Billy Beane: The Movie!

[Clapp]

<!--quoteo(post=16966:date=Feb 9 2009, 08:48 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Feb 9 2009, 08:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->That's what, back in 1997? He was a 25-year-old then.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

OK, so clutchness is <b>not</b> an <i>inherent trait </i>that some guys like Jeter and Reggie just have in spades...it's something that "grows" with age. That's your story?

At age 25, Manny had just completed his 3rd straight full season with an OPS+ above 140 (for comparison, the last time the Cubs have had a player with an OPS+ that high, in even a <i>single</i> season, was back during D. Lee's monster year in 2005)...he was a superstar, and the best player on pennant-winning team. I fact, this was his <i>second</i> World Series, having led the Tribe to the '95 Series too. So he was hardly some unexperienced rook.

When Bobby Thomson hit his famous pennant-winning homer, he was 27. When Bill Mazeroski hit his World Series-winning blast in 1960, he was 23.
If Manny was truly "clutch," he would have won that Series for the Tribe with a timely hit.
But he didn't, because "clutchness" isn't an actual trait. Excellence is, and Manny has done well in other tight situations because he's an excellent hitter.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course it grows with age, you mature. As a young player you might be nervous on the big stage. As you get older you get used to the situation and are able to deal with it better. It's just like anything else in life. It's <i>all</i> about mentality.

[bz]

I reaaaaaally need to have the stats vs eyes convo in persson with you KB. You and I aren't really saying what we mean well here. SOITOW then...

[kbwsb]

<!--quoteo(post=16998:date=Feb 10 2009, 01:52 AM:name=bz)-->QUOTE (bz @ Feb 10 2009, 01:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I reaaaaaally need to have the stats vs eyes convo in persson with you KB. You and I aren't really saying what we mean well here. SOITOW then...<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dude, there's few things in life more enjoyable that having beers with you and the other SOI maniacs, so if I'm within a 500-mile radius of Chicago this summer, you're on.

[Scarey]

<!--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.

[kbwsb]

Yep, I agree. As I stated at the outset of my post, Manny is the guy I'd <i>most</i> want up there in a "clutch" situation. Actually, Pujols would be #1, just cause he's the best hitter, and I believe it has more to do with overall<b> skill</b> than it does an inherent "clutch" chromosome in a guy's DNA.

As for situational hitting, I agree with you about Dunn. While I think he's very valuable over the course of a game, in the 9th inning, with an important run that HAS to get plated, you don't want a guy taking too many pitches. Unless he's followed in the order by an even better hitter...in that case, it'd be awesome to have the first guy still in scoring position, and Dunn either on 1st with a BB, or on the bench, having NOT hit into a DP.

But I agree with you, he's not my 1st choice for a 9th inning, game-on-the-line situation.

But yeah, you did catch my point about the Manny story...too small of a sample size can lead to all sorts of erroneous conclusions.

[Scarey]

<!--quoteo(post=17031:date=Feb 10 2009, 10:09 AM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ Feb 10 2009, 10:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->But yeah, you did catch my point about the Manny story...too small of a sample size can lead to all sorts of erroneous conclusions.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


Actually, I didn't realize that was your point. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif[/img]

Anyway, I don't think anyone here is trying to claim that some players just have a magical clutch trait. It's all about how the player happens to handle a situation and the skill he holds to be able to execute in the given situation. That's what I think most if not all people here believe when talking about clutch.

[PcB]

There's no such thing as "clutch" There are better hitters in the playoffs, but those guys tend to be the better hitters in the regular season as well.

[leonardsipes]

If you think OBP is the most important thing, that clutch results are random, that BABIP is random, pretty much everything but walks and HRs are random, then you might as well watch dice baseball. You are discounting the things that make real live baseball an interesting game.

Pitchers pitch differently, and different pitchers pitch in different situations. Every body talks about the Cubs bringing Marmol in to get key outs. If the tying run is at 3rd less than 2 outs, you pitch to Adam Dunn where he can't hit the ball and hope for a KO or at worst, walk. If you have a multiple run lead with no runners on base, you pitch to where Adam Dunn can hit the ball. 75% chance he gets out, 10% chance he hit a HR.

The best pitchers in the most important moments will be going to the parts of the stike zone that any given hitter is weak. If the pitcher has the advantage, he also has the opportunity to go outside the strike zone. The hitters with the best control of the strike zone will do better in clutch situations.

Clutch hitting has to exist, because clutch at bats are not the same as other at bats. It is not just the ability to handle pressure, in clutch ABs you see better pitchers. Then you add the pressure factor. There is no way that everybody handles pressure equally, or that the same player would not have a different response to pressure over time.

[Clapp]

<!--quoteo(post=17311:date=Feb 11 2009, 11:21 AM:name=leonardsipes)-->QUOTE (leonardsipes @ Feb 11 2009, 11:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Clutch hitting has to exist, because clutch at bats are not the same as other at bats. It is not just the ability to handle pressure, in clutch ABs you see better pitchers. Then you add the pressure factor. There is no way that everybody handles pressure equally, or that the same player would not have a different response to pressure over time.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ding.

[hPOD]

<!--quoteo(post=17199:date=Feb 10 2009, 08:26 PM:name=PcB)-->QUOTE (PcB @ Feb 10 2009, 08:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->There's no such thing as "clutch" There are better hitters in the playoffs, but those guys tend to be the better hitters in the regular season as well.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Tell that to A-Rod. He's great in the regular season but never seems all that great in the playoffs.

