Clutch hitting

[Appling]

Bill James and other baseball statisticians claim there is no such thing as "clutch hitting". A player may hit well in a "clutch situation" but only due to chance. He may do it a year or two but not over a full career.

James also says that the RBI is a "meaningless stat".

But how do you define a "clutch hitting situation"? I can think of several possibilities:
* Hitting better than my career average when runners are in scoring position?
* Hitting for a higher average in a close game, especially in late innings?
* Driving in a run after two outs?

Without seeing any "splits" data to support my position, I still believe that some batters will hit better in a clutch situation and some will not. Adrenalin may help some hitters better focus their attention in a "clutch situation" while others may "freeze" when a game is on the line.

Other things being equal, I would expect most hitters to do better when there are runners in scoring position:
(1) the pitcher is less likely to throw a breaking ball or a change-up
(2) the pitcher must work without a wind-up
(3) a runner on second base may steal the catcher's sign and relay that information to the batter
(4) the pitcher himself might "choke" in a clutch situation

I think of only factor to offset these hitter advantages: a really good pitcher will perform better when runners are in scoring position. (He will stop "pacing himself".)

BTW: Who is the better "clutch hitter": Player "A" (a lifetime .260 hitter) who averages .290 when runners are in scoring position, or Player "B" (a career .330 hitter) whose BA drops to .300 when runners are in scoring position? Player A performs better than his average when a hit is most important, but player B still has a slightly better chance (.300 vs. .290) of driving in that key run.

So -- where can I find "splits" data to test my theory?

Is there splits data for an entire league, which might reveal whether most batters hit for a higher average or a lower average when runners are in scoring position?
Are there some hitters who consistently hit for a higher average when a hit will likely drive in a run? Is a "split" of 30 points in this situation (as in my example above) actually very common in real life?

And is there "splits data" available for even deeper study-- such as "BA with runners in scoring position and two outs"?

[538280]

And is there "splits data" available for even deeper study-- such as "BA with runners in scoring position and two outs"?

Retrosheet has some of that info. It has splits for RISP, times with men on base, and bases loaded data since 1959 I believe. They have it for individual players and teams, but I'm not sure if they have it for the whole league.

If you're really interested, I'm sure you could tell STATS Inc. about your dilemma and proposed research project and they might be able to help you.

[RuthMayBond]

I've seen a STATS book with data in clutch situations and batters tended to hit a little worse (probably due to facing fresh relievers). Other sports believe there are clutch players (Elway, Jerry West, Reggie Miller) why not baseball. I believe there are clutch hitters but it's difficult to prove and define

[Sultan_1895-1948]

There are different types of clutch situations too though. If the runner on base is a threat to steal, it's adds a whole new set of factors in favor of the hitter. Pitch selection, pitcher's attention is split, where fielders set up, pressure on the catcher to name a few.

I think player A is the better clutch hitter in your scenario, but player B is the better hitter. Dropping off so much from his norm, would lead you to believe that player B lets pressure affect him.

To me, clutch isn't necessarily "raising" your performance in a given situation. It's being able to maintain your norm. Your level of focus remains the same without your muscle-coordination, reflexes, and nerves being negatively affected.

[Appling]

Retrosheet has some of that info. It has splits for RISP, times with men on base, and bases loaded data since 1959 I believe. They have it for individual players and teams, but I'm not sure if they have it for the whole league.

Thanks for that reference information. I sampled just a few, to get a taste of it. I looked at George Brett, Harmon Killebrew, Brooks Robinson and Cal Ripken. Brett's batting average runners in scoring position was more than ten points higher than his overall season BA in 1975, 1977, 1979, 1980, 1986, 1987, 1989 and 1990. His BA with RISP was more than 10 points lower than his season average in 1976 (.281 vs .333), 1981 (.260 vs .314), 1982, 1984 and 1991. For other years the difference between season and RISP was small.

Brett's remarkable 1980 season was extraordinary for clutch hitting also. That year George hit .469 with RISP, compared with "only" .381 with bases empty and .390 for the total season overall.

Like Brett, Harmon Killebrew seems to have a much higher BA with RISP in those seasons which were great for him overall (like 1969). Looking only at seasons when Harmon exceeded 100 RBI: 1959 (.242 for season /.254 with RISP); 1961 (season BA .288 / RISP .321); 1962 (.243 /.298); 1964 (.270 /.232 with RISP); 1966 (.281 /.263); 1967 (.269 /.349); 1969 (.276 /.314); 1970 (.271 /.259); 1971 (.254 /.333). Harmon was never a .300 hitter for a season, but he hit .298 or better with RISP six times (including 1965 when he had only 75 RBI). He didn't only use homeruns to drive in runs -- sometimes he did it with just a timely single. Perhaps he was a true clutch hitter.

Brooks Robinson was known for being a clutch hitter. His RISP average was much better than his overall season BA in his early seasons (1959. 1960, 1963, 1964 and 1966) but significantly lower in 1962, 1967, 1968 and 1971.

In a quick sample of Ripken's numbers, it seems he was remarkably consistent in most seasons -- average with RISP was usually close to his overall average for the season.

Just that small sample seems to show that rarely is a player consistently better in a clutch situation -- maybe for a few seasons, but not over a full career. I wish I could see similar data for players before 1959 -- especially Ruth and Gehrig.

[BoSox Rule]

Bill James said clutch hitting exists, clutch hitters do not.

[BP88]

Bill James said clutch hitting exists, clutch hitters do not.
Precisely what I was thinking.

[538280]

James also says that the RBI is a "meaningless stat".


Sorry about this being somewhat off topic, but Bill James has never (to my knowledge at least) said anything like this. James repeatedly says that RBI is a decent sketch of how good a hitter is, but can't be relied on.

RBI is not meaningless, it is just overrated. A player gets RBI if he:

A)Plays a lot
B)Plays in favorable conditions (runners in front get on base, bats in the middle of the order), and
C)Plays well.

When looking at stats we are trying to determine factor C. Factor C has a lot to do with RBI, and thus it is not meaningless, but it is just weighed down too much by factors A and B to be relied on.

