02-10-2009, 10:57 AM
<!--quoteo(post=16937:date=Feb 9 2009, 07:35 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Feb 9 2009, 07:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Sipes, I think that is true. Undeniably true.
But what about those times when the stat findings <i>contradict</i> your original theory? Wouldn't that actually strengthen your faith in the stats, because they actually went <i>against</i> your human biases?
Here's my baseball example: I wondered, <b>who is the clutchest guy in all of MLB?</b> Who has the rep, who have we all seen come through countless times?
My answer was Manny Ramirez. He bludgeoned the Cubs in the playoffs. He bludgeoned the eventual champion Phillies. He's a World Series MVP. To me, he really seems to slough off pressure, and come through. Ice-water in his veins.
And i don't think I'm alone...if you polled all baseball fans about this question, I would bet that Manny would be the #1 answer to the question "Who is the most clutch hitter in baseball?"
So then I thought, "what was the single most clutch situation of his career?" And the answer was easy...the late innings of Game 7 of the World Series. And lo and behold, he'd actually lived out that very situation! A perfect experiment!
So what took place? Eighth inning, one-run ballgame, <i>everything</i> on the line...
Manny strikes out.
But wait...the game goes to extra innings! The ultimate baseball fan's dream: an extra-inning, super intensity Game Seven.
So Manny comes up in the 10th inning, tie ballgame, man on base. The runner on base represents the game-winning, <i>World Series</i>-winning run! You want a clutch situation?
Manny strikes out.
Well, there goes my theory about Manny being "clutch." Done in by those darn ol' "statistics" again.
That, and the old "small sample size" thing.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know that post you made about people making things very black and white? Are you seeing the irony too?
Just because Manny failed in two consecutive at bats, doesn't mean that he's not the guy you want up in a "clutch" situation.
The thing is, you're making clutch out to be some kind of tangible trait. All it really means is it's a guy that can come up to the plate in an important situation, understand that situation, and <b>more than most other players</b>, will come through for you by doing what needs to be done.
Adam Dunn for instance, is not clutch. Rather than try to make contact, he waits for his home run pitch and swings for the fences in any two strike count with man/men in scoring position. None of this make contact business or fouling off close pitches. And guess what... stats prove it as well as my observations.
But what about those times when the stat findings <i>contradict</i> your original theory? Wouldn't that actually strengthen your faith in the stats, because they actually went <i>against</i> your human biases?
Here's my baseball example: I wondered, <b>who is the clutchest guy in all of MLB?</b> Who has the rep, who have we all seen come through countless times?
My answer was Manny Ramirez. He bludgeoned the Cubs in the playoffs. He bludgeoned the eventual champion Phillies. He's a World Series MVP. To me, he really seems to slough off pressure, and come through. Ice-water in his veins.
And i don't think I'm alone...if you polled all baseball fans about this question, I would bet that Manny would be the #1 answer to the question "Who is the most clutch hitter in baseball?"
So then I thought, "what was the single most clutch situation of his career?" And the answer was easy...the late innings of Game 7 of the World Series. And lo and behold, he'd actually lived out that very situation! A perfect experiment!
So what took place? Eighth inning, one-run ballgame, <i>everything</i> on the line...
Manny strikes out.
But wait...the game goes to extra innings! The ultimate baseball fan's dream: an extra-inning, super intensity Game Seven.
So Manny comes up in the 10th inning, tie ballgame, man on base. The runner on base represents the game-winning, <i>World Series</i>-winning run! You want a clutch situation?
Manny strikes out.
Well, there goes my theory about Manny being "clutch." Done in by those darn ol' "statistics" again.
That, and the old "small sample size" thing.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know that post you made about people making things very black and white? Are you seeing the irony too?
Just because Manny failed in two consecutive at bats, doesn't mean that he's not the guy you want up in a "clutch" situation.
The thing is, you're making clutch out to be some kind of tangible trait. All it really means is it's a guy that can come up to the plate in an important situation, understand that situation, and <b>more than most other players</b>, will come through for you by doing what needs to be done.
Adam Dunn for instance, is not clutch. Rather than try to make contact, he waits for his home run pitch and swings for the fences in any two strike count with man/men in scoring position. None of this make contact business or fouling off close pitches. And guess what... stats prove it as well as my observations.