[Clapp]

<!--quoteo(post=17357:date=Feb 11 2009, 12:46 PM:name=hPOD)-->QUOTE (hPOD @ Feb 11 2009, 12:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=17199:date=Feb 10 2009, 08:26 PM:name=PcB)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PcB @ Feb 10 2009, 08:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->There's no such thing as "clutch" There are better hitters in the playoffs, but those guys tend to be the better hitters in the regular season as well.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Tell that to A-Rod. He's great in the regular season but never seems all that great in the playoffs.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I like hPOD.

[Butcher]

<!--quoteo(post=17357:date=Feb 11 2009, 01:46 PM:name=hPOD)-->QUOTE (hPOD @ Feb 11 2009, 01:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=17199:date=Feb 10 2009, 08:26 PM:name=PcB)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PcB @ Feb 10 2009, 08:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->There's no such thing as "clutch" There are better hitters in the playoffs, but those guys tend to be the better hitters in the regular season as well.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Tell that to A-Rod. He's great in the regular season but never seems all that great in the playoffs.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
.279/.361/.483 in the postseason isn't too shabby. Sure, it isn't .306/.389/.578 (his career numbers). But you're also facing the best teams' very best pitchers in the postseason. It makes sense that there's a drop in numbers.

[hPOD]

<!--quoteo(post=17360:date=Feb 11 2009, 01:58 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Feb 11 2009, 01:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=17357:date=Feb 11 2009, 01:46 PM:name=hPOD)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (hPOD @ Feb 11 2009, 01:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=17199:date=Feb 10 2009, 08:26 PM:name=PcB)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PcB @ Feb 10 2009, 08:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->There's no such thing as "clutch" There are better hitters in the playoffs, but those guys tend to be the better hitters in the regular season as well.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Tell that to A-Rod. He's great in the regular season but never seems all that great in the playoffs.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
.279/.361/.483 in the postseason isn't too shabby. Sure, it isn't .306/.389/.578 (his career numbers). But you're also facing the best teams' very best pitchers in the postseason. It makes sense that there's a drop in numbers.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Wow, I have to admit I didn't bother checking his playoff numbers, and that shows they aren't as bad as I thought, but everytime I've watched him in the playoffs he's seemed as "unclutch" as it's gets. My opinion of him is rather low at the moment, so that may have attributed to this as my example.

[Butcher]

<!--quoteo(post=17361:date=Feb 11 2009, 02:03 PM:name=hPOD)-->QUOTE (hPOD @ Feb 11 2009, 02:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=17360:date=Feb 11 2009, 01:58 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ Feb 11 2009, 01:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=17357:date=Feb 11 2009, 01:46 PM:name=hPOD)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (hPOD @ Feb 11 2009, 01:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=17199:date=Feb 10 2009, 08:26 PM:name=PcB)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PcB @ Feb 10 2009, 08:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->There's no such thing as "clutch" There are better hitters in the playoffs, but those guys tend to be the better hitters in the regular season as well.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Tell that to A-Rod. He's great in the regular season but never seems all that great in the playoffs.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
.279/.361/.483 in the postseason isn't too shabby. Sure, it isn't .306/.389/.578 (his career numbers). But you're also facing the best teams' very best pitchers in the postseason. It makes sense that there's a drop in numbers.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Wow, I have to admit I didn't bother checking his playoff numbers, and that shows they aren't as bad as I thought, but everytime I've watched him in the playoffs he's seemed as "unclutch" as it's gets. My opinion of him is rather low at the moment, so that may have attributed to this as my example.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think part of it is that A-Rod, like a lot of power hitters, strikes out a lot. When you strike out in key situations -- especially in the playoffs -- I think it tends to get magnified in peoples' heads. A lot of people thought Sosa wasn't clutch -- and I think it was because of the strikeouts. When you swing and miss, it seems like a bigger failure than if you ground out or fly out.

To add to the sample size argument -- Sosa was ridiculous in the 2003 series against the Marlins. He went .308/.455/.577. Those are Hall of Fame numbers. But he was .188/.409/.250 just one series before that against the Braves in the NLDS. So was he a choker against the Braves and then suddenly clutch against the Marlins?

It's so hard to measure playoff performance because a batter gets 500+ ABs in the regular season and then anywhere from 15-50 in the postseason (depending how far your team advances).

[hPOD]

<!--quoteo(post=17364:date=Feb 11 2009, 02:14 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Feb 11 2009, 02:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->To add to the sample size argument -- Sosa was ridiculous in the 2003 series against the Marlins. He went .308/.455/.577. Those are Hall of Fame numbers. But he was .188/.409/.250 just one series before that against the Braves in the NLDS. So was he a choker against the Braves and then suddenly clutch against the Marlins?

It's so hard to measure playoff performance because a batter gets 500+ ABs in the regular season and then anywhere from 15-50 in the postseason (depending how far your team advances).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Great points, and I do recall that about Sosa in 2003 (Braves vs Marlins stats), however I still tend to think there are people who elevate their game in pressure situations, and on the flip side I think there are people who simply cannot do this, and instead fold under that pressure.

For example, Orlando "El Duque" Hernandez. I've never seen anyone able to flip a switch and light it up like this guy in major pressure situations, after having relatively average regular seasons. I remember in 2005 while he posted a 6+ regular season ERA while topping out at 88mph with erratic control only to absolutely dominate in the playoffs and suddenly hit 93-94 on the gun. While Butch already knows this about me, I'll just go ahead and (hopefully not) destroy my credibility around here and tell the rest of you that I'm a Sox fan. I feel no reason to hide this. I'm simply here for the exceptional baseball discussion you have versus the places I've come to despise.

That said, I'm not here to cause problems nor talk shit...I simply want to partake in excellent baseball conversation, even if it has nothing to do with my own team. I just love the game that much.