P.S (in part to stay on topic): I've before thought a good way of measuring clutch hitting may be to find a way to come up with "expected RBI" based on a player's own offensive stats, how much he played, and the stats of his teammates. We can then compare the "expected RBI" to the player's actual RBI. I think that may be the best way to measure clutch hitting ability, if it can be done.

[Ubiquitous]

Appling,
just do a search on the internet for clutch hitting research. Plenty of people have done them, and at the very least you'll get a hold of some data. FOr instance on retrosheet Tom Ruane has an article on clutch hitting. Plus he also provides a link to all his data.

[RuthMayBond]

Bill James said clutch hitting exists, clutch hitters do not.Gee, then I wonder WHO does the clutch hitting

[BoSox Rule]

Gee, then I wonder WHO does the clutch hitting
Nice rebuttal.

A .250 hitter isn't going to consistently hit better in clutch situations than normal situations. Once there is a reasonable sample size, he will still be a .250 hitter in those situations. A .330 hitter is probably going to be a .330 hitter in "clutch" situations. He isn't going to be clutch because he hits .330 in those situations. He is the same hitter, he is just called clutch because it happened in an arbitrary situation. He is a great hitter and will be a great hitter in any situation.

Same thing for the playoffs. The .250 might hit .400 in the Division Series, but he will probably hit .250 in the LCS and World Series. He is not clutch and will probably regress to the mean with a decent sample size.

[Ubiquitous]

They're all clutch, the hitters, the pitchers, the fielders.

[RuthMayBond]

They're all clutch, the hitters, the pitchers, the fielders.A hitter can't be getting a clutch hit while the pitcher and fielder is making a clutch out to get the batter :crazy

[538280]

My theory on clutch hitting (I actually think this is what Ubi is hinting at):

I think every player in the majors is clutch, simply because all plate appearances in the majors can be defined as "clutch". This is these people's jobs, and if they don't do well, they're on the unemployment line. For many of them, how well they do in their PAs will determine their future. Do well, you'll be rich, famous, and have one of the best jobs in the world. Do badly, and you'll be unemployed, and even if you do get a job it probably won't be a good one.

Everyone who gets significant playing time in the majors is really a "clutch" hitter. The non clutch players have long since been out of the game. Different people's ability levels peak at different levels. Some people peak at Little League, and can't compete at a higher level. Some peak at high school, some peak at college, some peak in the minors, and some peak in the major leagues. As you move up the scale, you will need certain abilities. One of the abilities you need to move into the last level (the majors) is clutch hitting.

So, that's why there is no such thing as consistently doing better in clutch situations in the majors, at least IMO.

[Ubiquitous]

Every time clutch hitting comes up I say the same thing and it is basically what Reggophile said but reduced down to one sentence.

99.99% of the time if you cannot perform well in a high pressure, high intensity environment you will be found out and filtered out before you reach the majors.

To these players almost every single at bat and pitch is against the best opposition possible. This isn't like Reggie Bush or LeBron James versus a bunch of high school kids. This is people with enough talent and skill to play at the highest level possible.

[misterdirt]

99.99% of the time if you cannot perform well in a high pressure, high intensity environment you will be found out and filtered out before you reach the majors.

To these players almost every single at bat and pitch is against the best opposition possible. This isn't like Reggie Bush or LeBron James versus a bunch of high school kids. This is people with enough talent and skill to play at the highest level possible.

If this is true, and I think it probably is, it makes all those pronouncements by TV commentators about how a team is going to do better in the World Series (or Super Bowl or NBA finals) because "they have been there before" seem pretty silly.

[four tool]

Generally speaking been there does count for a lot in post season--pick a yankee dynasty, Celtics, Lakers and Bulls in NBA--Steelers and Lombardi Packers in NFL--not to mention SF and Denver and Washington DC. SF and Pitt won the first time and SF never lost--Pitt finally lost after the Chiuck Noll years. And SF won the first time against another first appearance team, Cincinatti.
In the NFL alone, the following teams lost their first superbowl appearance and won the next time or later:

Oakland, KC, Baltimore Colts, Washington, Dallas, Miami, New England. ( I may have missed some).
Minnesota and Buffalo are exceptions, no wins in 4 tries, Denver totally changed personnal except for QB when they won.

[Ubiquitous]

Winning in the post season has more to do with being a good to great team then it does with being there before. All that being there before means you were a great team the year before or whenever your team went to the post season. The Yankees weren't great in the 1928 postseason because they won in 1927, they were great because they were great that year.

[four tool]

All the player interviews I've read and seen say experience counts--why do you doubt them who have been there and done it?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Experience counts a lot. It's human nature to have your nerves affected by a pressure situation. Clutch would be performing at your norm, and not falling below that level. Being in that situation before, helps you stay above that level.

There was a thing on 60 minutes or something awhile back. They had 5 people do some putting, with no cameras around, just hidden cameras. They stepped up and continually drained 5 foot and 8 foot puts. Then the camera came in, and the host told them they'd get like 100 bucks for every putt they made. Because of the added pressure, their numbers fell big time. Pressure got to them, and their muscle coordination was affected.

[538280]

Experience counts a lot. It's human nature to have your nerves affected by a pressure situation. Clutch would be performing at your norm, and not falling below that level. Being in that situation before, helps you stay above that level.

It's human nature to most people. But, it is my belief that MLB players, in order to really make the big time, have to be able to overcome that human nature.

There was a thing on 60 minutes or something awhile back. They had 5 people do some putting, with no cameras around, just hidden cameras. They stepped up and continually drained 5 foot and 8 foot puts. Then the camera came in, and the host told them they'd get like 100 bucks for every putt they made. Because of the added pressure, their numbers fell big time. Pressure got to them, and their muscle coordination was affected.

That's probably why those people will never make the PGA. Those second putts (with cameras on and for money), are basically like every putt in the PGA. The people who can handle it are the one who go a long way, the ones who can't are out of the game by the pros. It's the same with baseball.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

It's human nature to most people. But, it is my belief that MLB players, in order to really make the big time, have to be able to overcome that human nature.



