Improving next year's lineup without making the "big trade"

[Ceetar]

RBIs are more a byproduct of your hitting than a measure of it. This statement implies that there is no human element to the game whatsoever. I'm pretty sure that, deep down, you know that is not true. "Here you are in the ninth, two men out and three men on. Nowhere to look but inside."

The human element manifests itself by making a baseball player better, not just in "RBI spots" but better overall. If you're saying a guy has some skill that allows him to really turn it on in clutch spots, what you're really saying is he's pretty freaking lazy most of the time.

[Edgy MD]

Or maybe that some folks wilt under pressure while others don't. In which case, the latter are doing better just by standing still.

But it's all largely speculative.

There are guys whose numbers have stood out in clutch situations on something like a regular basis (depending on how you define those situations, and how you define "stood out"). Maybe it's a question of a trait or maybe it's just random distribution. I don't think it's been proven either way.

[Ceetar]

Edgy MD wrote: Or maybe that some folks wilt under pressure while others don't. In which case, the latter are doing better just by standing still.

Sure, but wilting and channeling it are different things. Think about it, if you're consistently able to thrive in pressure situations they have to become a little less pressure filled because you've got that confidence. And if the pressure is lesser, and the pressure is what was causing you to thrive? well..

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: There are guys whose numbers have stood out in clutch situations on something like a regular basis

Really? Who?

Actually, I read a piece many years ago on this topic, claiming that in the entire history of baseball, there were only two players who performed better in the clutch over a large enough sample size and with a large enough difference that the findings might be statistically meaningful. Of course, another conclusion to be drawn is if that study could only come up with two out of all players who ever played the game, then those two might be outliers. Whatever.


Wanna guess at who the two players were? Hints. They both played baseball for a NY team and are both in the Hall of Fame. That they're both HOF'ers probably undermines the idea that they were clutch hitters. They were probably great hitters who did well in the clutch and in the non-clutch. If clutch hitting was a real skill, independent of regular hitting, you should be able to find hundreds and hundreds of players who were terrific in the clutch, but average overall.

[Edgy MD]

I'm trying to follow that sentence.

Ceetar wrote: Think about it...

Thinking cap on.

Ceetar wrote: ... if you're consistently able to thrive in pressure situations...

Well, consistently, relative to the league at large.

Ceetar wrote: ... they have to become a little less pressure filled because you've got that confidence.

You lose me here. The definition of a pressure situation would be decided beforehand based on the game factors, regardless of the aplomb of the batter.

Ceetar wrote: ... And if the pressure is lesser, and the pressure is what was causing you to thrive? well.

I really tried hard to suggest that an alternative persepective is that the pressure isn't necessarily causing you to thrive, but rather causing other, shakier players to wilt. You could therefore look good in comparison, not because you upped your game, but because everybody else (including the typical opposing pitchers [or hitters] you've faced in those situations) have tended to down theirs.

[Edgy MD]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy MD wrote: There are guys whose numbers have stood out in clutch situations on something like a regular basis Really? Who?

Two that come to mind are Tony P�rez and Steve Sax. It's worth noting that the former is exactly what we think of when we think of a clutch hitter (if we think of one at all), and the latter is exactly not.

But again, it depends on how you frame the definition of a clutchity clutch situation.

[Ceetar]

Edgy MD wrote: I really tried hard to suggest that an alternative persepective is that the pressure isn't necessarily causing you to thrive, but rather causing other, shakier players to wilt. You could therefore look good in comparison, not because you upped your game, but because everybody else (including the typical opposing pitchers [or hitters] you've faced in those situations) have tended to down theirs.

Those shakier players aren't going to stick around long , and are probably a long shot to make the majors anyway. Except for a rare few, the pressure situations and challenges of getting to the major league level are so large that they'd be filtered out. And hell, say a couple of really good players happen to cave under pressure, that's barely going to move the dial for the league at large.

If you flip 50000 coins, a couple of them might come up heads 80+ times. They're not special coins, it's just a statistical oddity.

[Edgy MD]

[list:3pkftmc1]Tony P�rez, all situations: .279 / .341 / .463 // .804.
Tony P�rez, late and close: .300 / .370 / .490 // .860.[/list:u:3pkftmc1]

Now, that may not make eyes jump, and I'm perfectly willing to call it statistical noise, but it's a guy with a 10,000 PA career (and 1,886 L&C) plate appearances. But it seems a .021 / .029 / .027 // .056 bump is worth noting and further study.

