+- Sons of Ivy (https://sonsofivy.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Chicago Cubs (https://sonsofivy.com/forum/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Friendly Confines (https://sonsofivy.com/forum/forum-8.html)
+--- Thread: Clutchness (/thread-5197.html)
Clutchness - jstraw - 05-25-2010
<!--quoteo(post=98263:date=May 25 2010, 02:30 PM:name=leonardsipes)-->QUOTE (leonardsipes @ May 25 2010, 02:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=98250:date=May 25 2010, 12:58 PM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ May 25 2010, 12:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I have never before heard this idea that stat heads don't think hot and cold exist. Anecdotally, Posnanski mentions statisticians crunching numbers and not finding evidence of, well...essentially, streaks...hitting or missing a number of times in a row that represents a statistical out lier, in terms of distribution. I don't believe it. I think this casual mention is bullshit and is either made up or a complete misinterpretation or misrepresentation of some statistical analysis.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Read the quote. That is what they believe. I remember when the study fist came out in the 80's. At that time, I was in to stat as much as the next guy. It was what first made me realize that stat analysis is faulty.
The fatal flaw in all the analysis, is the results are based on luck not skill. Once they assume an AB is a random event, then you can assume for the purpose of analysis, all ABs are the same. Why is OPS better than RBI - because we can see that some hitters get more RBI chances than others, and we make the assumptions that quality of pitchers faced and type of ABs even out over a season
ABs are not all the same. In a clutch AB at the end of a game, a hitter will face a different pitcher than in a blow out and be pitched differently. Because baseball is made of 9 three out innings, there are a huge amount of different situations that come up, which lead to the pitcher pitching differently and/or a different pitcher in the game.
If instead of games, each team was given 4374 outs to see how many runs they scored, only 3 things would matter OBP, double plays, and runners left on base at the end of the year. Slg and speed would only matter to the extent that they helped avoid DPs. By taking the entire seasons worth of ABs and treating them the same, you are essentially smoothing out the baseball effect (impact of 9, 3 out inning games on the results). By considering runs scored in blow outs (which skews the data, because by definition, there are a lot of them) the same as game winning runs you minimize the effect of little things (what makes baseball, baseball) on wins.
When we watch a game, we see the actual situation. Statistics don't. That is why watching the game, we see things such as clutch, speed, productive outs.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Absolute agreement.
I was thinking earlier that theoretically you could assign a value to an at bat...are there runners on, how many outs, who's hitting behind the batter, how late in the game is it, what's the score, etc. Then you could develop a rating based upon performance through this metric and quantify "clutchness."
Clutchness - kbwsb - 05-25-2010
<!--quoteo(post=98263:date=May 25 2010, 02:30 PM:name=leonardsipes)-->QUOTE (leonardsipes @ May 25 2010, 02:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=98250:date=May 25 2010, 12:58 PM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ May 25 2010, 12:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The fatal flaw in all the analysis, is the results are based on luck not skill. Once they assume an AB is a random event, then you can assume for the purpose of analysis, all ABs are the same. Why is OPS better than RBI - because we can see that some hitters get more RBI chances than others, and we make the assumptions that quality of pitchers faced and type of ABs even out over a season
ABs are not all the same. In a clutch AB at the end of a game, a hitter will face a different pitcher than in a blow out and be pitched differently. Because baseball is made of 9 three out innings, there are a huge amount of different situations that come up, which lead to the pitcher pitching differently and/or a different pitcher in the game.
If instead of games, each team was given 4374 outs to see how many runs they scored, only 3 things would matter OBP, double plays, and runners left on base at the end of the year. Slg and speed would only matter to the extent that they helped avoid DPs. By taking the entire seasons worth of ABs and treating them the same, you are essentially smoothing out the baseball effect (impact of 9, 3 out inning games on the results). By considering runs scored in blow outs (which skews the data, because by definition, there are a lot of them) the same as game winning runs you minimize the effect of little things (what makes baseball, baseball) on wins.
When we watch a game, we see the actual situation. Statistics don't. That is why watching the game, we see things such as clutch, speed, productive outs.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That was damn good, Sipes. I disagree that the idea of a "stat-based look at baseball" is based around the concept of luck. I think it's the opposite.
But everything else you said really made sense. Good post.
