu, Oct 21, 2004, 20:47

There was an interesting discussion in the ALCS thread about this so I thought it might deserve its own thread. After Webster was brought out it seemed like good working definitions are needed. Here is how I see it w/ a list of my top five.

Clutch is overachieving, doing the difficult under immense pressure. There can can clutch performances by individuals or teams. There are so many but here are 5:
1. USA vs USSR 1980
2. Kirk Gibson, 1988
3. Adam Vinatieri, 2001(three times!) AND 2003
4. Mark Messier, game 6 vs. NJ (after calling it)
5. Phil Mickelson, 2004 Masters

Choke: to be unable to do the ROUTINE because of immense pressure. Reserved for the individual and made worse if it causes you or your team to lose the championship.
1. Greg Norman, Masters year?
2. Mariano Rivera, Game 7, throwing away the potential rally killing double play ball vs AZ
3. Tony Fernandez, Game 7 vs. Marlins, routine grounder that led to winning rally.
4. Donyell Marshall, missing TWO free throws vs. Florida with no time left that would have sent CT to final 4 for first time
5. Webber calling timeout to lose Natl Championship

What about Buckner? His error didnt lose the series, the game was already tied. Still a choke, but not one of the biggest. If you question the Rivera one (who gets lots of slack for being soooo good for so long), imagine Foulke doing the same thing this year. So in my mind the Yankees did NOT Choke this year. They got beat. Here is how someone I don't know put it

"A true friend, who is not a baseball fan wrote to congratulate me on the Sox victory. I want my SoSH friends to enjoy it and to consider it.

"I can not claim to be an expert in these matters. But to suggest or even claim that this result was somehow attributable to a collapse of the Yankees or their pitching staff or whatever, I find to be without merit, insulting and offensive to the very character of the accomplishment. The simple fact was that Boston played virtually error-less baseball, hung in there (excepting the slaughter in game 3) against all odds and events and, in fact, hit anything and everything the Yankee pitchers could deliver "on their best day". The Yankees did not fail, they were beaten by a superior ball club - its that simple; in a history making fashion; not by force of score so much as by character and the will to persevere! The curse is not that the Yankees collapsed, but that even at their best and having their opponent down for the count, superior resolve and performance won out in a historical and record setting manner. To suggest anything else, I believe would be an attempt to tarnish one of the greatest accomplishments in the game "by a team", working and playing together!

So, I salute you and your Red Sox and wish them the best in the World Series - it would be the perfect and most appropriate ending to this fairy tale beginning."

Humbly yours,

WW "

WW is wrong about one thing - it was a collapse. Actually it defines collapse. Collapse is when a team or individual is so far ahead that merely playing adequtely will secure victory:

1. 2004 Yankees, up 3-0, with a lead in the ninth in game 4 and the eight in game 5
2. Oilers/Bills
3. Portland/LA
4. Greg Norman (gets on both lists)
5. Boston Red Sox 1978, losing 14 1/2 game lead, then losing playoff game (though some credit must be given to them for forcing the playoff game on the last day)

So what do you think. I am sure I missed VERY obvious others so please fell free to add, debate etc.
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well.
69leggestand
      Leader
      ID: 451036518
      Fri, Oct 22, 2004, 12:36
MITH, I have been looking over the two threads, and I am having a hard time finding where you put your definition down. Please don't take my head enough, it's just a lot of posts and I could have easily missed it.

I think the definition Taste supplied, though, shows that it was indeed a choke.
70Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 2824911
      Fri, Oct 22, 2004, 12:40
See post 10 and also the following from Gladwell:
Human beings sometimes falter under pressure. Pilots crash and divers drown. Under the glare of competition, basketball players cannot find the basket and golfers cannot find the pin. When that happens, we say variously that people have "panicked" or, to use the sports colloquialism, "choked." But what do those words mean? Both are pejoratives. To choke or panic is considered to be as bad as to quit. But are all forms of failure equal? And what do the forms in which we fail say about who we are and how we think?We live in an age obsessed with success, with documenting the myriad ways by which talented people overcome challenges and obstacles. There is as much to be learned, though, from documenting the myriad ways in which talented people sometimes fail.

"Choking" sounds like a vague and all-encompassing term, yet it describes a very specific kind of failure.

==================

When Jana Novotna faltered at Wimbledon, it was because she began thinking about her shots again. She lost her fluidity, her touch. She double-faulted on her serves and mis-hit her overheads, the shots that demand the greatest sensitivity in force and timing. She seemed like a different person--playing with the slow, cautious deliberation of a beginner--because, in a sense, she was a beginner again: she was relying on a learning system that she hadn't used to hit serves and overhead forehands and volleys since she was first taught tennis, as a child. The same thing has happened to Chuck Knoblauch, the New York Yankees' second baseman, who inexplicably has had trouble throwing the ball to first base. Under the stress of playing in front of forty thousand fans at Yankee Stadium, Knoblauch finds himself reverting to explicit mode, throwing like a Little Leaguer again.
71leggestand
      Leader
      ID: 451036518
      Fri, Oct 22, 2004, 12:52
Okay, Thanks MITH.

The problem I have with these definitions is that it is all individual based. These definitions make it virtually impossible to ever say that a team choked, when in fact teams choking definitely occurs.

If you do have such a strict view of choking, I would like to hear some examples of when you see team choking? Do you think teams are capable of choking?
72Tastethewaste
      ID: 22841815
      Fri, Oct 22, 2004, 13:01
from other thread MITH Choking is ugly. It is bumbling. It is a display of ineptness. Sometimes it is a matter of looking severly overmatched. Other times it is a brain-fart.

