There are two main camps when it comes to the importance of an athlete being “clutch.” One of them cuts off a small part at the end of the game and evaluates performance there. The other believes that those cutoffs are too arbitrary, sample sizes are too small, and the “clutch factor” levels out as time goes on. Both have merit. The trick to evaluating an athlete’s “clutch factor” is giving weight to both camps.
It is a truism that what an athlete does under pressure is different from what they do when NOT under pressure. Some of them shine in those moments while others seize up under the pressure. However, there is not simply an arbitrary line where one side is “pressure” and the other side is definitely “not pressure.” So how do we quantify “clutch” in tennis? Introducing Clutch Factor, a statistic measuring how a tennis player responds to the different amount of pressure on each point.
This new statistic must be evaluated in context. A Clutch Factor Over Expected metric is in the pipeline to express that context. For now, however, to use this metric to evaluate performance under pressure, it is important to consider the context of the player’s outcome in a set, match, or tournament. A low Clutch Factor value tells you that they didn’t win points under pressure. But taken out of context, it does not distinguish between the avoidance of pressure situations and playing poorly when those situations arise. On the other hand, if a player has a high Clutch Factor value, they faced – and won – some points under pressure.
To show what you might be able to get from this statistic, let’s take a look at two players who made surprising runs in Wimbledon 2023.
The first is Daniel Elahi Galan. You might recognize Galan from his four-set upset of Stefanos Tsitsipas in the first round of 2022’s US Open. In this year’s Wimbledon, Galan swept aside 24-seed Yoshihito Nishioka in the first round. He followed that up with a four-set win over Oscar Otte and surviving a four-hour, five-set war with Mikael Ymer. In the fourth round, he fell in straight sets to 8-seed Jannik Sinner.
The second is my fellow Georgia Tech Yellow Jacket, Christopher Eubanks. In this year’s Wimbledon, Eubanks took down Thiago Monteiro in four sets, then he stole the hearts of the British crowd in a masterful victory over the British number one, 12-seed Cam Norrie. Eubanks carried that momentum into a victory over Chris O’Connell in three straight tiebreakers. He then came back from down two sets to one to knock off 5-seed Stefanos Tsitsipas, recording his first career top-10 victory and reaching his first career Grand Slam quarterfinal. In the quarterfinals, his run came to a halt at the end of a tough five-setter against 3-seed Daniil Medvedev.
Both players made very impressive runs, set career milestones, and made memories that will last a lifetime. But were those runs breakouts or flashes in the pan? Well, we can look at Clutch Factor for a hint. On a per-point basis, Galan ranked 6th in Clutch Factor among the 121 men who played at least two matches at Wimbledon 2023 and first among those who played at least four, including the best Clutch Factor Per Point in any of the 146 five-set Wimbledon matches between this year’s tournament to date and the matches in Jeff Sackman’s Match Tagging Project. Eubanks, on the other hand, ranked 108th. But they both made the second week of Wimbledon. So what do their Clutch Factor rankings tell us about the future?
Clutch Factor values help quantify the quality of play, regardless of wins or losses. By his Clutch Factor, we can tell that Daniel Elahi Galan played a lot of tight games, got himself in pressure situations, and wriggled his way out of them. But when Eubanks won a game, he typically won it going away. His low Clutch Factor value taken in the context of his results reflects that Eubanks was more effective than Galan in avoiding pressure situations. And this is why Clutch Factor must be evaluated in context. It shows that Galan was better in big spots, but Eubanks was better at avoiding them altogether. Galan had a great run, made some magic. and gave the fans what they wanted. But I might not bet on him doing it consistently, at least not on grass. Eubanks, on the other hand, shows a propensity to dominate.
Updates to this statistic and content based on it are coming. Follow along as it evolves!
Before you ask, the women’s data is being processed. In fact, it has already helped. My initial filter for determining which draw a match is in failed to recognize that “G. MINNEN” and “G. QUALIFYING” were not playing the same match. Sorry, Greet.
コメント