That's probably why those people will never make the PGA. Those second putts (with cameras on and for money), are basically like every putt in the PGA. The people who can handle it are the one who go a long way, the ones who can't are out of the game by the pros. It's the same with baseball.

Which puts me back to my original point. PGA players are better than the "civilians" even before all the pressure. What makes PGA players great, is there ability to mainain their high level of excellence, and not fall below their expected norm.

In baseball, they are not robots. Granted, those who cannot handle just the pressure of being in the bigs will be weeded out rather quickly. But even once you are there, there are pressure situations. Pujols hitting one over the train tracks, one strike from losing the series. It's not that he rose above anything he hadn't done before, it's that he maintained his norm in a pressure situation. Does that make any sense?

[RuthMayBond]

Pujols hitting one over the train tracks, one strike from losing the series. It's not that he rose above anything he hadn't done before, it's that he maintained his norm in a pressure situation. Does that make any sense?Makes sense, though hitting a 500' HR one strike from losing is not anybody's "norm"

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Makes sense, though hitting a 500' HR one strike from losing is not anybody's "norm"

But see, one might look at the situation, and see that accomplishment as being "clutch." But really, it was just Pujols being Pujols. Just so happened it came in a big moment. Him being able to keep focus and to not let his increased heart rate or psychological state affect his nerves is special. But nothing out of the norm for him. Which begs the question: what about Ozzie, or Maz, or Fisk. Was that rising above, or maintaining and getting a little lucky?

[Ubiquitous]

All the player interviews I've read and seen say experience counts--why do you doubt them who have been there and done it?

Because there is ample evidence that whatever advantage experience in playoffs gives is not enough to outweigh just being the better team, or the healthier team, or even just the luckier team.

And for Sultan,
I'm willing to bet if you secretly watched Arnold Palmer or Tiger Woods putting and then added some cameras and put money on the putts you wouldn't seen a change in their accuracy. Like I said before these guys are at the top off their professions. If they can't handle the pressure they wouldn't be their or they wouldn't be their for very long.

[four tool]

[QUOTE=Ubiquitous]Because there is ample evidence that whatever advantage experience in playoffs gives is not enough to outweigh just being the better team, or the healthier team, or even just the luckier team.

Please cite the evidence--I did for the counterpoint.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

And for Sultan,
I'm willing to bet if you secretly watched Arnold Palmer or Tiger Woods putting and then added some cameras and put money on the putts you wouldn't seen a change in their accuracy.

As rare as it is, we agree on this. That's been my position the whole time. They're better to begin with because of all their practice, and then when the pressure is on, they maintain that excellence. Not easy to do.

[Ubiquitous]

Please cite the evidence--I did for the counterpoint.


What would be the evidence, practically every single playoff year?

Arizona Diamondbacks beat the Yankees. Mark Grace gets a hit off of Mariano Riviera. The 2004 Red Sox beating the Yankees. The Bulls beating the Lakers, the Bulls beating the Pistons. New England beating the Dolphins. The Bears losing to the Redskins. New England losing to Denver. The Raiders beating the Bengals. The Packers losing to the Rams. The Cubs losing to the A's. The A's losing to the Braves. The Yankees beating the Giants, The Cards beating the Yankees. The Braves beating the Yankees. So on and so on.

There have been tons of series and games in which the team with lesser experience has won the series or game

[Dontworry]

Clutch does not exist in bb over extended periods. Studies have proved this. Anyone can be clutch for a series or season, but not over long periods. For those of you who say Ortiz, not true at all. He had a nice 05, but his career numbers all show he's best with no one on, rather then with runners on, or risp. Look at the OPS. Forget the bases loaded as 76 abs is a wirthless sample size.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/5909/situational?year=career&type=Batting

[four tool]

What would be the evidence, practically every single playoff year?

Arizona Diamondbacks beat the Yankees. Mark Grace gets a hit off of Mariano Riviera. The 2004 Red Sox beating the Yankees. The Bulls beating the Lakers, the Bulls beating the Pistons. New England beating the Dolphins. The Bears losing to the Redskins. New England losing to Denver. The Raiders beating the Bengals. The Packers losing to the Rams. The Cubs losing to the A's. The A's losing to the Braves. The Yankees beating the Giants, The Cards beating the Yankees. The Braves beating the Yankees. So on and so on.

There have been tons of series and games in which the team with lesser experience has won the series or game

Many of your examples involve teams that werre in ther playoffs previously and then they won--Yankees beating anyone, especially the Giants, Braves and As have been in ther playoffs many many times. New England sure didn't beat Miami the year after Miami won the SB etc.

[Ubiquitous]

New England beat Miami the year after Miami made it to the Super Bowl yet lost to a wild card team that had never been there before. The New York Giants beat the Philadelphia Eagles the year after the Eagles went to the Super Bowl. Neither the Giants or Patriots as a team had experience in the playoffs before those series.

The Detroit Pistons had been to three NBA championships in a row and won the last two. They had beaten the Chicago Bulls 3 times in a row before 1991. The Pistons as a group had more experience in the playoffs, in pressure games, had been more successful in the playoffs yet in 1991 the Bulls swept them away.

The Anaheim Angels beat the Yankees. The White Sox beat Boston, the White Sox beat the Angels. The Chicago Cubs beat the Braves. The Marlins beat the Braves, the Reds beat Oakland, The Yankees beat the Braves, the Padres beat the Braves.

Experience isn't sum trump card. It isn't a deciding factor in playoff wins.

[four tool]

So if neither experience or inexperience is the deciding factor, what is? Does the best team always win? I personally don't think so.

[Ubiquitous]

I already stated it:Because there is ample evidence that whatever advantage experience in playoffs gives is not enough to outweigh just being the better team, or the healthier team, or even just the luckier team.


