02-09-2009, 02:56 PM
The Clutch argument exemplifies why it seems stat people do not watch the games. How can they deny something that you observe and that common sense suggests exists? It does not make sense that all people react the same to a given situation. In our everyday lives we see it, in football we see it, but in baseball it does not exist.
You can not assume that statistical analysis, no matter how sloppy, is better than observation. The stat folks have not even taken the time to properly collect the data. Clutch at bats do not equal at bats w/ RISP or even close and late. They may also be using the wrong baseline. Clutch ABs are usually against better than average pitchers, so it is probably wrong to compare clutch averages to career averages. Making the assumption that just because a result falls withing the range that could be random, means it must be random. They do not establish normal clutchness or the range of clutchness.
You can not assume that statistical analysis, no matter how sloppy, is better than observation. The stat folks have not even taken the time to properly collect the data. Clutch at bats do not equal at bats w/ RISP or even close and late. They may also be using the wrong baseline. Clutch ABs are usually against better than average pitchers, so it is probably wrong to compare clutch averages to career averages. Making the assumption that just because a result falls withing the range that could be random, means it must be random. They do not establish normal clutchness or the range of clutchness.
I like you guys a lot.