All or Nothing -- AZ Cardinals NFL Films Documentary

[nategreat]

I wouldn't and I'm not. The comparison being made isn't between Marino vs Newton and Wilson vs Dilfer. It's between one instance where we feel number of championships might be a very good indicator of who the better quarterback is with comparing Wilson/Netwon and another instance where most would feel number of championships is a terrible way of determining who the better quarterback is with Marino and Dilfer. I'm attempting to demonstrate that while the answer, in this case saying Wilson is currently more of a help to his team than Newton, is probably right, the way this answer was said to be right, in this case by being determined by number of championships, was too simplified. My gripe is with the way the answer was supported and not the answer itself.

I have to say I agree with that. Equating the better quarterback to simply having won the most Super Bowls is a dumb argument in my opinion. There's a whole lot more to consider. Unless of course the quarterback is choking under pressure- then that's a whole 'nother story.

 

[BirdsCommaAngry]

I have to say I agree with that. Equating the better quarterback to simply having won the most Super Bowls is a dumb argument in my opinion. There's a whole lot more to consider. Unless of course the quarterback is choking under pressure- then that's a whole 'nother story.

It's not dumb. It's just less accurate than using multiple ways of measuring because, as you've said, there's a whole lot more to consider.

I'll actually argue that choking isn't even real (nor is being clutch). Basically, my conclusion is we don't have a clutch QB. Instead, we have a QB who outworks most of his peers in areas that more strongly relate to success and this helps him generally outperform them regardless of the game's situation. Here's why:

If we define being clutch and choking as simply performing well or poorly in situations where it's much more necessary to perform well, then this possible phenomenon can be measured and looked at more objectively. In baseball this is much easier to do. In baseball the batters who get the most hits with runners in scoring position (a situation requiring a batter to be "clutch") are generally the same batters who get the most hits when there are no runners in scoring position. The explanation for this simple phenomenon is people who learn what they need to learn to hit the ball more frequently than their peers will tend to get hits whether the perceived pressure of the situation is high, low, or somewhere in the middle.

If true, why wouldn't this also be true for quarterbacks and offenses in the NFL? If this is the case, then Russel Wilson is not more clutch than, say, Tony Romo nor is Tony Romo more of a choker than Russel Wilson. The difference we're seeing between these two players isn't about handling pressure relatively well or poorly but a result of handling everything they're involved with that relates to their football games relatively well or poorly, such as communication with teammates, performing an action exactly like it's intended to be performed, intuiting the thoughts of teammates and opponents alike, and so much more. In other words, Russel Wilson can seem more clutch than someone like Romo because so far he's generally more consistent with much of what QBs need to be consistent with all the time, whether it's in the film room, practice field, in the hotel the night before a game, during the 4th quarter of a game, and everything else that relates to better performances.

 

[BirdsCommaAngry]

I can take this topic one step further too and attempt to illuminate part of why we have come to believe in illusions like choking and being clutch. Basically, for me it seems like this is what's really going on:

Success and failure during high-pressure situations is an effect. We tend to need to define a cause for it and generally, this cause is defined with an attribution error through calling it "clutch" or "choking". In reality, it's really a product of the same teamwork, education, and ultimately, skills that can increase chances of success in all aspects of a game. If you disagree with this and/or want to understand the reasons I suspect this, then, please, keep reading.

First, we'll need to understand what an attribution error is and that we, human beings in general, have a profound tendency to need reasons for everything (this perhaps stems from our general discomfort with uncertainty). Basically, an attribution error occurs whenever we come up with a reason for why something happened and that reason is inaccurate.

Social psychology defines this specifically as a tendency for people to associate what someone thinks or does to part of their character rather than some other motivation compelling us to think and/or act in a certain way. For example, if someone is unaware of the amount of work a professional athlete has put in to develop his or her capabilities, fans might attribute it to "natural athleticism" over specific aspects of their training. We might think they have "drive" when during their childhood, they may have actively wanted to quit if not for certain pressures from other people that kept them practicing, playing, and learning. Michelangelo has a great line that attempts to address this tendency with "If you knew how much work went into it, you wouldn't call it genius." In his case, proclaiming genius, a character quality, is the attribution error.

In other words, we may define someone like Russel Wilson as clutch because we don't get to see or hear about many of the specifics about why he is able to succeed in certain situations, such as seeing the moments where he and other members of the offense are watching film and they get to see a tendency of a defense they can exploit, seeing that a creative-looking scramble for a big completion was really something that had been done before in practice months before, and all the other potential reasons RW and co. might better know what to do in most situations than many of their opponents.

To put it simply, we believe Russel Wilson is clutch and other players, such as Tony Romo, are chokers partly because we're fundamentally motivated to define causes for effects (even if relatively inaccurate) and this can be done quickly and simply (but not as accurately) through defining causes for people as part of their character rather than their other influences and motivations. If we really knew how much preparation went into their games, we might not call it clutch or choking.

 

[BirdsCommaAngry]

Cool, I took one belief I disagreed with and turned it into two ham-handed mini-essays on perception in sports and what skill truly is. Now comes the part where we generally ignore a "deeper" discussion in favor of bashing our rivals and those who associate with them. Will anyone disregard the usual conformity and try to engage over something more complex this time?

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

I can take this topic one step further too and attempt to illuminate part of why we have come to believe in illusions like choking and being clutch. Basically, for me it seems like this is what's really going on:

Success and failure during high-pressure situations is an effect. We tend to need to define a cause for it and generally, this cause is defined with an attribution error through calling it "clutch" or "choking". In reality, it's really a product of the same teamwork, education, and ultimately, skills that can increase chances of success in all aspects of a game. If you disagree with this and/or want to understand the reasons I suspect this, then, please, keep reading.

First, we'll need to understand what an attribution error is and that we, human beings in general, have a profound tendency to need reasons for everything (this perhaps stems from our general discomfort with uncertainty). Basically, an attribution error occurs whenever we come up with a reason for why something happened and that reason is inaccurate.

Social psychology defines this specifically as a tendency for people to associate what someone thinks or does to part of their character rather than some other motivation compelling us to think and/or act in a certain way. For example, if someone is unaware of the amount of work a professional athlete has put in to develop his or her capabilities, fans might attribute it to "natural athleticism" over specific aspects of their training. We might think they have "drive" when during their childhood, they may have actively wanted to quit if not for certain pressures from other people that kept them practicing, playing, and learning. Michelangelo has a great line that attempts to address this tendency with "If you knew how much work went into it, you wouldn't call it genius." In his case, proclaiming genius, a character quality, is the attribution error.

In other words, we may define someone like Russel Wilson as clutch because we don't get to see or hear about many of the specifics about why he is able to succeed in certain situations, such as seeing the moments where he and other members of the offense are watching film and they get to see a tendency of a defense they can exploit, seeing that a creative-looking scramble for a big completion was really something that had been done before in practice months before, and all the other potential reasons RW and co. might better know what to do in most situations than many of their opponents.

To put it simply, we believe Russel Wilson is clutch and other players, such as Tony Romo, are chokers partly because we're fundamentally motivated to define causes for effects (even if relatively inaccurate) and this can be done quickly and simply (but not as accurately) through defining causes for people as part of their character rather than their other influences and motivations. If we really knew how much preparation went into their games, we might not call it clutch or choking.

Great argument, but as someone who played hoops at a high level both personally and as a team in high school and played college ball as well, it was obvious there were certain guys that avoided "clutch:" situations in games and disappeared in big games. <shrug>