Or simply having the better gameplan, better coaches, the home crowd, the right conditions, and so on.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Game plans only take you so far. Players need to execute that game plan or individual plays, and those players are human. They have emotions, memories, faults, doubts, and nerves. Michael Shumacher (sp?) is a great Formula One driver because of his preparation and gameplan, but others do the same thing. He wins consistently because he's been there before, and psychologically he knows he has an experience edge. Same with an ultimate fighter, or any athlete.

[Ubiquitous]

He wins because he won before? Interesting.


No he wins consistently because him, his car, and his team are better. You put him in a soap box and blindfold him and he is going to lose. He has a "psychologic" edge becuase he knows him and his car and team are better then anyone else out there. Michael and every other athletes wins because they know what they are doing. They are experienced athletes, it does not matter that they were in the super bowl or the world series the year before. That does not mean they won't strike out or drop the ball. We are not talking about "Hoosiers" (who by the way won it all) where a bunch of podunks from a hick town get there first taste of attention. These are professional athletes playing at the highest level.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

He wins because he won before? Interesting.


No he wins consistently because him, his car, and his team are better. You put him in a soap box and blindfold him and he is going to lose. He has a "psychologic" edge becuase he knows him and his car and team are better then anyone else out there. Michael and every other athletes wins because they know what they are doing. They are experienced athletes, it does not matter that they were in the super bowl or the world series the year before. That does not mean they won't strike out or drop the ball. We are not talking about "Hoosiers" (who by the way won it all) where a bunch of podunks from a hick town get there first taste of attention. These are professional athletes playing at the highest level.

They might all be at the highest level, but all throughout MLB you have different levels of experience. You have different levels of experience along with different levels of experience in various situations.

We agree there is pressure just making it to the bigs and even more pressure in doing well enough to remain there. So given that, do you not agree that there are instances where even higher pressure gets put on players. Whether it be that he's in the manager's doghouse, whether he has an incentive bonus he really wants/needs to meet, the team drafts a hotshot youngster at your position, post season pressure, ninth inning 2 out bases loaded pressure, etc... if you agree that there exists even high levels of pressure, and we agree that players are human with emotions, memories, tendencies, nerves, etc... then how can you not agree that how each player performs in each of these situations can affect how they perform in similar future situations?

Uncertainty or certainty of your performance can play a huge part in your success. Having been there before and succeeding gives you an edge not only in experience, but psychologically as well. Furthermore, if you know that your opponent has never been in that situation, you can take advantage of his nervous aggression or timidness. You know baseball isn't just a bunch of robots out there. Why would you not think that past performance affects future performance?

[Ubiquitous]

Ok so being there before gives you edge. How much of an edge? .01% 2% 3%? Like I said before being better, being luckier, being healthier, and a whole host of other things trump being there before.

[digglahhh]

Taking advantage of another player's emotional/psychological state its own skill and not intrinsic to "experience."

Experience though, may be a component of a player's ability to control/manage his own.

I think "experience" is really a glorified and "concrete" term for confidence, which is harder to measure and not necessarily correlated with experience.

Lebron James walked right into the NBA, amidst pressure beyond the realm of what almost any athlete ever has to face, and dominated. Did he have experience playing in the NBA?, being center-stage on a national level? Not really. His game, physical and mental, is what allowed him to thrive.

People are fond of saying, well Lebron will improve as he gets more expierenced. Well, that's a chicken and egg thing. He will also get more experienced as he improves.

Most young players improve as time goes on, they also get more experienced. These are confounding variables.

Boston almost got to the Series in 03, they won it all in '04 after adding Schilling. Which do you think was more important, the added experience or the addition of a borderline HOF starting pitcher?

[RuthMayBond]

Which do you think was more important, the added experience or the addition of a borderline HOF starting pitcher?Coming back against the Yanks :laugh :clapping :gt

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Taking advantage of another player's emotional/psychological state its own skill and not intrinsic to "experience."

Experience though, may be a component of a player's ability to control/manage his own.

I think "experience" is really a glorified and "concrete" term for confidence, which is harder to measure and not necessarily correlated with experience.

Lebron James walked right into the NBA, amidst pressure beyond the realm of what almost any athlete ever has to face, and dominated. Did he have experience playing in the NBA?, being center-stage on a national level? Not really. His game, physical and mental, is what allowed him to thrive.

People are fond of saying, well Lebron will improve as he gets more expierenced. Well, that's a chicken and egg thing. He will also get more experienced as he improves.

Most young players improve as time goes on, they also get more experienced. These are confounding variables.

Boston almost got to the Series in 03, they won it all in '04 after adding Schilling. Which do you think was more important, the added experience or the addition of a borderline HOF starting pitcher?

Lebron is a once in a generation talent, who was touted and told since he was in junior high that his future was in the NBA. He became mentally and physically prepared for it as he was growing up, so stepping right in was not a prob. Also, the NBA has changed over the years to favor someone like Lebron stepping right in and making an impact, and he's on a horrible team where there is no "role" or set "system" for him to gel into. His game is not restricted in any way, it's all about him.

For your Schilling question. We don't know how much Schilling rubbed off on younger guys. How much advice he gave them, how much they watched his routine, or just learned from him in general. Regardless of being a HOFer, having a veteran who has had success, and who is willing to share in his knowledge is always a good thing.

[RuthMayBond]

Also, the NBA has changed over the years to favor someone like Lebron stepping right in and making an impact, and he's on a horrible teamDon't you be talking about my nephew's team like that

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Don't you be talking about my nephew's team like that

Nephew huh? Well feel good; without him they would be...well even more horrible. He makes them entertaining at least. His impact financially will allow them to spend more money in the future. Of course, if he doesn't resign, then nobody will want to play there anyway. He's outta there for a larger market, don't ya think?

[Ubiquitous]

Lebron is a once in a generation talent, who was touted and told since he was in junior high that his future was in the NBA. He became mentally and physically prepared for it as he was growing up, so stepping right in was not a prob. Also, the NBA has changed over the years to favor someone like Lebron stepping right in and making an impact, and he's on a horrible team where there is no "role" or set "system" for him to gel into. His game is not restricted in any way, it's all about him.