I guess then you dont see managers making critical mistakes when the games on the line as a brain fart and in which case choking. If you do then we have the same definition.

2001 World Series-Grace Singled, Miller sac bunt, rivera threw away for error, Bell bunted Mariano got the lead runner on the play but Brosius didnt throw to first, vapor lock, couldve had the DP.
Womack singled to tie the game Rivera then hit Counsell and gonzalez won it on the bloop.

Sounds like an everything that could go wrong did go wrong inning. I understand you blocking it out.
73Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 2824911
      Fri, Oct 22, 2004, 13:20
leggestand
Do you think teams are capable of choking?

Well, the team goes down with the player that loses it for them. So I'd likly agree with saying the team choked when they lost because one of their players did.

But I'd say that for a true 'team choke', you'd need a string of bumbling plays.

Also, I don't agree at all with your post 55 conclusion that something major must be on the line, or that the favorite losing under those circumstances is always a choke.

TTW, I don't think coach/manager decisions can be called chokes when they are thought out, unless the coach fails to realize some obvious reason for why his decision was a bad idea. A poor decision (like placing undue trust in a pitcher) does not constitute a choke. For example, I have no idea why the Yankees didn't bunt against Schilling to force him to run on his ankle. In my opinion, that was a managerial failure on Torre's part, but not a choke.
74leggestand
      Leader
      ID: 451036518
      Fri, Oct 22, 2004, 13:28
Also, I don't agree at all with your post 55 conclusion that something major must be on the line, or that the favorite losing under those circumstances is always a choke.

Fair enough. I just disagree. I think it has to be a choke if a team is so overwhelmingly favored and doesn't win. Again, I am not saying that in all games that mean something, a team has to choke, I am only talking about the rare case when something is overwhelmingly expected to happen, and it doesn't.
75Khahan
      ID: 2884979
      Fri, Oct 22, 2004, 13:33
Hey, for the record, not all people saying the Yankees collapse was a choke are Yankee fans. And not all Red Sox fans are saying that.
I'm a Red Sox fan, always have been, always will be.
And I support that the Yankees did not choke.
Boston simply outplayed them.
Again, I reiterate this point, the height of egotism for Yankees fans who do claim a choke:
The Yankees put together a 3 game win streak. Its cause the Yankees are so great.
The Red Sox put together a 4 game win streak against the Yankees. Its not because Boston is great, its because the Yankees choked.

That is pure ego and nothing else (well maybe its also BS).
The fact is, Boston won 4 games in a row because they played better baseball than the Yankees.
Before that, the Yankees won 3 games in a row because they played better baseball than the Red Sox.

For you Red Sox fans who want to cry choke at the Yankees, how about thinking of your supposed own team for once, huh? These are the same fans who think that because Boston won the ALCS against the Yankees that its all over. These are the same fans who are satisfied to beat the Yankees in the regular season series even if the Sox don't make the playoffs. These are the same so-called fans who are so focused on hating the yankees, they often forget what team they claim to really like!

Give Boston the credit they are due. They played damn good baseball over the last 4 games. You can sit here and pick apart a hanful of individual plays that went wrong for the Yankees. But on a whole, they played well. They just didn't play as well as Boston.

Go Red Sox! 2004 World Series champs in 6.
76Tastethewaste
      ID: 22841815
      Fri, Oct 22, 2004, 13:38
Surely theres a difference between the colossal brain fart by Grady Little to let Pedro keep pitching despite his laboring the inning before, despite that Pedro hadnt gone more than 7 innings in god knows how long, despite a lefty coming up and a lefty in the bullpen warming up and ready to go for this exact situation, despite that opponents hit .370 off of Pedro when he reached the pitch count he was at at that moment and despite that his bullpen had been lights out throughout the playoffs and
torre deciding over 7 innings not to have a yankee bunt, when only Jeter and perhaps Cairo can bunt even remotely efficient. Are you really going to have Tony Clark, Jorge Posada, Gary Sheffield, Bernie Williams, Alex Rodriguez, or Ruben Sierra bunt?
Which scenario seems like someone cracking under the pressure of the moment?
77Tastethewaste
      ID: 22841815
      Fri, Oct 22, 2004, 13:42
And how is committing 7 errors in a huge game after being outplayed 3 games in a row in a battle for first place after having a 14 1/2 game lead not a choke in your mind Mith? Its a choke and a collapse.
78leggestand
      Leader
      ID: 451036518
      Fri, Oct 22, 2004, 13:45
The Yankees put together a 3 game win streak. Its cause the Yankees are so great.

I didn't see anyone say that, but, anyhow, three games doesn't win the series. If the Yankees win the series 4-0, I think the Red Sox can be labeled as having choked because they couldn't even pull off one win. In baseball (moreso than any other sport), not being able to beat a relatively even matched team one out of four times happens a lot less often than a team winning 1 of 4 or 2 of 4.

The Red Sox put together a 4 game win streak against the Yankees. Its not because Boston is great, its because the Yankees choked.

It doesn't matter how well the Red Sox played. How many times have the Red Sox beaten the Yankees four straight times? (I really don't know the answer). How many times has a team come back from down 3-0 to win the series? Zero. So what, the Red Sox played good (or great!). Boston played great in Game 4...um, wait so did the Yankees...but they lost...so, isn't it possible to play great and lose? Baseball playoffs hardly have sweeps and playing great doesn't transition to winning all the time. What Boston effectively did was sweep the Yankees 4-0. The Yankees choked.
79Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 2824911
      Fri, Oct 22, 2004, 13:49
Which scenario seems like someone cracking under the pressure of the moment?

