Billy Beane: The Movie!

[savant]

Clapp, what happened to Ramirez in the last two playoffs? There has been no one on this team that I would want up more in the late inning pressure situations during the regular season than Ramirez. Why did he piss down his leg in the last two postseasons?

[kbwsb]

"Clutch," in regards to hitting, is a mostly a myth. Although today is not really a day to defend A-Rod, I'm going to use him in regards to the "clutch" argument, since he seems to pretty much <i>personify</i> a "totally UN-clutch guy," a choker.
So, let's check those darn ol' statistics to se if that's even true.

In his first 7 playoff series (to give you a comparison, the Cubs have played a grand total of exactly 7 playoff series since 1945) here are A-Rod's numbers:

.330/.384/.583
That's an OPS of 967. Go check out A-Rod's <!--coloro:#FF0000--><!--/coloro-->career<!--colorc-->
<!--/colorc--> regular-season OPS. It's EXACTLY <!--coloro:#FF0000--><!--/coloro-->967<!--colorc-->
<!--/colorc-->.
And that includes the historic Yankee collapse series against the Red Sox in '04. And it's not a tiny sample either...26 games, 7 series, over a 10-year period.

If you extrapolated those numbers over an entire 162-game season, it'd look like this:
211 hits, 37 HR, 100 RBI, .330 Avg. , 106 runs scored. And that's against superior competition...playoff pitching staffs. Hardly call that guy a choker, would you?

So yeah, after that, he sucked for a couple series, and the Yankee press made a big deal about it, but come on...how can a guy be <b><!--coloro:#2E8B57--><!--/coloro-->TOTALLY clutch<!--colorc-->
<!--/colorc--></b> for ten years, and then suddenly be the poster boy for un-clutch. It's absurd.

One final note: even <i>including</i> <!--coloro:#0000FF--><!--/coloro-->A-Rod<!--colorc-->
<!--/colorc-->'s recent poor playoffs, his lifetime post-season <!--coloro:#0000FF--><!--/coloro-->OPS: 844<!--colorc-->
<!--/colorc-->.
Compare that to the "King of Clutch," Mr. November, <!--coloro:#FF0000--><!--/coloro-->Derek Jeter<!--colorc-->
<!--/colorc-->'s lifetime post-season <!--coloro:#FF0000--><!--/coloro-->OPS: 846<!--colorc-->
<!--/colorc-->

[Clapp]

<!--quoteo(post=16683:date=Feb 7 2009, 08:55 PM:name=savant)-->QUOTE (savant @ Feb 7 2009, 08:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Clapp, what happened to Ramirez in the last two playoffs? There has been no one on this team that I would want up more in the late inning pressure situations during the regular season than Ramirez. Why did he piss down his leg in the last two postseasons?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He looked like he was trying too hard. He expanded the zone and swung at some breaking balls he usually lays off of. Aramis is as clutch as they come in the regular season so it was a bit of a surprise. 8th or 9th inning and you know he's going to come through.

[Clapp]

<!--quoteo(post=16684:date=Feb 7 2009, 08:59 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Feb 7 2009, 08:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->"Clutch," in regards to hitting, is a mostly a myth. Although today is not really a day to defend A-Rod, I'm going to use him in regards to the "clutch" argument, since he seems to pretty much <i>personify</i> a "totally UN-clutch guy," a choker.
So, let's check those darn ol' statistics to se if that's even true.

In his first 7 playoff series (to give you a comparison, the Cubs have played a grand total of exactly 7 playoff series since 1945) here are A-Rod's numbers:

.330/.384/.583
That's an OPS of 967. Go check out A-Rod's <!--coloro:#FF0000--><!--/coloro-->career<!--colorc-->
<!--/colorc--> regular-season OPS. It's EXACTLY <!--coloro:#FF0000--><!--/coloro-->967<!--colorc-->
<!--/colorc-->.
And that includes the historic Yankee collapse series against the Red Sox in '04. And it's not a tiny sample either...26 games, 7 series, over a 10-year period.

If you extrapolated those numbers over an entire 162-game season, it'd look like this:
211 hits, 37 HR, 100 RBI, .330 Avg. , 106 runs scored. And that's against superior competition...playoff pitching staffs. Hardly call that guy a choker, would you?

So yeah, after that, he sucked for a couple series, and the Yankee press made a big deal about it, but come on...how can a guy be <b><!--coloro:#2E8B57--><!--/coloro-->TOTALLY clutch<!--colorc-->
<!--/colorc--></b> for ten years, and then suddenly be the poster boy for un-clutch. It's absurd.