Clutchness - Butcher - 05-25-2010
<!--quoteo(post=98270:date=May 25 2010, 04:02 PM:name=jstraw)-->QUOTE (jstraw @ May 25 2010, 04:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=98263:date=May 25 2010, 02:30 PM:name=leonardsipes)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (leonardsipes @ May 25 2010, 02:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=98250:date=May 25 2010, 12:58 PM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ May 25 2010, 12:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I have never before heard this idea that stat heads don't think hot and cold exist. Anecdotally, Posnanski mentions statisticians crunching numbers and not finding evidence of, well...essentially, streaks...hitting or missing a number of times in a row that represents a statistical out lier, in terms of distribution. I don't believe it. I think this casual mention is bullshit and is either made up or a complete misinterpretation or misrepresentation of some statistical analysis.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Read the quote. That is what they believe. I remember when the study fist came out in the 80's. At that time, I was in to stat as much as the next guy. It was what first made me realize that stat analysis is faulty.
The fatal flaw in all the analysis, is the results are based on luck not skill. Once they assume an AB is a random event, then you can assume for the purpose of analysis, all ABs are the same. Why is OPS better than RBI - because we can see that some hitters get more RBI chances than others, and we make the assumptions that quality of pitchers faced and type of ABs even out over a season
ABs are not all the same. In a clutch AB at the end of a game, a hitter will face a different pitcher than in a blow out and be pitched differently. Because baseball is made of 9 three out innings, there are a huge amount of different situations that come up, which lead to the pitcher pitching differently and/or a different pitcher in the game.
If instead of games, each team was given 4374 outs to see how many runs they scored, only 3 things would matter OBP, double plays, and runners left on base at the end of the year. Slg and speed would only matter to the extent that they helped avoid DPs. By taking the entire seasons worth of ABs and treating them the same, you are essentially smoothing out the baseball effect (impact of 9, 3 out inning games on the results). By considering runs scored in blow outs (which skews the data, because by definition, there are a lot of them) the same as game winning runs you minimize the effect of little things (what makes baseball, baseball) on wins.
When we watch a game, we see the actual situation. Statistics don't. That is why watching the game, we see things such as clutch, speed, productive outs.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Absolute agreement.
I was thinking earlier that theoretically you could assign a value to an at bat...are there runners on, how many outs, who's hitting behind the batter, how late in the game is it, what's the score, etc. Then you could develop a rating based upon performance through this metric and quantify "clutchness."
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Isn't this already done to some degree? You can look at the splits for any batter and they have "close and late," "runner on third with less than two outs," and many other situational ABs.
And I think the conclusion is pretty much that good hitters have good stats in those situations, average hitters have average stats in those situations, and poor hitters have poor stats in those situations.
Clutchness - jstraw - 05-25-2010
<!--quoteo(post=98273:date=May 25 2010, 04:18 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ May 25 2010, 04:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=98270:date=May 25 2010, 04:02 PM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ May 25 2010, 04:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=98263:date=May 25 2010, 02:30 PM:name=leonardsipes)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (leonardsipes @ May 25 2010, 02:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=98250:date=May 25 2010, 12:58 PM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ May 25 2010, 12:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I have never before heard this idea that stat heads don't think hot and cold exist. Anecdotally, Posnanski mentions statisticians crunching numbers and not finding evidence of, well...essentially, streaks...hitting or missing a number of times in a row that represents a statistical out lier, in terms of distribution. I don't believe it. I think this casual mention is bullshit and is either made up or a complete misinterpretation or misrepresentation of some statistical analysis.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Read the quote. That is what they believe. I remember when the study fist came out in the 80's. At that time, I was in to stat as much as the next guy. It was what first made me realize that stat analysis is faulty.
The fatal flaw in all the analysis, is the results are based on luck not skill. Once they assume an AB is a random event, then you can assume for the purpose of analysis, all ABs are the same. Why is OPS better than RBI - because we can see that some hitters get more RBI chances than others, and we make the assumptions that quality of pitchers faced and type of ABs even out over a season
ABs are not all the same. In a clutch AB at the end of a game, a hitter will face a different pitcher than in a blow out and be pitched differently. Because baseball is made of 9 three out innings, there are a huge amount of different situations that come up, which lead to the pitcher pitching differently and/or a different pitcher in the game.
If instead of games, each team was given 4374 outs to see how many runs they scored, only 3 things would matter OBP, double plays, and runners left on base at the end of the year. Slg and speed would only matter to the extent that they helped avoid DPs. By taking the entire seasons worth of ABs and treating them the same, you are essentially smoothing out the baseball effect (impact of 9, 3 out inning games on the results). By considering runs scored in blow outs (which skews the data, because by definition, there are a lot of them) the same as game winning runs you minimize the effect of little things (what makes baseball, baseball) on wins.
