Clutch?

[Guest Rotblatt]

Now, clearly, it's early still, but I found these numbers kind of interesting.

Nady & Reyes, I think, have the biggest discrepencies. Hernandez was just killing us.

We've done very, very well overall with runners in scoring position & 2 out: .298/.372/.464/.837. That's frankly amazing. And probably unsustainable.

Anyway, take a look.

Mets stats through 04/27/06

Top 3 with Runners On (10+ AB)
As a team: 307 AB, .283/.338/.472/.810

1. Delgado: 39 AB, .410/.489/.846/1.335
2. LoDuca: 22 AB .409/.480/.545/1.025
3. Beltran: 16 AB, .250/.391/.625/1.016

Bottom 3 with Runners on (10+ AB)
1. Hernandez: 20 AB, .050/.050/.050/.100
2. Floyd: 35 AB, .200/.250/.343/.593
3. Nady: 31 AB, .226/.286/.387/.673

Top 3 with Runners in Scoring Position (10+ AB)
As a team: 180 AB, .278/.341/.439/.780

1. Delgado: 16 AB, .250/.400/.688/1.088
2. Reyes: 25 AB, .360/.407/.600/1.007
3. LoDuca: 10 AB, .400/.500/.400/.900

Bottom 3 with Runners in Scoring Position (10+ AB)
1. Hernandez: 12 AB, .000/.000/.000
2. Nady: 17 AB, .176/.250/.235/.485
3. Floyd: 19 AB, .211/.292/.368/.660

Top 3 with Runners in Scoring Position, 2 out (5+ AB)
As a team: .298/.372/.464/.837

1. Delgado: 8 AB, .375/.500/.875/1.375
2. LoDuca: 5 AB, .600/.600/.600/1.200
3. Reyes: 10 AB, .300/.417/.700/1.117

Bottom 3 with Runners in Scoring Position, 2 out (5+ AB)
1. Nady: 8 AB, .000/.000/.000/.000
2. Woody: 6 AB, .333/.429/.333/.762
3. Matsui: 6 AB, .333/333/.500/.833

[Vic Sage]

why try to draw any conclusions from such absurdly small sample sizes?

I am suspicious of "clutch" except as a backward-looking assessment of a particular player's (or team's) game, series or season, as in: "he had a clutch hit there", and "they came up clutch by winning that series", and "they had alot of clutch hits this season... thats what put them over the top."

I don't buy "clutch" as one of a hitter's attributes based on which you can make an assessment of his future production (like batting avg, for example), unless you can demonstrate that a player has consistently hit better (no, not just hit better, but hit WELL) in a range of specifically defined "clutch" situations over the course of his career (not just a season here or there, followed by "unclutch" seasons), and in so determining, you're using substantial sample sizes (not 20 ABs here and 20 ABs there). Otherwise, "clutch" is no more than luck.

[Guest old original jb]

I agree about small sample sizes, but I am intrigued by the idea mentioned in the Chavez thread that "clutch hitters" may be mediocre hitters who improve markedly when the game situation forces the pitcher to throw strikes. Of course in that case, you would expect that plain old "good hitters" would still be better than "clutch hitters" even in "clutch" situations.

Can anyone think of "anticlutch" hitters who have good overall stats but do worse with runners on? And are there any "clutch hitters" who really exceed both their usual output and the output of most "better hitters" with runners on? If so, is there a particular style of hitting that lends itself to this?

[Centerfield]

I can think of plenty who had that reputation (Darryl Strawberry) but whether his anti-clutchness was a reality or not I have no idea.

I think, as Vic says, "clutch" for the most part, lives only in perception. I have never seen anyone establish "clutch" on any statistically significant basis.

Most of the time, it's like Derek Jeter being "clutch" during the post-season despite his batting average dipping from his career norm.

[Guest sharpie]

Don't MFY fans feel that Alex Rodriguez is unclutch?

[Guest Edgy DC]

] think, as Vic says, "clutch" for the most part, lives only in perception. I have never seen anyone establish "clutch" on any statistically significant basis.

Find the numbers for Tony Perez somtime. They're pretty astounding --- not so much for the size of his improvement in "clutch" situations, but for the relative consistency from year to year.

[Willets Point]

I've nothing valuable to add to this thread, hence the silly pictures

[Guest Rotblatt]

Vic Sage wrote: why try to draw any conclusions from such absurdly small sample sizes?

I'm not. I'm just sharing information I thought was interesting. I mean, I certainly was surprised to find out that Nady hasn't hit a lick with men on base . . .