For your Schilling question. We don't know how much Schilling rubbed off on younger guys. How much advice he gave them, how much they watched his routine, or just learned from him in general. Regardless of being a HOFer, having a veteran who has had success, and who is willing to share in his knowledge is always a good thing.


So the game of baseball has changed so much that Albert Pujols can step right in and dominate? Dontrelle Willis can too, and Miguel Cabrera too, and on a world series winning team to boot?

Experience means something but again it doesn't trump talent, luck, health, prep, and probably a few other things as well.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

So the game of baseball has changed so much that Albert Pujols can step right in and dominate? Dontrelle Willis can too, and Miguel Cabrera too, and on a world series winning team to boot?

Experience means something but again it doesn't trump talent, luck, health, prep, and probably a few other things as well.

It's become so easy offensively, that a young player can step in and do well off many inexperienced pitchers.

What happened to Chris Simms last weekend?

What happened to Eli Manning last weekend?

What will happen to Rex Grossman this weekend?

Experience matters.

If the Bucs make the playoffs next year, you don't think that Simms will be able to recall what the atmosphere was like, the emotion, the intensity...he will be better prepared to handle it and perform better than the first time, having already been there. He actually did pretty well himself, but there are always things you can improve on.

question: How many world series teams have had more than two position starters under the age of 25?

[Ubiquitous]

What happened to Kurt Warner? Why did a young inexperience New England quarterback win?

What happened to Brett Favre last year? Why did Daunte Culpepper win?

What happened to Donovan McNabb, why did a Delhomme who had never been to the postseason beat him?

We can do this all day. But the point at the end of the day would be that experience or the lack of it would not be the deciding factor. Eli Manning lost not because he was inexperienced but because the Carolina defense was able to get to him, nor is Eli Manning exactly a good QB.


question: How many world series teams have had more than two position starters under the age of 25
Its a loaded question. For starters most baseball players don't even start their professional career until there early to almost mid 20's. Secondly post 25 is when a player is considered at their physical peak with or without experience. Third and finally in order to play baseball past the age of 25 you have to show you belong there. By that time most players that are going to be starters are starters and those that have shown that they are incapable of playing at that level have been weeded out or shunt to secondary roles.

I would guess that virtually all starter spots are manned by players over 25. They have survived the crucible and have proven they can perform at this level.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

So what's your basic opinion on this matter Ubi? If you could write a hypothesis or whatever, to sum it all up. I wanna see just how much we disagree. And let's stick to baseball examples. I shouldn't have clouded things bringin' in NFL quarterbacks. Even though I do have a point, football is such a team oriented game, with each person's success or failure depending on whether or not others do their jobs.. yada yada, you know what I mean.

[Ubiquitous]

I have said this numerous times in this thread but here I go again.

Playoff experience means something, sure but being better, being lucky, being healthier, being better prepared, being better coached, having better scouting, having the home field, and a variety of other things trumps playoff experience.

I am not going to put Enrique Wilson on my playoff roster and leave Mark Loretta off simply because Enrique has more rings.

[Chisox]

What will happen to Rex Grossman this weekend?

Win, just like the guy he replaced did a couple months ago against the same team.

[RuthMayBond]

Nephew huh?Well, we DO have the same last name AND grew up in the SAME city

<Of course, if he doesn't resign, then nobody will want to play there anyway. He's outta there for a larger market, don't ya think?>

The story of Cleveland's life

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Win, just like the guy he replaced did a couple months ago against the same team.

If the Bears win, it won't be on Grossman's arm. It will be because Carolina doesn't effectively stop the run. Grossman can be a serviceable quarterback, but his job isn't to win games, it's to not lose them.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I have said this numerous times in this thread but here I go again.

Playoff experience means something, sure but being better, being lucky, being healthier, being better prepared, being better coached, having better scouting, having the home field, and a variety of other things trumps playoff experience.

I am not going to put Enrique Wilson on my playoff roster and leave Mark Loretta off simply because Enrique has more rings.

Then we agree experience means something.

And given that most teams won't get far in the playoffs without the other things you mentions, having that experience matters a lot. It matters in little instances that might not show up in the box score. It might be a veteran catcher with big game experience who knows how to manage a young pitching staff, and call a good game. It might be a veteran right fielder who has prior knowlege of a certain hitter, or a certain baserunner, and uses that experience to gain an edge. Subtle things.

[Ubiquitous]

No it doesn't matter a lot, it matters a little.

you are talking about experience in general while I am talking about playoff experience. A catcher does need to play in the playoffs to know how to handle a pitching staff. A base stealer does not need to have stolen a base against a pitcher in a past playoff game to gain a subtle advantage on that pitcher in the current playoff.

This whole conversation is about playoff experience which is why I keep emboldening it. It isn't about experience in general.

[Ubiquitous]

If the Bears win, it won't be on Grossman's arm. It will be because Carolina doesn't effectively stop the run. Grossman can be a serviceable quarterback, but his job isn't to win games, it's to not lose them.


This and the last one are kind of foolish statements. We don't know what will happen in the Bears game on Sunday. Acting like we do well that is just foolish.

[digglahhh]

Sultan,

Maybe I shouldn't have thrown examples out there, it diverts from my case which is more theoretical. Here's the question I would like you to answer:

As a young player gets more "experienced" he is also working with top-flight coaching staffs and physical trainers, getting more skilled and in better physical condition. The slope of experience and skill is directly proportionate, at least until about the late 20s. How do you differentiate the two? This is not even considering the fact that the team you are a part of and team you play is virutally never identical in roster from year to year...

[Dasperp]

it makes all those pronouncements by TV commentators about how a team is going to do better in the World Series (or Super Bowl or NBA finals) because "they have been there before" seem pretty silly

Actual factual analysis often makes things tv commentators say look silly. Actually, usually they're just silly on their own (i once heard Joe Morgan say "he was behind that pitch trying to get out in front of it". Does this make sense to anyone?)