But again, that difference can disappear, depending on how you slice the data.

[list:3pkftmc1]Steve Sax, all situations: .281 / .335 / .358 // .692.
Steve Sax, late and close: .299 / .355 / .380 // .735.[/list:u:3pkftmc1]

Those differences for both guys would obviously be larger if comparing L&C situations to no-L&C situations, rather than L&C to the full record, but I don't have the time, and you get the idea.

None of this is to necessarily argue for the primacy of clutch theory (far from it), only to say the question is still partly open in my mind.

[Edgy MD]

Ceetar wrote: Those shakier players aren't going to stick around long , and are probably a long shot to make the majors anyway.

What if they're otherwise really good?

I'm not sure what 50,000 coin flips producing 80+ heads means? If it's even close to a mere 80 out of 50,000, that's pretty pectacular. What if that coin flips 1,000 times? Or 10,000? At what point is the nature of the coin worth considering?

Lucas Duda, all situations: .235 / .353 / .438 // .791.
Lucas Duda, late and close: .242 / .327 / .382 // .709.

Again, it may WELL be random statistical fallout, but I reject the notion that players who are otherwise capable but less so in the clutch --- wiltingly, randomly, or otherwise --- don't stick around for meaningful lengths of time.

[Ceetar]

Edgy MD wrote: Those shakier players aren't going to stick around long , and are probably a long shot to make the majors anyway. What if they're otherwise really good? I'm not sure what 50,000 coin flips producing 80+ heads means? If it's even close to a mere 80 out of 50,000, that's pretty pectacular. What if that coin flips 1,000 times? Or 10,000? At what point is the nature of the coin worth considering? Lucas Duda, all situations: .235 / .353 / .438 // .791. Lucas Duda, late and close: .242 / .327 / .382 // .709. Again, it may WELL be random statistical fallout, but I reject the notion that players who are otherwise capable but less so in the clutch --- wiltingly, randomly, or otherwise --- don't stick around for meaningful lengths of time.

Lucas Duda has WAY too small a sample to draw something conclusive from splits.

And as you mentioned, it does matter on how you define it. And using the pre-defined statistical splits to define them probably doesn't quite jive with how real pressure is felt by the player. What's "late and close" if it's a September game and you're 20 out? or already clinched? Same for 9th inning stats. or whatever you choose.

It doesn't take much either. Take those guys you just mentioned, is the late and close difference starker in one of their career years? Is it perhaps simply good luck that when they were at the top of their game the hits happened to fall more often with runners on late in the game?

[Vic Sage]

"clutch" is a perfectly good adjective when looking at a player's past production in certain games or situations ("wow, that was a clutch hit Steve Sax just got!"), but it just sucks for projecting his future production (eg. "that guy has the mental toughness of a clutch hitter, so we should sign him to a big long-term contract").

as for the Perez/Sax examples, that they hit better OVERALL in late-close situations is great for their teams, but its also possible that they still fluctuated wildly from season to season in those situations, yet put up some years with huge numbers in those situations (perhaps because they put up huge numbers in ALL situations that year, or years?), thus skewing their career stats. I'm not saying that's what happened; i haven't looked at the numbers. It just seems possible.

Anyway, i would sooner accept a possibility of statistical noise and random occurrence than a scenario in which players who have played in "pressure-filled" situations and games since they were 8 years old (pressure being relative), and have succeeded in those situations their whole lives, from little league to travel team to high school to college to various minor league levels, but when they went from AAA to the majors, suddenly their stool went soft. Barry Bonds wasn't a clutch hitter until he was. A-Rod, the same. Once those guys hit well in a few post-season short series, their characters were enhanced (until they were exposed as cheats).

good hitters hit good.

on edit: it concerns me that my view coincides with Ceetar... perhaps i should reconsider.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Guest

[Edgy MD]

Ceetar wrote: Lucas Duda has WAY too small a sample to draw something conclusive from splits.

What's enough though? We've got more than a season's worth of data with Perez and Saxie.

Ceetar wrote: And as you mentioned, it does matter on how you define it.