When we watch a game, we see the actual situation. Statistics don't. That is why watching the game, we see things such as clutch, speed, productive outs.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Absolute agreement.
I was thinking earlier that theoretically you could assign a value to an at bat...are there runners on, how many outs, who's hitting behind the batter, how late in the game is it, what's the score, etc. Then you could develop a rating based upon performance through this metric and quantify "clutchness."
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Isn't this already done to some degree? You can look at the splits for any batter and they have "close and late," "runner on third with less than two outs," and many other situational ABs.
And I think the conclusion is pretty much that good hitters have good stats in those situations, average hitters have average stats in those situations, and poor hitters have poor stats in those situations.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree. I'm just musing about a unified stat that can rate the value of any at bat situation and weigh the outcome based on that value. In this way, one single or walk is not the same as just any other single or walk. An average could be calculated.
Clutchness - Butcher - 05-25-2010
<!--quoteo(post=98279:date=May 25 2010, 04:29 PM:name=jstraw)-->QUOTE (jstraw @ May 25 2010, 04:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=98273:date=May 25 2010, 04:18 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ May 25 2010, 04:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=98270:date=May 25 2010, 04:02 PM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ May 25 2010, 04:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=98263:date=May 25 2010, 02:30 PM:name=leonardsipes)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (leonardsipes @ May 25 2010, 02:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=98250:date=May 25 2010, 12:58 PM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ May 25 2010, 12:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I have never before heard this idea that stat heads don't think hot and cold exist. Anecdotally, Posnanski mentions statisticians crunching numbers and not finding evidence of, well...essentially, streaks...hitting or missing a number of times in a row that represents a statistical out lier, in terms of distribution. I don't believe it. I think this casual mention is bullshit and is either made up or a complete misinterpretation or misrepresentation of some statistical analysis.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Read the quote. That is what they believe. I remember when the study fist came out in the 80's. At that time, I was in to stat as much as the next guy. It was what first made me realize that stat analysis is faulty.
The fatal flaw in all the analysis, is the results are based on luck not skill. Once they assume an AB is a random event, then you can assume for the purpose of analysis, all ABs are the same. Why is OPS better than RBI - because we can see that some hitters get more RBI chances than others, and we make the assumptions that quality of pitchers faced and type of ABs even out over a season
ABs are not all the same. In a clutch AB at the end of a game, a hitter will face a different pitcher than in a blow out and be pitched differently. Because baseball is made of 9 three out innings, there are a huge amount of different situations that come up, which lead to the pitcher pitching differently and/or a different pitcher in the game.
If instead of games, each team was given 4374 outs to see how many runs they scored, only 3 things would matter OBP, double plays, and runners left on base at the end of the year. Slg and speed would only matter to the extent that they helped avoid DPs. By taking the entire seasons worth of ABs and treating them the same, you are essentially smoothing out the baseball effect (impact of 9, 3 out inning games on the results). By considering runs scored in blow outs (which skews the data, because by definition, there are a lot of them) the same as game winning runs you minimize the effect of little things (what makes baseball, baseball) on wins.
When we watch a game, we see the actual situation. Statistics don't. That is why watching the game, we see things such as clutch, speed, productive outs.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Absolute agreement.
I was thinking earlier that theoretically you could assign a value to an at bat...are there runners on, how many outs, who's hitting behind the batter, how late in the game is it, what's the score, etc. Then you could develop a rating based upon performance through this metric and quantify "clutchness."
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Isn't this already done to some degree? You can look at the splits for any batter and they have "close and late," "runner on third with less than two outs," and many other situational ABs.
And I think the conclusion is pretty much that good hitters have good stats in those situations, average hitters have average stats in those situations, and poor hitters have poor stats in those situations.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree. I'm just musing about a unified stat that can rate the value of any at bat situation and weigh the outcome based on that value. In this way, one single or walk is not the same as just any other single or walk. An average could be calculated.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do it. You could revolutionize the game.