With regards to clutch hitters, i haven't seen any good proof that they exist, but i do believe it is possible. One thing i do know is that the mainstream media is often wrong about who they label clutch and unclutch (Jeter as superclutch and A-Rod as superchoker). Here's a link to Ruane's retrosheet article: http://www.retrosheet.org/Research/RuaneT/clutch_art.htm

A Penn junior did a study finding the existence of clutch hitters, but not finding any evidence of unclutch hitters. I haven't read it yet, but you can download it here: http://www.soapboxincyberspace.com/clutch.htm

[Ubiquitous]

From what I remember the Penn grads paper was posted on Baseball think factory and a few holes were shot into it. Don't remember the specifics.

Here is (http://www.geocities.com/cyrilmorong@sbcglobal.net/ClutchLinks2.htm) a link to a variety of clutch hitting papers.


Anyway back to Fuld's paper:
By the Numbers took a look at it and this is what they had to say,

[Appling]

In the late innings of a close game, which is more valuable to the team:
* A sacrifice fly with a runner on third, driving in a key run? -- or
* A walk, thus putting runners on first and third (and avoiding an out)?

IMO driving in that late-inning run is more valuable and well worth the cost of an out. This may not be true earlier in the same game, but when it looks like a single run may rule the day I would accept the out. Therefore I think a SF in that clutch situation is worth more than a walk -- and it is certainly not the same as a short pop-fly that will certainly not drive in a run!

I myself would like to test some representative hitters, to learn if batting average changes significantly (for better or for worse) when runners are in scoring position.

I understand that batting average itself is not the great measure of a hitter's overall effectiveness that it once was thought to be. When the first batter comes to the plate in a close game, it is really true that "a walk is as good as a hit". But with runners in scoring position (2B, or 3B, or 2nd-and-3rd base) a hit is surely much better than a walk. A player's lifetime Batting Average with runners in scoring position should be a very meaningful statistic.

Whenever a hitter -- even a big homerun hitter -- has a big RBI season, I expect to find that he had a very good BA with runners in scoring position, and that a high percentage of his RBIs for the season came with runners in scoring position. Of course, how often a player has the opportunity to come to bat with runners in scoring position involves a lot of "luck": the OBP of other hitters on his team, his spot in the batting order, and so on. But how well he performs when there are RISP (his batting average and/or RBI per PA) should be a good and unbiased measure of a player's clutch hitting.

It would be "nice" to also examine a player's "BA with RISP" under true "clutch conditions" -- such as close score, late innings, or even "importance of the game" -- but this would complicate the analysis and probably reduce the sample size to make results insignificant.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

This and the last one are kind of foolish statements. We don't know what will happen in the Bears game on Sunday. Acting like we do well that is just foolish.

Not foolish statements at all. That is solid analysis given what we know about the two teams in questions.

You keep bolding "playoffs," that's great. Ok, lets take two identical pitchers in record, era, run support, everything. The only difference between these two pitchers is that one is a rookie who had a tremendous year, and the other is an aging vet, who has played a key role in two previous World Series runs.

Say it's the 7th and final game of the World Series and the vet is on the mound. Regardless of ability, he will be more fit to succeed in that situation. If we pluck him off the mound after warmups, and place the rookie into that game 7 situation, with all that pressure; do you really think he will do as well as he did in the regular season?

[Sultan_1895-1948]

The slope of experience and skill is directly proportionate, at least until about the late 20s. How do you differentiate the two?

I've always thought about it like this.

As a player ages, he gains more experience and becomes more cerebral. Knowing that his skills are diminishing, he can readily tap into his resevoir of experience and still maintain an edge by adjusting his approach to suit his diminished skills. This is the case in all sports. A basketball player who can no longer elevate may become a jump shooter and use his experience to outsmart his defender rather than relying on sheer athletic ability. An NFL receiver might lost a couple steps as he ages, but with experience he gets better pre-snap reads on coverage, defensive schemes, and runs perfect routes.

I think this applies in baseball more than any other sport because of the mental aspect of the game. If you don't adjust to your diminished skills as you age, then your career will fade quickly. When it comes to playoff experience, I think it's more about being able to control your nerves without the fear of the unknown. The unknown of course is having never been there before.



My whole take on the clutch thing has been that it doesn't really exist. Some players are able to maintain their norm in pressure situations better than others, it's not necessarily that they do anything above and beyond just because of the situation.

[Ubiquitous]

I myself would like to test some representative hitters, to learn if batting average changes significantly (for better or for worse) when runners are in scoring position.



I think it might be on Retrosheet but I remember reading about a study that looked into sac flies, who hit them, how they hit them and what they do normally. don't remember the exact details but I believe that intentionally changing ones style of play to make it more conducive to sac flies doesn't really pay off for most hitters.

[Ubiquitous]

Say it's the 7th and final game of the World Series and the vet is on the mound. Regardless of ability, he will be more fit to succeed in that situation. If we pluck him off the mound after warmups, and place the rookie into that game 7 situation, with all that pressure; do you really think he will do as well as he did in the regular season?

Josh Beckett who had never played in a postseason won the WS MVP in 2003 and performed excellently throughout the playoffs. Francisco Rodriguez got called up in mid september and did outstanding in the playoffs. Brendan Donnelly was a rookie and had a great World Series. Bobby Jenks in his first year pitched very well in the playoffs. John Smoltz in his first playoffs ever performed brilliantly. Mariano riviera in his rookie season pitched for the Yankees in the playoffs and was his dominating self. Mark Grace in his second year and first year in the playoffs absolutely carried the Cubs in 1989.

There is no reason to expect the vet to do better if the younger player is a better player. Just because he is a vet does not mean he is going to perform better.

[wamby]

But see, one might look at the situation, and see that accomplishment as being "clutch." But really, it was just Pujols being Pujols. Just so happened it came in a big moment. Him being able to keep focus and to not let his increased heart rate or psychological state affect his nerves is special. But nothing out of the norm for him. Which begs the question: what about Ozzie, or Maz, or Fisk. Was that rising above, or maintaining and getting a little lucky?

In the 1960 WS Maz was maintaining. With the numbers he put up in that Series and not counting his Series winning HR, Maz had a legitimate claim to be the Series MVP that year.