Yes, that's why I menitoned it.

Ceetar wrote: And using the pre-defined statistical splits to define them probably doesn't quite jive with how real pressure is felt by the player.

Well, we have to agree on some objective definition, or else why bother? That's science.

Ceetar wrote: What's "late and close" if it's a September game and you're 20 out? or already clinched? Same for 9th inning stats. or whatever you choose.

An objective measure that accounts for the same type of at-bats regardless of the time of year or standings and hopefully finds a meaningful bottom line that speaks neither of May nor September but something in between.

Ceetar wrote: It doesn't take much either.

I'm not sure what that means.

Ceetar wrote: Take those guys you just mentioned, is the late and close difference starker in one of their career years?

I would imagine, as all other statistical measurements vary.

Ceetar wrote: Is it perhaps simply good luck that when they were at the top of their game the hits happened to fall more often with runners on late in the game?

Those are guys with a long careers and a lot of plate appearances. So maybe it's random but maybe it's still worth noting.

[Edgy MD]

Keep in mind, I'm in no way jonesing for Loney here.

[dinosaur jesus]

Jay Payton, not clutch:

All situations: .279 / .323 / .425 // .748
Late and close: .259 / /297 / .385 // .683

That son of a bitch was in the majors for twelve years.

To be fair, I'd expect those late and close numbers to be lower for most players, not because of the pressure, but simply because they're more often facing a reliever brought in for the lefty-lefty or righty-righty matchup. Someone who hits at about his overall numbers when it's late and close is pretty clutch if you look at it that way.

[Edgy MD]

I agree that you're unlikely to see a consistent display of late-and-close numbers for a player each year of his career. But then we're necessarily cutting the data to sets of about 90 plate appearances for a full-time player, at the same time we're deeming the much larger data set of a career to be to too small to be meaningful.

I mean, in most years, Nolan Ryan was no better than anybody else in the no-hitter department..

[Ceetar]

Another thought is that perhaps, and not to say some guys are slackers these days, the clutchiest hitters are simply the ones that prepare best? The ones that tailor their diets and workouts and take naps and rests where they need it? Chances are that after 9 innings of baseball in the hot sun no one is at 100%, but perhaps through preparation and property hydration some guys are at 85% instead of 60? Just like some guys continue to have, or at least seem to, good AB deep into extra innings games when everyone else is getting HR happy?

[Frayed Knot]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: The problem with Keith is that he was once Keith Hernandez.

The other problem is that MLers/ex-MLers tend to believe that results from clutch situations CAN be easily disseminated and that they themselves have/had that ability to raise their games at such times. IOW, I don't believe Keith is particularly unique here.

A lot of it, I suspect, is selective memory. As Joe Morgan often (inadvertently) made clear during his announcing days, player memories of their careers, or of specific instances within those careers, are often at odds to those 'fact' things that tend to get in the way of a good story. I remember reliever Rob Brantley yapping on TV one time (MLBN I think) about how he surely had bad days out of the pen 'but if the game was on the line ...' he never failed - or something along those lines, I forget his exact claim. But at the time I looked up his record and of course it didn't back up what he was saying was stone-cold fact.

There's probably also a healthy dose of constant reinforcement from those around them (media, fans, managers, relatives, agents, etc) telling such players how truly special they are/were that it probably becomes hard for them Not to believe it.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Guest

[seawolf17]

Did we not answer batmags' question? I'm going to say Yogi and Mantle.

[Edgy MD]

Vic Sage wrote: "clutch" is a perfectly good adjective when looking at a player's past production in certain games or situations ("wow, that was a clutch hit Steve Sax just got!"), but it just sucks for projecting his future production (eg. "that guy has the mental toughness of a clutch hitter, so we should sign him to a big long-term contract").

I would tend to agree. If such a trait exists, I'm not sure it's presence is isolatable enough to put a dollar sign on it. If I'm choosing between Steve Sax and a similar player at 28 (I don't know, let's say Johnny Ray) and all other things are equal, sure I'd go for a guy with a clutch track record. But the things I'd sooner look at are whether I like the guy's lifestyle or is he fun to be around or other peripheral ephemera.

I just don't think the arguments have shown the matter of clutch theory to be as dead as all that. But certainly it has been necessarily and convincingly marginalized.