One final note: even <i>including</i> <!--coloro:#0000FF--><!--/coloro-->A-Rod<!--colorc-->
<!--/colorc-->'s recent poor playoffs, his lifetime post-season <!--coloro:#0000FF--><!--/coloro-->OPS: 844<!--colorc-->
<!--/colorc-->.
Compare that to the "King of Clutch," Mr. November, <!--coloro:#FF0000--><!--/coloro-->Derek Jeter<!--colorc-->
<!--/colorc-->'s lifetime post-season <!--coloro:#FF0000--><!--/coloro-->OPS: 846<!--colorc-->
<!--/colorc--><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Clutch is not a myth at all. To me clutch is being at least the same hitter you would be in a game where it's 12-3 in the 6th inning in April as you are in October. The Cubs hitters looked like nothing like how they did in the regular season. It wasn't just a few bad breaks here and there, they turned into completely different hitters.

As for A-Rod, he hasn't produced well in the playoffs as a Yankee, and ask any, I mean any Yankee fan that follows the team closely about it and they'll have the same complaints about him in big situations. It's tough dealing with the media scrutiny there, no doubt, and it's clearly affected him. We have the same problem. With the Cubs being in a big market, one of the most popular teams in sports, and not having a title in over a century, it's a ridiculous amount of pressure to deal with. It's hard finding guys that can handle it. I think Bradley's one of those guys.

[rok]

So, to those who believe the idea of being clutch is a myth, let's say we have 2 players:

Player A:
.280/.350/.875 full season.
.333/.400/1.200 with RISP

Player B:

.300/.375/.900 full season
.265/.340/.750 with RISP

You're telling me that there's no proof that player A is more clutch than player B? Do situational stats mean nothing? I'm sorry, but it does matter, and lack of clutch hitting is magnified in playoff situations when the quality of pitching is higher and stress can be unbearable for some players, A-Roid and Alf included. I've watched enough baseball over my lifetime to know this, and the stats do nothing to disprove this notion.

[Clapp]

<!--quoteo(post=16742:date=Feb 8 2009, 03:19 PM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Feb 8 2009, 03:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->So, to those who believe the idea of being clutch is a myth, let's say we have 2 players:

Player A:
.280/.350/.875 full season.
.333/.400/1.200 with RISP

Player B:

.300/.375/.900 full season
.265/.340/.750 with RISP

You're telling me that there's no proof that player A is more clutch than player B? Do situational stats mean nothing? I'm sorry, but it does matter, and lack of clutch hitting is magnified in playoff situations when the quality of pitching is higher and stress can be unbearable for some players, A-Roid and Alf included. I've watched enough baseball over my lifetime to know this, and the stats do nothing to disprove this notion.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/bow.gif[/img]

[Brock]

<!--quoteo(post=16742:date=Feb 8 2009, 04:19 PM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ Feb 8 2009, 04:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->So, to those who believe the idea of being clutch is a myth, let's say we have 2 players:

Player A:
.280/.350/.875 full season.
.333/.400/1.200 with RISP

Player B:

.300/.375/.900 full season
.265/.340/.750 with RISP

You're telling me that there's no proof that player A is more clutch than player B? Do situational stats mean nothing? I'm sorry, but it does matter, and lack of clutch hitting is magnified in playoff situations when the quality of pitching is higher and stress can be unbearable for some players, A-Roid and Alf included. I've watched enough baseball over my lifetime to know this, and the stats do nothing to disprove this notion.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I think that to say a player is "clutch" (hits well with RISP for example) you would have to show that he does so not just for one season but for most seasons in his career. If I'm not mistaken (been a while since I've read up on this) the studies that have been done on the topic show that an overwhelming majority of players that are "clutch" one season don't actually show a tendency to be "clutch" during most of their seasons.

[kbwsb]

Well, Brock nailed it.
Here's the problem with those numbers, rok and Clappie: in almost every situation, the numbers <b>reverse</b> the next year. In other words, there's never been a case, to my knowledge, of a hitter who constantly kicks ass in high-pressure situations. Never.

So that means that sometimes A-Rod sucks ass in the playoffs, and sometimes he hits like freaking Paul Bunyan. Barry Bonds was stupendous in the 2002 post-season...yet in his 3 playoff series with the Pirates, he was terrible. What, did he "learn" clutchiness, later?
Name a player...anyone in history...and if you look at his stats, you'll see how in one year, he's the king of clutch, and another year he goes 0-for-15 or something in the World Series.