Clutchness - jstraw - 05-25-2010
<!--quoteo(post=98281:date=May 25 2010, 04:34 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ May 25 2010, 04:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=98279:date=May 25 2010, 04:29 PM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ May 25 2010, 04:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=98273:date=May 25 2010, 04:18 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ May 25 2010, 04:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=98270:date=May 25 2010, 04:02 PM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ May 25 2010, 04:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=98263:date=May 25 2010, 02:30 PM:name=leonardsipes)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (leonardsipes @ May 25 2010, 02:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=98250:date=May 25 2010, 12:58 PM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ May 25 2010, 12:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I have never before heard this idea that stat heads don't think hot and cold exist. Anecdotally, Posnanski mentions statisticians crunching numbers and not finding evidence of, well...essentially, streaks...hitting or missing a number of times in a row that represents a statistical out lier, in terms of distribution. I don't believe it. I think this casual mention is bullshit and is either made up or a complete misinterpretation or misrepresentation of some statistical analysis.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Read the quote. That is what they believe. I remember when the study fist came out in the 80's. At that time, I was in to stat as much as the next guy. It was what first made me realize that stat analysis is faulty.
The fatal flaw in all the analysis, is the results are based on luck not skill. Once they assume an AB is a random event, then you can assume for the purpose of analysis, all ABs are the same. Why is OPS better than RBI - because we can see that some hitters get more RBI chances than others, and we make the assumptions that quality of pitchers faced and type of ABs even out over a season
ABs are not all the same. In a clutch AB at the end of a game, a hitter will face a different pitcher than in a blow out and be pitched differently. Because baseball is made of 9 three out innings, there are a huge amount of different situations that come up, which lead to the pitcher pitching differently and/or a different pitcher in the game.
If instead of games, each team was given 4374 outs to see how many runs they scored, only 3 things would matter OBP, double plays, and runners left on base at the end of the year. Slg and speed would only matter to the extent that they helped avoid DPs. By taking the entire seasons worth of ABs and treating them the same, you are essentially smoothing out the baseball effect (impact of 9, 3 out inning games on the results). By considering runs scored in blow outs (which skews the data, because by definition, there are a lot of them) the same as game winning runs you minimize the effect of little things (what makes baseball, baseball) on wins.
When we watch a game, we see the actual situation. Statistics don't. That is why watching the game, we see things such as clutch, speed, productive outs.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Absolute agreement.
I was thinking earlier that theoretically you could assign a value to an at bat...are there runners on, how many outs, who's hitting behind the batter, how late in the game is it, what's the score, etc. Then you could develop a rating based upon performance through this metric and quantify "clutchness."
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Isn't this already done to some degree? You can look at the splits for any batter and they have "close and late," "runner on third with less than two outs," and many other situational ABs.
And I think the conclusion is pretty much that good hitters have good stats in those situations, average hitters have average stats in those situations, and poor hitters have poor stats in those situations.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree. I'm just musing about a unified stat that can rate the value of any at bat situation and weigh the outcome based on that value. In this way, one single or walk is not the same as just any other single or walk. An average could be calculated.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do it. You could revolutionize the game.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just musing. I'm not a statistician...and the formula for the weighting would be very controversial.
Clutchness - kbwsb - 05-25-2010
Butch isn't kidding though...I've never heard of anyone proposing such a stat, but if you pulled it off, it'd be a <i>huge</i> deal. I, for one, would be mesmerized reading a treatment of such a stat.
One problem, though. It might be fundamentally on shaky ground. You'd be saying that a run scored in the 7th inning is more important that a run scored in the second inning, when in reality, they're counted exactly the same. I can't see a math-inclined person swallowing that.
I don't know. I could be wrong. Even stat-heads talk about relief pitchers throwing in the "high-leverage" innings, and to a fan (like me), they DO seem like more important innings.
It's kind of a quagmire, isn't it?
Clutchness - Fella - 05-25-2010
So in a 9th inning situation, 2 outs, tying run in scoring position, who on our team would you guys choose to be at the plate? Would it be Soriano? He has statistically been our best hitter this season for quite a while now and by a wide margin. However, I'm guessing not many would choose him. If so that kinda shows everyone believes in clutch at least on some level.
Clutchness - kbwsb - 05-25-2010
<!--quoteo(post=98285:date=May 25 2010, 05:04 PM:name=Fella)-->QUOTE (Fella @ May 25 2010, 05:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->So in a 9th inning situation, 2 outs, tying run in scoring position, who on our team would you guys choose to be at the plate? Would it be Soriano? He has statistically been our best hitter this season for quite a while now and by a wide margin. However, I'm guessing not many would choose him. If so that kinda shows everyone believes in clutch at least on some level.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's a good point. However, the reverse is also true: I think we'd all agree that Aramis has the rep for being the most clutch player on the team.