Mazeroski's HR in game seven was not an isolated incident either. The Pirates hit four HRs in that Series and Mazeroski had two of them.

[four tool]

Fisk wasn't maintaining, he would not have been considered for MVP if the Sox won. Unless of course he delivered the game winner in game 7.

[Dasperp]

Therefore I think a SF in that clutch situation is worth more than a walk

That isn't the point. The point is that you're automatically inflating the "clutchness" of all players by doing that, because they don't have the ability to hit a sac fly in a non-clutch situation.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Josh Beckett who had never played in a postseason won the WS MVP in 2003 and performed excellently throughout the playoffs. Francisco Rodriguez got called up in mid september and did outstanding in the playoffs. Brendan Donnelly was a rookie and had a great World Series. Bobby Jenks in his first year pitched very well in the playoffs. John Smoltz in his first playoffs ever performed brilliantly. Mariano riviera in his rookie season pitched for the Yankees in the playoffs and was his dominating self. Mark Grace in his second year and first year in the playoffs absolutely carried the Cubs in 1989.

There is no reason to expect the vet to do better if the younger player is a better player. Just because he is a vet does not mean he is going to perform better.

Not exactly game 7 pressure for those guys, but I see your point. Perhaps those are exceptions to the rule.

[Ubiquitous]

Well it would be virtually impossible to actually study the game 7 view considering that a game 7 has only happened 35 times or spread out over 100 years.

But if we did guess who started game 7 for the Angels in 2002? Rookie John Lackey. Guess who started for the Giants? 1997 World Series MVP Livan Hernandez.

Livan last two innings gave up 4 runs. Lackey pitching in his second start and third game went 5 innings and gave up one run.

The year before that it was Clemens vs Schilling so that would get filtered out.

In 1997 who started Game 7 for the Indians? Rookie Jaret Wright. Who started for the Marlins> Veteran Al Leiter. Wright gave up 1 run over 6.3 innings, Leiter gave up 2 runs in 6 innings.

Game 7 in 1991 features grizzled veteran Jack Morris going 10 innings for the win and shutout. The Braves send up young John Smoltz in his first postseason and he allows no runs through 7.3 innings

[Sultan_1895-1948]

On a side note: Vanderjagt's shanked field goal was him falling below the norm and choking; letting the pressure affect him mentally which in turn affected his mechanics (fine motor skills). Had he drilled it through, it wouldn't have been clutch, rather him just maintaining in a big spot.

[Appling]

I think it might be on Retrosheet but I remember reading about a study that looked into sac flies, who hit them, how they hit them and what they do normally. don't remember the exact details but I believe that intentionally changing ones style of play to make it more conducive to sac flies doesn't really pay off for most hitters.
I see your point: that the SF rule rewards a hitter just because he is hitting with a runner on third and less than two outs. He didn't "sacrifice" anything; he just hits the way he usually does but if a long fly our happens to score a runner he gets a consolation prize: he didn't get a hit but he is not charged with a time at bat.

Perhaps the SF rule really makes no sense. It certainly is not "fair" since it favors hitters who bat in RBI situations. The Sacrifice Fly was on and off, then on again for years before in finally became standard in the 1950's. In the "olden days", even when credit was given for a SF, the data was confounded because SF and SH are recorded together -- so we can't even "back-fit" the data. Only in the last 50 years has baseball listed SF totals separately from SH (bunts).

But I don't think the SF will be a really major factor in a study of clutch hitting. Rarely will a hitter have more than 4 or 5 SFs in a season.

[west coast orange and black]

Sultan: My whole take on the clutch thing has been that it doesn't really exist. Some players are able to maintain their norm in pressure situations better than others, it's not necessarily that they do anything above and beyond just because of the situation.

i agree, man. so the following has me confused.

Say it's the 7th and final game of the World Series... do you really think [the rookie] will do as well as he did in the regular season?

they seem to be contradictory.
i think that the rookie does just fine. of late, frankie rodriguez showed his stuff on the big stage.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Sultan: My whole take on the clutch thing has been that it doesn't really exist. Some players are able to maintain their norm in pressure situations better than others, it's not necessarily that they do anything above and beyond just because of the situation.

i agree, man. so the following has me confused.

Say it's the 7th and final game of the World Series... do you really think [the rookie] will do as well as he did in the regular season?

they seem to be contradictory.
i think that the rookie does just fine. of late, frankie rodriguez showed his stuff on the big stage.

Krod has had his moments of youth.

But to your question.

It's not contradictory at all. My position is that "clutch" in terms of rising UP from your norm, strictly BECAUSE of a pressue situation does not exist. If I could give "clutch" a definition, it would be maintaining your norm DESPITE being in a pressure situation.

In other words. It's possible to "choke" or fall below your norm, letting the pressure get to you, but it's not possible to rise above just because of the pressure. As if in any other time you aren't focusing as much, or trying as hard.

The rookie in game 7 might have done well in the regular season and that is his norm. BUT; in that game 7 pressure situation, he easily could fall prey and fall below. Okay, I think I just rambled and repeated myself like three different ways but oh well. Hope that made sense. ;)

[Ubiquitous]

But I don't think the SF will be a really major factor in a study of clutch hitting. Rarely will a hitter have more than 4 or 5 SFs in a season.

It can be a huge factor depending on what one does with that data. For instance the college kid from Temple incorrectly used them and by doing that incorrectly found clutch hitting. Meaning the data was skewed to show clutch hitting because it was manipulated to do so.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Hard to really prove clutch or no such thing as clutch. Even looking at all kinds of stats and results in certain game situations. Too many variables.

Myself, I don't exactly call it clutch but there are probably some hitters who hit about the same in non clutch and clutch situations and some that may do a bit better in clutch situations than non clutch situations but not better enough to really be measured and proven beyond a doubt.

[four tool]

Proven beyond a doubt is the key. We'd need to define clutch and look and everyone and then compare the clutch performance to a player's non clutch performance.

One addendum. Thurman Munson always focused more with men on base--he admitted it. But we do not have the data for his BAs with no one on and men on.