Now, in a post a while ago, I DID note that, after our trade/free agent madness was over, most of our new acquisitions had consistently performed better in "clutch" situations over the past couple of years, and thought that was pretty interesting, especially since I had just read this study finding some evidence of clutch.

Anyway, I did more or less what you had proposed in looking at Valentin, LoDuca & Delgado's numbers over about 4 years and they had pretty consistently outperformed in various "clutch" situations each year.

Unfortunately, that post is long gone, and I'd rather not go back and do it all over again, as ESPN's website is fucking slow.

Anyway, I'll be curious to see if LoDuca & Delgado continue to perform better in said clutch situations.

Valentin's toast, I think, and will be useless no matter when he hits.

[Vic Sage]

I'm not saying "clutch" does NOT exist. I'm just skeptical of that label, in most cases, as being a designation foisted on a hitter by fans, the media and other players, based on anecdotal data and limited sample size.

If Perez consistently hit well, and better than he normally did, in those various "clutch" situations, and he continued to do so over a sustained period of years, one would have to discount luck and acknowledge that he was a player who excelled in pressure situations.

Even Bill James has sort of come around on this topic. But i still think its an overused tag, and is often used to justify otherwise mediocre players, or to villify terrific players, based on little more than a media or fan perception not otherwise supportable by existing data.

[Guest old original jb]

Rotblatt wrote: Valentin's toast, I think, and will be useless no matter when he hits.

That's because these days, when he hits (as opposed to when he bats) is best described as almost never.

[Guest Rotblatt]

="Vic Sage"]I'm not saying "clutch" does NOT exist. I'm just skeptical of that label, in most cases, as being a designation foisted on a hitter by fans, the media and other players, based on anecdotal data and limited sample size.

I agree and I'd like to avoid doing that. I still think there's a worthwhile discussion to have here, though, at a minimum as a way of taking a snapshot of current team performance--how are our boys doing in various "clutch" situations? Is anyone consistently performing well or poorly? Is it part of a larger pattern dating back to previous years?

For example, seeing how remarkably bad Nady has been with runners on this year despite his incredible start makes me wonder if he's had that problem in the past.

2005
Overall
.261/.321/.439/.760

Runners On
140 AB, .243/.321/.407/.728

Scoring Position
85 AB, .212/.309/.388/.697

Scoring Position, 2 out
40 AB, .175/.250/.400/.650

Small sample size, but he performed worse in all situations.

2004
Overall
77 AB, .247/.301/.416/.717

Runners On
35 AB, .200/.263/.314/.577

Scoring Position
21 AB, .238/.304/.429/.733

Scoring Position, 2 Out
11 AB, .364/.417/.455/.872

Tiny sample size, but the first time he's performed better so far.

2003
Overall
371 AB, .267/.321/.391/.712

Runners On
181 AB, .249/.305/.387/.692

Scoring Position
101 AB, .218/.286/.307/.593

Scoring Position, 2 out
49 AB, .250/.311/.309/.620

2002-2005
Overall
774 AB, .262/.319/.413/.732

Runners On
356 AB, .242/.307/.388/.695

Scoring Position
207 AB, .217/.297/.353/.650

Scoring Position, 2 Out
100 AB, .220/.291/.360/.651

Now, even over the span of 3 years, it's a fairly small sample size, but it's probably fair to say that Nady has struggled with runners in scoring position, right?

[Frayed Knot]

Has struggled? -- Yes
Has struggled because of the situations(s) to the point where you'd be confident that it's likely he'll continue to do so in the future? -- Doubtful

[Guest Edgy DC]

]Perez consistently hit well, and better than he normally did, in those various "clutch" situations, and he continued to do so over a sustained period of years, one would have to discount luck and acknowledge that he was a player who excelled in pressure situations.

As I said in the other thread, I'm more prone to believe that such players excel in situations where the pitcher has to come after them. (Pretty much the same thing, I know.)

]Even Bill James has sort of come around on this topic.

Yay. I knew he would.

]But i still think its an overused tag, and is often used to justify otherwise mediocre players, or to villify terrific players, based on little more than a media or fan perception not otherwise supportable by existing data.

Agreed. Agreed and then some.

[Guest mlbaseballtalk]

="sharpie"]Don't MFY fans feel that Alex Rodriguez is unclutch?

The other problem is, define a "clutch" situation as well. Knock on ARod stems from such examples as hitting into a DP in the 9th against Anaheim last year and falling apart in the final games of the 2004 ALCS, when according to media types it always SEEMED that David Ortiz was hitting the game winning HR or driving in the game winning run late in the game.

Is clutch having a great overall year or series or making the final scoring play of a game and unclutch coming up a little short just when the rest of your team goes into the tank?