But this year, with his truly weak hitting, would you really want <i>him</i> to be up in the situation you described?
Clutchness - Butcher - 05-25-2010
I think I'd choose someone who usually makes good contact and won't likely whiff in that situation. That isn't necessarily our best hitter or most "clutch" hitter.
Clutchness - Fella - 05-25-2010
<!--quoteo(post=98287:date=May 25 2010, 04:13 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ May 25 2010, 04:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I think I'd choose someone who usually makes good contact and won't likely whiff in that situation. That isn't necessarily our best hitter or most "clutch" hitter.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If there is already two outs, how does a whiff differ from any other out? The fact that you believe Soriano to whiff often in those situations despite him being our best hitter, still shows you believe in clutch(or lack there of) to at least some degree.
On paper, Soriano gives us the best chance to get that run in by far, so choosing anyone else for any reason according to stats would be wrong.
Clutchness - jstraw - 05-25-2010
<!--quoteo(post=98284:date=May 25 2010, 04:55 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ May 25 2010, 04:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Butch isn't kidding though...I've never heard of anyone proposing such a stat, but if you pulled it off, it'd be a <i>huge</i> deal. I, for one, would be mesmerized reading a treatment of such a stat.
One problem, though. It might be fundamentally on shaky ground. You'd be saying that a run scored in the 7th inning is more important that a run scored in the second inning, when in reality, they're counted exactly the same. I can't see a math-inclined person swallowing that.
I don't know. I could be wrong. Even stat-heads talk about relief pitchers throwing in the "high-leverage" innings, and to a fan (like me), they DO seem like more important innings.
It's kind of a quagmire, isn't it?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes it is.
My thinking is that there would have to factors that valued runs differently if they created a lead, extended a lead (to a point), narrow a gap, force extra innings, etc.
Clutchness - kbwsb - 05-25-2010
That would be a cool idea.
I could be wrong, but I think ESPN may actually have a "clutch" stat. I wonder if it factors in the things you've been saying?
Clutchness - bz - 05-26-2010
<!--quoteo(post=98284:date=May 25 2010, 04:55 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ May 25 2010, 04:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->One problem, though. It might be fundamentally on shaky ground. You'd be saying that a run scored in the 7th inning is more important that a run scored in the second inning, when in reality, they're counted exactly the same. I can't see a math-inclined person swallowing that.
I don't know. I could be wrong. Even stat-heads talk about relief pitchers throwing in the "high-leverage" innings, and to a fan (like me), they DO seem like more important innings.
It's kind of a quagmire, isn't it?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I dunno. Let's say the Cubs are down by 2 runs to the Ippi Chippi Fwandogs in the bottom of the 2nd with no outs and the Cubs score a run to make the score now 1-2. That run could potentially be less valuable than one in the top of 7th to make the score 1-2 because of the difference in available outs in the game. A run scored in the 2nd leaves 24 more outs in which to tie the game with. Scoring that run in the 7th leaves only 9 outs to tie the game. Yes, they both show up on the scoreboard the same, but would having less available chances to win a game make the situation "more clutch?"
Clutchness - kbwsb - 05-26-2010
<!--quoteo(post=98477:date=May 26 2010, 07:28 PM:name=bz)-->QUOTE (bz @ May 26 2010, 07:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=98284:date=May 25 2010, 04:55 PM:name=KBwsb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KBwsb @ May 25 2010, 04:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->One problem, though. It might be fundamentally on shaky ground. You'd be saying that a run scored in the 7th inning is more important that a run scored in the second inning, when in reality, they're counted exactly the same. I can't see a math-inclined person swallowing that.
I don't know. I could be wrong. Even stat-heads talk about relief pitchers throwing in the "high-leverage" innings, and to a fan (like me), they DO seem like more important innings.
It's kind of a quagmire, isn't it?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I dunno. Let's say the Cubs are down by 2 runs to the Ippi Chippi Fwandogs in the bottom of the 2nd with no outs and the Cubs score a run to make the score now 1-2. That run could potentially be less valuable than one in the top of 7th to make the score 1-2 because of the difference in available outs in the game. A run scored in the 2nd leaves 24 more outs in which to tie the game with. Scoring that run in the 7th leaves only 9 outs to tie the game. Yes, they both show up on the scoreboard the same, but would having less available chances to win a game make the situation "more clutch?"
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes. I think you're probably right.
I think that's what most people mean by clutch.
Although you nearly lost me on the "1-2" score. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif[/img]