Neither. Little made a decision based on his faith in Pedro or lack of faith in his pen or a hunch or whatever. But I doubt he left him in there due to being frozen from the pressure of the moment.

Personally, I would have hit Lofton or Cairo second and and the other 9th and did everything I could to force Schilling to run around on the damp grass. If Jeter and the no 2 hitter failed to get anyone on base or move Schilling around, I would have bunted ARod. When the #9 hitter gets up, that's 4 potential bunters in a row.

Its a cheap ploy, and I suspect that Torre wouldn't consider resorting to that tactic up 3-2 and coming back to NY. I think the sports world and the Gurupie collective would have called it bush league, but getting to the WS via questionable means is better than watching it on TV. I would have told the media my plan as soon as Schilling was given the nod to start.
80clv
      Sustainer
      ID: 5911351713
      Fri, Oct 22, 2004, 13:50
After reading his initial post a little more carefully, I don't think Bandos started the thread strictly because it would carry on the spirited banter between Yanks and Sox fans, but to simply discuss "choking" in general. To that end (and just for arguments' sake) I will mention that EACH person's definition of "choking" will almost always differ from another's. To wit (and since he had it rated #1):

1996 Masters

While many in the media (and others who haven't played competitive golf at a professional level) continue to label Faldo's win as Norman's "choke", consider the following...

The field that made Friday's cut consisted of 44 players. Of those 44 players' Sunday scores -

1) The stroke average for the field was 73.68 (which Faldo bested by almost 7 full shots).
2) 12 players (or 27%) broke par.
3) Only 5 players (11.36%) shot sub-70 rounds. (Faldo - 67, Love - 68, Mize - 68, Nobilo - 69, and Maggert - 69)
4) 7 players (15.9%) shot 78 (Norman's score) or worse.
5) Another 6 players (13.6%) shot 76 or 77.
6) Another 5 players (11.3%) shot worse than the field's stroke average for the day - meaning that a total of 18 players (40.9%) shot worse than the field's average, compared with 17 players (38.6%) who broke 70.

The point is that those numbers can be made to argue whichever side of the argument you'd like. Being a Norman fan, I'm rather surprised I never looked at those numbers this closely. Being a former golf professional, I understand there are times that your mind seems to get "out of control" in the heat of the competition, however, the fact of the matter in Norman's situation is simply that there were just as many players on THAT Sunday that had things go wrong as he did, and that Faldo simply did not, and seized every opportunity given to him.

Sounds alot like the last three games of the ALCS to me.

That's why I mentioned the 1978 Sox' "collapse" MITH - if anyone else has that big a lead that late in the season (or tournament), should they not be expected to win? If so, why does Norman's Sunday qualify any more than Boston's terrible stretch-run (where they had to win their last 8 games of the regular season just to force the 163rd game)?




81Khahan
      ID: 2884979
      Fri, Oct 22, 2004, 13:53
So leggstand, which is it:
Did the Yankees play great?
Boston played great in Game 4...um, wait so did the Yankees...but they lost...so, isn't it possible to play great and lose? (which by the way, is exactly my point)

or did the Yankees choke?
What Boston effectively did was sweep the Yankees 4-0. The Yankees choked.

One thing I would assume we can all agree on is that playing great and choking cannot both be applied to the same scenario. By definition, choking is not playing great.
82clv
      Sustainer
      ID: 5911351713
      Fri, Oct 22, 2004, 13:54
(Sorry - the statement in #6 above should read that 17 players broke par.)
83biliruben
      ID: 441182916
      Fri, Oct 22, 2004, 13:55
While they certainly choked, not withstanding any pathetic and sad attempts to suggest the contrary in this thread, it should be noted that if an historic chicken bone was going to be lodged in any team's esophogus, it was far more likely to happen to a team that is perennially in the playoffs than any other team.

Just a small bone thrown to the stripers.
84Tastethewaste
      ID: 22841815
      Fri, Oct 22, 2004, 13:56
so, isn't it possible to play great and lose? Baseball playoffs hardly have sweeps and playing great doesn't transition to winning all the time

Exactly, so if the yankees played great just not as great as the redsox why do you consider it a choke?

I cant think of one team that got swept in a world series or even lost 4 straight that were considered chokers just because they lost 4 straight. Not the 1999 Braves, the 98 Padres, 96 Braves, the 90 A's, 89 Giants, 81 yankees, 78 dodgers.

Just because the redsox did something unprecedented and the yankees were the victim doesnt neccessarily make them chokers. The only real example ive even seen used besides being up 3-0 and losing the series is Rivera blowing a save. If you equate having a 3-0 lead in a series and then blowing the save (when there should be virtually no consequence except being up 3-1 and therefore not nearly the pressure involved in choking) as a choke then theres no point in debating, we just have differing opinions.
85Tree
      ID: 76471215
      Fri, Oct 22, 2004, 14:03
Buckner choked because he had a routine play and couldnt get his glove down.

isn't winning but one of four games a "routine play"?

No one has ever said the redsox choked for giving up a homerun to bucky dent. They choked by blowing a 14 1/2 game lead in August...

hey, didn't the Yankees blow a three-game lead in October? that's Choke City.

