Too often stat people get stuck in the fallacy that just because you cannot prove something exists is proof that it does not exist. This is obvious from math, yet sometimes people overlook it. A certain number of prime numbers are known, but just because you don't know the next one yet doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that you could confidently say it certainly doesn't exist. Bill James wrote a piece on this very topic but I cant find it. This applies to things like hot streaks or clutchness for example. When looking at these stats for different players across different years there seems to be no consistency, the most "clutch" guys one year will not be the most clutch the next. Therefore, there is no proof that some players are clutch their whole career while others are chokers. However, this does not prove that clutchness does not exist. For these types of things the best insight comes from playing experience. There are some players who want the ball hit to them in a tie game in the bottom of the 9th, and some players who don't. Some players can focus more and perform better when it matters most and some get nervous and feel the pressure. If you have ever played you know that hot streaks exist, there are just times for whatever reason when you feel like you can drive any pitch, and times when you are hoping to get walked because you aren't seeing it well. There is really no way to determine using stats when a player is hot or when the hot streak will end, so stat lovers basically deny that hotness exists, when anyone who ever played the game insists it exists because they actually experienced it. The best way to determine if someone is hot is to observe their ABs and note when they lay off nasty pitches and crush mistake pitches.