Reggie "Mr. October" Jackson? You want clutch? How about five homers in the 1977 World Series,
3 in the deciding game!
Take that, Mr. stat-head!
Oh, except that...the week earlier, he nearly cost his team the playoffs by going 2-for-16 (2 singles) in the A.L. playoffs, for a kick-ass .125/.222/.125 line. In fact, as Reggie himself relates in his autobiography, the nickname "Mr. October" itself was actually given to him <i>sarcastically</i> in that 2-for-16 series, when his Yankee teammates laid the blame on their near-loss of the series to Reggie's complete suckiness.

Manny? He seems pretty darn clutch, even to me. However, don't bring that up to a Tribe fan...the Indians would have almost certainly won the 1997 World Series if their best player hadn't crapped the bed with a 4-for-26 Series, for a lusty .154 average. (Game 7? 0-for-3, 2 strike-outs).

It's all small sample size. Jim is smart to try to build the team for the 162 games, and not the 3 or 11 or so games in October.

[leonardsipes]

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.

[BT]

<!--quoteo(post=16809:date=Feb 9 2009, 12:56 PM:name=leonardsipes)-->QUOTE (leonardsipes @ Feb 9 2009, 12:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I guess I'm not following you Leonard. Doesn't KB's examples show why stat people think "clutchiness" might be a myth? Again, people will remember Jackson's clutch home runs. They will forget the unclutch strikeouts. Stats don't have that bias.

[Brock]

I love how it always comes back to the statement that "stat people don't watch the games." I find it pretty hard to believe that people that put so much time and effort into studying a game don't actually like the game enough to sit down and watch it as well.

[leonardsipes]

<!--quoteo(post=16815:date=Feb 9 2009, 02:20 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Feb 9 2009, 02:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=16809:date=Feb 9 2009, 12:56 PM:name=leonardsipes)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (leonardsipes @ Feb 9 2009, 12:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I guess I'm not following you Leonard. Doesn't KB's examples show why stat people think "clutchiness" might be a myth? Again, people will remember Jackson's clutch home runs. They will forget the unclutch strikeouts. Stats don't have that bias.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Statistical analysis is biased. It is not like finding the area under a curve. It is done by people who assume something is or is not the case and try to prove it. In scientific research it is kind of an accepted fact. Why do you think every time a study that comes out showing one result another study showing the opposite result comes out. How many years did it take to prove smoking was bad?

I listed three valid reasons why statistical analysis suggesting clutch does not exist may be flawed, and somehow, it is refuted by anecdotal evidence about Reggie Jackson.

Brock, my post said it seems stat people don't watch the games, because they refuse to admit things they observe happening, really occur unless shown by stats.

[kbwsb]

<!--quoteo(post=16817:date=Feb 9 2009, 01:26 PM:name=Brock)-->QUOTE (Brock @ Feb 9 2009, 01:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I love how it always comes back to the statement that "stat people don't watch the games." I find it pretty hard to believe that people that put so much time and effort into studying a game don't actually like the game enough to sit down and watch it as well.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bingo, Brock.
The idea that someone who loves baseball so fucking much that he immerses himself into serious statistical data so as to round out his appreciation for the game...that guy hates the game? That guy doesn't watch a ball game? It's a laughable notion.

The truth is what BT said: <!--coloro:#0000FF--><!--/coloro-->statistical data often is at odds with human memory<!--colorc-->
<!--/colorc-->. And we all cherish our baseball memories. It's why I still love Mark Prior, even though the stats say that he has sucked beyond belief since 2003. It's why Derrek Lee is still my favorite Cub, even though the stats say that he's league-average for a 1st baseman, and is thus wildly overpaid <b>and</b> dragging the team down.

I'm a fan first. But to put your head in the sand as to what <i>really</i> is happening between the baselines is, IMO, cutting yourself off from a treasure-trove of interesting baseball stuff.

[rok]

Nobody said anything about stat-heads hating the game, but sometimes people put too much faith into the numbers. Sports aren't a hard science or even a social science. Stats only tell you so much, they don't put things in the context of every game situation. I'm a big believer in stats, I mean my livelihood depends on it, but there's no substitute for actually watching a game and drawing conclusions from what you see. Stats help you understand the game better and provide clarity for players' performances and for the most part do a decent job at explaining things, but there is no perfect science to sports stats. It's more of an art, not a science. Ask any true statistician (non sports related), and they will tell you the same thing.

[kbwsb]

Well, that's accurate, rok. I agree with that 100%. Stats can't tell you everything, and nothing replaces the joy of watching a ballgame.

But a few people on the site have turned it into a black-and-white thing, a line in the sand: if you bring stats into any baseball discussion, you must never watch the actual sport. Ludicrous as hell, yet some posters still cling to it.