86Tastethewaste
      ID: 22841815
      Fri, Oct 22, 2004, 14:05
BTW Mith, just to clarify post 63, PD my definition is corroborated from 4 different sources. You seem to feel that Razor and Tastethewaste are somehow more accurate from three dictionaries, including a sports-specific dictionary and Malcom Gladwell.

in the original discussion in the other thread i was the one who cited the sports dictionary as the definition of a choke that leggestand then used against me.
87Tastethewaste
      ID: 22841815
      Fri, Oct 22, 2004, 14:09
tree, come on, dont take my quote out of context

full quote: No one has ever said the redsox choked for giving up a homerun to bucky dent. They choked by blowing a 14 1/2 game lead in August...

which might have been considered a collapse until you look at the Boston Massacre (the september series of that year where not only was it an utter meltdown but the sox made 7 errors in 1 game! They collapsed and choked that day and that series to let the yankees get in the pennant race.

As for isn't winning but one of four games a "routine play"?

so youre of the belief that any team in playoff history that loses 4 straight has choked?
88yankeeh8tr
      ID: 5918714
      Fri, Oct 22, 2004, 14:12
RE mith 44

*laughing*

If you've got nothing better to do than dissect my posts today, mith, then you've got waay too much time to kill.

But in the spirit of good sportsmanship, I'd like to point out a few things:

- I fully acknowledged that some Yankee fans were congratulatory. If I didn't mention you by name, please accept my apologies.

- I never accused you personally of spelling out the individual moments of Red Sox chokery that I outlined above, but most Yankee fans will tick them off as a litany, along with the 1918 chant and "the curse". Also, for the record, I didn't claim (nor would I ever) that those moments weren't anything but the Sox choking, big time.

I realise that choking is new for you, and so recognize the fact that you're going thru the denial and anger stages right now - it get easier, I promise.

And as for your ad hominem, I have nothing to say other than if publicly and repeatedly stating my empathy for how Yankee fans feel today makes me a spoiled whiner, then I am guilty. But I was under the impression that I at least need to make a deroggatory statement to be petulant. If anything, I've been as gracious in victory as I am humble in defeat, because I fully recognize the job isn't finished yet.
89leggestand
      Leader
      ID: 451036518
      Fri, Oct 22, 2004, 14:13
Khahan (81)

That isn't what I believe, it was just what people are saying as an excuse. The Yankees didn't play great in Game 4. Rivera blew a save, and as MITH said "Well, the team goes down with the player that loses it for them. So I'd likly agree with saying the team choked when they lost because one of their players did." Now, Rivera choking/not choking is debatable, but I believe he choked because blowing saves in the playoffs is not what he "routinely" does. And, if the Yankees choke, then by definition they did not play great. IMO, they also did not play great in games 5-7.


Taste: 84
Exactly, so if the yankees played great just not as great as the redsox why do you consider it a choke?

The Yankees did not play great in game 4, for reasons I just mentioned to Khahan. And yes, you can play great and lose...but this does not apply to the Yankees. They did not play great in games 5-7, and they only needed one win. Although this point is moot, if the Yankees had played great in games 4-7, they would have won one of them. I was talking more about a single game. As you play more games, the probability of losing more than you win gets smaller.

I can't speak to all your examples of sweeps, but I can speak to the 90 A's. I am a big Reds fan, and at the time it was seen as a choke to be swept by the Reds. The A's were overwhelming favorites, and they couldn't even win a game.
90Tastethewaste
      ID: 22841815
      Fri, Oct 22, 2004, 14:21
Legg, again upsets arent necessarily chokes.

i take back post 84 then. I misunderstood your point. For the record i think the yankees played very well, boston was better. Except for game 7 where the yankees were god awful.
91Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 2824911
      Fri, Oct 22, 2004, 14:26
Yh8er

I realise that choking is new for you, and so recognize the fact that you're going thru the denial and anger stages right now - it get easier, I promise.

This is silly. Of course I know what it is to see my team choke. As TTW points out, the 2001 WS was a prime example. And I'm a Jets fan for chrisake. That you have a liberal understanding for a term with a specific meaning does not make people with higher standards a bunch of whiners.
92Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 2824911
      Fri, Oct 22, 2004, 14:59
Regarding the 78 season, the Red Sox did not choke in losing their big lead. The had a tough two and a half week stretch in early September, going 3-13 and falling into 2nd place. The Sox actually finished up that season very strong, going 12-2 to bring themselves back to a tie on the final game of the season, setting the stage for the famous 1 game playoff.

Sorry, but but a 16 game-long slump within a 163 game season isn't choking, whether you follow that with a 12-2 roll that puts you back in the race or not.
93holt
      ID: 497552
      Fri, Oct 22, 2004, 15:20
remember goosen a few years ago missing all those short putts on the 18th hole? I was looking up info on that so I could remember what happenned and stumbled onto this:

Science of the choke
'Performance anxiety' happens to all of us -- and many recover

By Nancy Imperiale Wellons and George Diaz
The Orlando Sentinel



Call it stage fright or performance anxiety, it strikes people in all walks of life.

Three professional golfers flubbed easy shots this weekend in a fantastic display of flubbery at the final hole of the U.S. Open.

Oops, we used flub twice--blowing our chance at a great lead!

It's called choking. Tanking. Stage fright. Performance anxiety. And it happens to all of us.

Players Retief Goosen, Mark Brooks and Stewart Cink all missed putts on No. 18 Sunday from inside six feet, stunning millions of TV viewers.

Goosen came back to beat Brooks in a playoff Monday, proving that he's a champ and not a chump.

``The thing he had to do was get back on track,'' said Robert Schleser, director of the Illinois Institute of Technology's Center for Sport and Performance Psychology. After flubbing, Goosen ``needed to step away from that ball, clear his mind of that 1/8bad3/8 stroke, take a couple of deep breaths, and pull himself back from the situation. Pros are different from weekend hackers, but all have to do the same thing--slow down and concentrate on each shot as it comes.

