Tavish, thanks for posting the author's comments. After reading them I have little faith that this study is successful or even that the author knows what he's talking about. First I think this guy's audacity is incredible. How do you allow a story to be published claiming you have proven that clutch hitters exists and yet your study isn't available to the public?
That brings me to the point of "proven":
My study doesn't say that they are the "greatest clutch hitters" they just happen to be some of the ones that I have the most evidence that they posess SOME clutch-hitting ability.
Sure doesn't sound like the confident statement of someone who had just proven something. If you have defined and proven clutch hitting than showing us the best and worst of all time should be the easy part. No?
Actually, what you said about Gomez hits on something important. Being a clutch hitter doesn't require being good in important situations (at least according to the way I looked at it), it requires that you exhibit a pattern of doing better as the situation gets more important. So if Barry Bonds was a choke hitter you might still want him up in that key spot, because even performing somewhat worse than usual still makes him preferable to anyone else on the Giants.
What? This is pseudo-intellectual garbage.
As far as who was the worst clutch hitter (I call them choke hitters) the number of choke hitters who appeared are about the number we would expect to see by chance if there were indeed no true clutch or choke hitters in MLB. So out of the ones who appeared choke, most of them probably were not.
Well if this is the case wouldn't this lead us to believe that clutch hitters do in fact not exist? I hate to burst this guy's bubble but you can't prove that clutch hitters exist without proving that "non-clutch hitters" exist also.