``Yogi Berra said it best: `You can't think and hit the ball at the same time.' ``

Still, Monday's win lacked the dramatic impact of Sunday's wimp-out.

Perhaps it's because seeing top athletes choke makes our own failures easier to swallow.

``People at the top or in the public eye are under more pressure, but it can happen to anyone,'' said Dr. Carole Lieberman, a Beverly Hills psychiatrist who works with celebrities.

``The more pressure there is, the more that is riding on your performance, the more likely you are to choke, because it brings up memories and feelings from the past that can cause you to sabotage yourself.

``Consciously, you're focused on the game,'' she added. ``But unconsciously, you're back in childhood and dealing with issues like sibling rivalry.'''' Without resorting to name calling, another expert disagreed.

``I say the primary reasons an individual chokes is that their thoughts are not in the present, they're in the future,'' said Charles Maher, a Rutgers University psychology professor who consults with professional athletes. .

``When your thoughts are in the future, you become tense, your breathing is shallow, you put pressure on yourself ,'' Maher said. ``If you start thinking about being in the lead and having a good chance to win, it just magnifies the pressure.''

And makes for fascinating, if smug, TV viewing.

``It was pretty pathetic. I think you or I could make a two-foot putt,'' said Karl Righter, 57, an Orlando professional speaker and past district governor of Toastmasters International. ``You have to prepare for the worst that can happen . . . And you must always remember that your worst enemy is yourself, thinking you're gonna make mistakes or you can't do it. ``

Plenty of stars reportedly suffer from performance anxiety, including singer Aretha Franklin, NBC weatherman Willard Scott, former first lady Rosalynn Carter, actress Kim Basinger and talk-show host Oprah Winfrey.

Singer Donny Osmond had such a bad case of stage fright he once said, ``There were times when if I had been able to choose between going on stage or dying, I would have chosen death.''

Choking is a common theme woven in sports history.

-- The underachieving Baltimore Colts giving rise to Broadway Joe Namath's prediction before Super Bowl III in January of 1969.

-- The infamous ground ball scooting under the legs of Boston Red Sox first baseman Bill Buckner in Game 6 against the New York Mets in the 1986 World Series;

-- Orlando Magic guard Nick Anderson missing four consecutive free throws in the closing seconds of regulation in Game 1 of the 1995 NBA Finals against the Houston Rockets in 1995.

-- France's Jean Van de Velde blowing a three-stroke lead on the final hole of the 1999 British Open.

``Accusing an athlete of choking is probably the most disparaging thing you can say about them because it goes to the core of your confidence and preparation to compete,'' said Reggie Williams, vice president of Disney Sports Attractions and a standout linebacker with the Cincinnati Bengals for 14 seasons.

Some coaches consider certain sports such as golf, tennis and figure skating to be 90 percent mental, giving rise to the industry of sports psychology over the last three decades. The U.S. Olympic Committee had one full-time sports psychologist in 1988. By 2000, that number was five.

In Central Florida, LGE Performance Systems includes tennis pros Pete Sampras and Jim Courier, and golf pros Mark O'Meara and Ernie Els among its clients.

``It's the mental, emotional and physical preparation for the moment,'' said Marti Ludwig, a performance psychologist at LGE. ``But until you've been in that moment, that competitive heat, it's hard to prepare for. ``

Early Sunday evening, the moment unraveled into misery for Goosen, who three-putted from 10 feet for a bogey, when a chippy two-putt would have given him the U.S. Open title at Southern Hills Country Club.

Goosen was able to gather himself Monday afternoon, beating Brooks in a playoff.

``If an athlete dwells on the drama of yesterday,'' Ludwig said, ``it becomes more difficult to prepare today.''

Katy Miller of the Orlando Sentinel staff contributed to this story.
94holt
      ID: 497552
      Fri, Oct 22, 2004, 15:43
good article about van de velde's choke.

here's another good article. i don't think I can post the webpage because it's in pdf format:


In case you haven’t seen the December 2002 issue of Golf Magazine yet, be sure to pick up a copy.
There’s a very interesting article in there about choking: why we do it and how to stop. It comes complete
with a bunch of helpful lists such as “Most Common Chokes,” “How to Spot a Choke,” and “How to
Chokeproof Your Game.” My favorite part, however, is the list of the “Top 10 Chokes in Majors.” Not to be
sadistic, but these folks will never live these down if they live to be 237. So since we’re not telling them
anything their grandchildren won’t, let’s take a closer look, shall we?
One of the first things I noticed about the list was that half of them occurred since 1989 and all
except two were since the 1961 Masters. We’ll let Sam Snead slide for his triple bogey on the final hole of
the 1939 U.S Open. He only needed par to win, but let’s be honest: it was 63 years ago! He didn’t have
the benefit of electronic scoreboards throughout the course and, consequently, not knowing where he stood
he gambled on the final hole. So that leaves us with nine to go. Of course, any list of choking and/or just
plain bad luck in Majors has the obligatory Norman factor. And Greg’s collapse in the 1996 Masters is
indeed on their list—number one in fact. But Norman’s curse in Majors is well documented and, in my
opinion, played out. So let’s cut the guy a break and take a look at the others. In the interest of time, I’ll
touch on my favorites from the list, in no particular order.
In the unfortunate circumstance that earned him the unfair nickname Scott “Choke,” we have Scott
Hoch’s brain cramp on the first playoff hole of the 1989 Masters. I still remember seeing it live on television
and just sitting there, waiting for him to reach over with his putter, rake the ball back to him and getting a
“do-over.” Did that just happen? From two feet? Twenty-four inches? How many people in your foursome
would even make you putt one from that close? No one will ever forget that putt unless Hoch wins 23
Majors in the remainder of his career. Who are we kidding—he’ll always be haunted by it.
Another putting nightmare: Retief Goosen’s debacle on the final hole of the 2001 U.S Open. Three
putts from 12 feet on the final hole of regulation dropped the South African into a playoff—one he eventually
went on the win. Otherwise his career would be forever seen in a different light (see Scott Hoch above).
But what was sooooo scary about Goosen’s choke was that after two putts from 12 feet, he still had to hole
one from a hair over three feet to make the playoff! Talk about unnerving. But let’s not forget about Stewart
Cink. He didn’t make Golf Magazine’s list, but in hindsight, his 15-footer on 18 that day would have won him
his first Major. Instead, he left himself a two-footer; which he consequently stabbed by the hole and carded
a three putt himself to miss the playoff between Goosen and Mark Brooks on Monday. In the end, Goosen
got what amounted to the Mother of all mulligans and won the Open in an 18-hole playoff with a round of 70
and, to his credit, some hot putting.
T.C. “Two Chip” Chen. This was another one of those things you see on television and think to
yourself, “Did I just see what I saw?” Who can forget the ball—in mid air—careening off his wedge for a
second time from just off the edge of the green in the 1985 U.S Open? How man of you tried to do it
yourself on the practice green at your course the next day? It’s hard enough to do it when you try to do it,
let alone a guy good enough to be winning the Open by four strokes on Sunday. His eventual meltdown
would be pretty much the last we heard of Mr. Chen.
That brings us to my all-time “favorite.” Jean Van de Velde and the 1999 British Open. It seems
like only yesterday the Frenchman was standing up to his shins in the cold water of the hazard that criss-
crosses the 72
nd
hole at Carnoustie. It was painful to watch as the throngs of spectators—both on the
course and at home—begged him to stop and just make a double! It was almost as painful as watching hip
replacement surgery on the Discovery Channel. The type of thing you don’t really want to watch, but your
animal instincts get the better of you and you watch it anyway. Hip replacement surgery seems to me to be
more akin to carpentry than surgery, and Van de Velde’s trials and tribulations at the 1999 British Open
were more like a root canal or the torture technique where they stick bamboo shoots under your fingernails.
Personally, I blame Jean’s caddy to some degree. When your player needs nothing more than a double to
win the British Open, throw away the driver. For that matter, throw away everything except a 7-iron and a
putter. He could’ve easily made a bogey with that and probably a par. Of course, if it were that easy to
avoid, there probably wouldn’t be an article about it in Golf Magazine.

95Khahan
      ID: 2884979
      Fri, Oct 22, 2004, 16:00
You know, I've been taking this pretty lightly, just as a fun little disagreement. But I never for the life of me thought we would generate nearly 90 posts dissecting 'what kind of loss' the Yankees suffered.
Whether they choked, collapsed, fell apart or were simply outplayed, they still lost.
I don't know. I just find some humor in the fact that we are dissecting what kind of defeat one team suffered as if it would make some kind of difference in reality of the situation.
96clv
      Sustainer
      ID: 5911351713
      Fri, Oct 22, 2004, 17:07
#s 93 and 94 lean more to my opinion of "choking" (if I even believe it exists at all) - thanks holt.

Those were more to my personal point, that while I might tend to agree that on ONE stroke, or ONE out, or ONE shot, when a competitor does the unthinkable, I can understand why it might be termed "choking".

The difference between those and the 1996 Masters (and 1978 Red Sox) is that they were one specific event. Norman's "collapse" had much more involved than one single gaffe commited by him. In interviews I've read with both Norman and Faldo sice that day, BOTH of them have made the statement (several times) that Norman struck the ball as well as Faldo all afternoon, but got several bad breaks (and compounded one or two himself), while EVERY time Faldo was in the same positions, the ball bounced in his favor. IMO, the same can be said of the 1978 Sox' "collapse" - over the course of the last 65-70 games (amazingly close to the number of shots struck that day in Augusta), seemingly everything that could have gone wrong for the Red Sox did, while the exact opposite occured for the Yankees.
97Wilmer McLean
      ID: 075249
      Sat, Oct 23, 2004, 03:16
Just my insecurity, but I just want to know if MITH agrees with my #14 post - a collapse and a choke. Regards his rationale highly.

--------------------------------------------

Just a thought on clutch/choke/collapse - (disregarding the law of averages) What would one call the Cub, Red Sox, White Sox, Clippers, etc. management result? Choke may be for the performers on the field, but what term is for management?
98Bandos
      ID: 167221614
      Sat, Oct 23, 2004, 07:16
Incompetence. Bill Lee was on ESPN Classic last night and made the claim that each time the Sox fell a bit short, there was an awful managerial decision behind it. Interesting.
99TDM
      ID: 19946106
      Sat, Oct 23, 2004, 08:37
I'm shocked that Bill Lee didn't think the Red Sox losing was related to New World Order.

He also believes Don Zimmer wanted the Red Sox to lose while he was in Boston.
100Khahan
      ID: 31854515
      Sat, Oct 23, 2004, 09:21
Unfortunately, I still believe that managerial incompetence may cost the Red Sox the World Series.
Francona is better than Jimy Williams ever was. But I still say the Sox got to the post season and made into the WS despite Francona's decisions.
I think his player first attitude is great for that clubhouse and helped a lot. But a lot of his decisions for on field are questionable at best.
101Joe Torre
      ID: 26926237
      Sat, Oct 23, 2004, 09:26
102clv
      Sustainer
      ID: 5911351713
      Mon, Oct 25, 2004, 11:26
Not a Sox (or Yankees fan) in particular, but I'd agree with Kahan...have read several discussions about some "questionable" decisions Francona's made during the season, then watched in awe the other night when he left Pedro out there as he approached and passed his 100 pitch "crash-and-burn zone"...I will say I thought his decision to go to Foulke last night in the 8th was a good one IMO - save-situation or not, he wasn't about to let the Cards get a rally started against Timlin - if they were going to pull that one out, they were going to have to earn it against his "stud".
103tastethewaste
      ID: 24655814
      Thu, Oct 28, 2004, 12:43
So the Cardinals lost 4 straight, 2 at home, had the better record, their lineup didnt hit, especially their big guns. Suppan vapor locked on the bases and they never managed a lead in the 4 game series...

So all you choke lovers...was this a choke?
104Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 2824911
      Thu, Oct 28, 2004, 12:50
Of course not, but in order to validate their desire to paint the Yankees as chokers they have little choice.
105KrazyKoalaBears
      Leader
      ID: 517553018
      Thu, Oct 28, 2004, 12:54
No choke, IMHO. The Cards weren't 3 outs away from winning the World Series. They never had victory even close to within sight. The same cannot be said of the Yankees. To me, the Cards just flat-out got beat. Sure, they had the better record, but one could now argue that the AL is better than the NL. Or, maybe Boston's pitching really is THAT good.

No matter what, the Cards never controlled their own destiny in this series; they never had a lead, of any sort, to protect. The Yankees did and they failed to get 3 key outs with the ball in their hands.

106leggestand
      Leader
      ID: 451036518
      Thu, Oct 28, 2004, 13:31
No choke by the Cards, even though their batters sometimes looked lost out there (like the forgot how to hit).

Taste, I think you misunderstand my posts, as evidenced by your post 90 ("all upsets are not chokes"). I agree that all upsets are not chokes, but, an overwhelming (key word I have used many times) favorite has to have some sort of choke to lose (again, I said chokes can be measured).

The only team that put themselves in a position to choke in the WS were the Red Sox. At the start of:

Game 1: No favorite (maybe the Cards a slight favorite)
Game 2: Red Sox, slight favorite
Game 3: Red Sox, favorite
Game 4: Red Sox, overwhelming favorite

Once we hit the start of Game 4, the Red Sox were in a position to choke (if they lose the WS). At no other point was any team in a position to choke in regards to winning or losing the series (there are positions to choke on a game by game basis, but this is more big picture).
107tastethewaste
      ID: 24655814
      Thu, Oct 28, 2004, 13:36
earlier post KKB

My person definition is: Not performing as would be normally expected during a high-pressure situation that directly results in your team losing and/or not winning when they should have.

Nowhere does it say have to control own destiny for it to be a choke. The Cards performed below expectations in a high pressure situation that directly resulted in 4 straight losses, just like the yankees. The only difference is the yankees showed up for 3 of their games. The cards got blasted out of their series.

I dont think its a choke either but i dont see the difference in the 2 except that one team played great for 3 games while another played great for 0 games.

108tastethewaste
      ID: 24655814
      Thu, Oct 28, 2004, 13:49
Legg earlier post

If the Yankees win the series 4-0, I think the Red Sox can be labeled as having choked because they couldn't even pull off one win. In baseball (moreso than any other sport), not being able to beat a relatively even matched team one out of four times happens a lot less often than a team winning 1 of 4 or 2 of 4.

How does this not apply to the Cardinals.

Also going back to Riveras game 4 performance. Dont you think what happens during the blown save should maybe factor in. If there are levels of choking as youve said earlier then this would be the lowest level possible.

A 1 run lead against a team that has had success against Rivera in the past. Pressure shouldnt be on Rivera since even if he does blow the save they have 3 more cracks at winning the series. He gives up a walk (choke?). Francona makes a good decision by pinch running and Roberts steals 2nd (choke?) he then scores on a single up the middle (choke?)to a guy who previously hit one out of the ballpark on him. Rivera then gets out of the inning with no further damage.

Again Game 7 2001 World Series, Rivera walked a battere hit a batter threw a ball away for an error and Brosius froze on the next sac bunt when they had a chance at a double play. That is a choke.

This was not.
109Tree
      ID: 76471215
      Thu, Oct 28, 2004, 13:51
the difference between the cardinals losing four straight to the Red Sox and the yankees losing four straight to the Red Sox is night and day.

The Yankees were three outs from winning the series, up three games to one. and they lost. something that has never happened in MLB history. ever. EVER.

The Cardinals went down 4-0 after the first inning in game one, and except for briefly tying the Sox for one inning in that game, never had a prayer.

it's just another attempt to save face and avoid the reality - the Yankees choked like no team in baseball history.
110tastethewaste
      ID: 24655814
      Thu, Oct 28, 2004, 13:58
Tree
Just because something has never happened before doesnt make it a choke.
Im getting pretty tired of hearing im trying to spin a situation to satisfy my needs. I have no interest other than to try to prove that this case wasnt a choke. Ive admitted my sacred yankees have choked more than 1 time in this thread, including the thread just before yours.

Tree earlier post

isn't winning but one of four games a "routine play"?

Cards couldnt do it.
111KrazyKoalaBears
      Leader
      ID: 517553018
      Thu, Oct 28, 2004, 14:03
It's just a basic definition. I don't apply it as a be-all and end-all definition for all circumstances.

To me, there was no "as would be normally expected" because I had no idea what to expect of the Cards facing Boston. That's always a problem with the World Series. Look at last year, when the Yankees were overwhelming favorites to win it all.

The way I see it, if a team is in complete control of its own destiny, like the Yankees having the ball in their hands to make only 3 outs to go to the World Series, and they fail, then I would consider that a choke. If a team is never in the series to begin with, I don't see where they've shown anything except futility. Could it have been a choke on the big stage? I suppose, but looking at the series, I personally think Boston was just a better team and showed it.

112leggestand
      Leader
      ID: 451036518
      Thu, Oct 28, 2004, 14:12
Hmmm, I see what your saying taste, and maybe I wasn't specific enough on how I phrased my earlier thoughts (or perhaps you have given me an opportunity to deepen my thoughts about choking).

The Cards and Yanks were in two different positions. The Yanks had a goal to win 1 game in 4, while the Cardinals goal was to win 4 games in 7, 4 games in 6, 4 games in 5, 4 games in 4. I don't think it is neccessarily choking when these are your "odds." It's also the reason why, if the Red Sox had won 1 of the 1st 3 games of the ALCS, the Yankees probably would not have been labeled as having choked.

Overall, I am unsure about the Cards choking. After the game last night I wondered if you would post something in this thread asking if the Cards choked. I am probably still on the fence (as evienced by my somewhat flip-flop inital post), plus I didn't watch much of the series until game 4 (it just didn't draw me in). From what I saw in Game 4, it looked like some of the Cards lacked confidence at the plate, although their hitting was the primary culprit of getting them to the WS. Could that be considered choking because they didn't look like the Cards anymore? Possibly.
113tastethewaste
      ID: 24655814
      Thu, Oct 28, 2004, 14:17
After the game last night I wondered if you would post something in this thread asking if the Cards choked

Awwww, you wonder about me? :)
114Motley Crue
      Leader
      ID: 439372011
      Thu, Oct 28, 2004, 14:23
And let's say for a second that the Cardinals choked. So what?

Everyone who doesn't love the Yankees, HATES the Yankees. All of the rest of the baseball universe is gleefully rejoicing in the fact that the performance demonstrated by the Yankees starting in Game 4 of the ALCS (in the 9th inning precisely) was an utter, embarrasing failure of proportions which no one has ever seen before. And that's simply because it has never happened in the history of organized, high quality, professional American sports. They took the Choke Cake, so to speak.
115Micheal
      ID: 25381417
      Thu, Oct 28, 2004, 16:28
Haha, the Yankees made Page 2's cursed list. It's the Curse of Luis Gonzalez's Gum.

116walk
      ID: 588463010
      Thu, Oct 28, 2004, 16:56
I still feel like my boys choked. When the pressure mounted in those games, they failed to come through with any runs, key hits, or seemingly any hits at all. Then, when the pressure mounted for Gordon, he vomits, and ficks up the games. Matsui, Sheff, and A-Rod, whatever you want to call it. They bombed badly, over and over again. No plays. How about my all-time fave of the debacle (I have lingering anger that is now coming out of remission thanks to this thread), kevin brown. I hate him so. All-time yankee choke-head. I hate him more than bush, that loser.

Cards, heck, if I'm a cards fan, those mofos choked, too. They were horrid. Rolen, Edmonds, etc. These guys could not hit anyone. 0-15 for Rolen? That's a choke. It's not like they faced RJ and Schilling from 2001. The sox pitchers did very well, but they were not as dominating out there as I believe the cards' hitters made them out to be in games 2-4.

Losing both games at home? Choke.

I guess there are two types of chokes: individual bombs at clutch times (like missing 4 free throws to win a game in the waning seconds, or missing a chip shot field goal to win/lose a game, or missing an easy put to win/lose a tourney), and collective team chokes which may be termed "collapses," a la the yankees and cards. I think the yankees was worse because they had it at their fingertips, but the cards' one was pretty "pathetic."

I think this thread is currently semantics, and I'll surely remember this year in the context of the yankees as the year we blew it againt the bosox. Choke-shmoke. Whatever. It sucked bigtime.

- walk
118biliruben
      ID: 3110231016
      Mon, Dec 27, 2004, 18:38
Dave Barry year in review:

|OCTOBER|

... the Boston Red Sox, ending an 86-year drought, defeat the St. Louis Cardinals to win the World Series, defying exit polls that had overwhelmingly picked the Green Bay Packers. The Red Sox get into the Series thanks to the fact that the New York Yankees -- who were leading the American League championships three games to none, and have all-stars at every position, not to mention a payroll larger than the gross national product of Sweden -- chose that particular time to execute the most spectacular choke in all of sports history, an unbelievable Gag-o-Rama, a noxious nosedive, a pathetic gut-check failure of such epic dimensions that every thinking human outside of the New York Metropolitan area experienced a near-orgasmic level of happiness. But there is no need to rub it in.


Nobody states the obvious quite like Dave Barry.
119tastethewaste
      ID: 4411212118
      Mon, Dec 27, 2004, 20:56
dave barry doesnt know what a choke is apparently
Rate this thread:
5 (top notch)
4 (even better)
3 (good stuff)
2 (lightweight)
1 (no value)
If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time.

If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating.

If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here.

RotoGuru Baseball Forum

View the Forum Registry

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread


Self-edit this thread




Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)

Name:
Email:
Message:
Click here to create and insert a link
Click here to insert a random spelling of Mientkiewicz
Ignore line feeds? no (typical)   yes (for HTML table input)


Viewing statistics for this thread
Period# Views# Users
Last hour11
Last 24 hours11
Last 7 days97
Last 30 days1915
Since Mar 1, 20072919960