[SABR Matt]

If Munson played after 1959...yes we do.

Someone can compile those statistics from the retrosheet event files.

[Imapotato]

You guys are dehumanizing the most romantic sport of all time

Just like anyone here in pressure situations, people have emotional makeup that make them rise or decline in pressure, and stats will not show you that

A player could hit the ball well because he remains calm in the situation but a fielder is there to get the ball

A player could also go up there overthinking the situation, think fastball because he panics hits a change up that falls in the gap and becomes a double when it should have been a HR if he guessed correctly

Say what you want throw all the numbers you want, but there are some players despite their weak stats that I would take over another player because he would give a greater chance for success in my eyes

[SHOELESSJOE3]

You guys are dehumanizing the most romantic sport of all time

Just like anyone here in pressure situations, people have emotional makeup that make them rise or decline in pressure, and stats will not show you that

Say what you want throw all the numbers you want, but there are some players despite their weak stats that I would take over another player because he would give a greater chance for success in my eyes


Thats the truth, the numbers don't show everything. Not discounting the numbers some do give some indication of hitters in certain game situations, RISP being one of them.

Getting off the diamond are we imagining that Roger Staubach not the greatest with the numbers in his time, are we imagining that he pulled out so many games in the last two minutes. What about Elway, there were QB's that were surrounded by as much talent but some guys seemed more able to get it done, often when their teams were down late in the game.

How often do we see some basketball players making the big shot late or near the end of the game, with a rep for doing it, not the guys with the best scoring average, the ones the other teams fear, that he just might get the ball.

I'm not going to hype clutch, it's not as big, not as easy to display but I find it hard to believe that all athletes make up is the same, it appears that some are just cooler and more likely to perform better in pressure situations.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

The point is that certain athletes are able to maintain their normal level of focus and performance, DESPITE being in a pressure situation. THAT could be called clutch, because there are also many athletes who fall below their normal level BECAUSE of the pressure situation.

The NBA player who hits a last second shot. Now, is that clutch? Would he not have hit that shot during the middle of the second quarter? The fact is, he didn't let the pressure get to him, didn't let his motor skills become affected by any psychological factor, therefore he maintained his norm.

The baseball season is long and drawn out for the players. 700+ plate appearances during the year is a ton. Many players have admitted after a season, that they "threw away" at least 40 or 50 AB that year simply because they lacked focus, or were just going through the motions. It takes a lot mentally to not throw away AB's, Albert Pujols is a great example of someone who never throws away an AB. He's focused for each and every one, no matter what the situation.

[Imapotato]

Thats the truth, the numbers don't show everything. Not discounting the numbers some do give some indication of hitters in certain game situations, RISP being one of them.

Getting off the diamond are we imagining that Roger Staubach not the greatest with the numbers in his time, are we imagining that he pulled out so many games in the last two minutes. What about Elway, there were QB's that were surrounded by as much talent but some guys seemed more able to get it done, often when their teams were down late in the game.

How often do we see some basketball players making the big shot late or near the end of the game, with a rep for doing it, not the guys with the best scoring average, the ones the other teams fear, that he just might get the ball.

I'm not going to hype clutch, it's not as big, not as easy to display but I find it hard to believe that all athletes make up is the same, it appears that some are just cooler and more likely to perform better in pressure situations.

Not the smae by a long shot

You can succeed in baseball and fail...yes that sounds like an oxymoron, but when you fail 7 out of ten times, you are great

When you make a shot, it is you, someone else and the basket

In football it is you reading the defense or vice versa and not looking scoreboard, Joe Montana the greatest QB in my time comes to mind, and QBs are about the only ones we can say for certain become flustered or not...I mean Montana vs. Peyton Manning...their actions in similair situations are pretty easy to see

But baseball has SO many factors its untraceable, which is something the new age numbers fan can't stand or are too ignorant to realize.

You can hit a screamer and you have 9 fielders that can make a play on the ball

In other sports you can make the adjustment to pass away from the defende etc.

Now I am not saying clutch hitting is big by any means but humans exist in baseball, (some talk around here, you'd think they are numbers) humans have emotions and emotions do dictate success in any action

Also, its misleading...clucth hitting is just the absence of suffering from a stressful situation

[SABR Matt]

I do agree with one point made by the pro-clutch side. Not enough sabermetric study has been focused on anti-clutch behavior. No evidence has been found that players can do statistically better than normal in clutch moments...but that's missing the point.

1) In clutch situations, players tend to face tougher than normal competition. Managers put in the ace reliever in the late innings...in games that are close enough to involve clutch situations, usually the teams are close to evenly matched in that game...the starter was probably better than normal and the fielding has probably been on its' toes...etc.

2) Some players maintain their performance levels in the clutch...but not everyone does. There IS some evidence that some players do statistically significantly WORSE in key situations...partially because they're facing tougher competition, and partially because some players lose focus.

I believe the idea of clutch performance is too tied to that highlight reel moment...that game winning play...that's not what clutch is...clutch is the ability to be the same player no matter what the conditions. You can't see that in a statistical analysis...that's why we've been missing it.

...

That having been said, this argument that you can be a better player in the clutch...that you can be noticeably more effective and somehow...over the course of your career...it never shows up in the statistics...that's just not really a good argument. While it is true that a player can succeed...and yet fail (line drive right at the second baseman that starts a double play...robbed HR...etc)...this doesn't happen in every single clutch plate appearance. The lawsof probability aren't just pulled out of thin air...they MEAN something. Over the course of a full season or a full career, those robbed home runs will probably balance with the seeing eye singles and bloop triples. If a player is noticeably better inthe clutch...it will eventually show up...maybe not in the first 50 PA...maybe not even in the first 500...but after a few years...we should see it.

I think clutch performance is the art of being yourself when doing so is nearly impossible. I think clutch performance is the art of hitting eually well against Greg Maddux, Billy Wagner, Mariano Rivera, and Mark Buehrle as you do against your average competition...A-Rod is a great example...a player who is ridiculously consistant from day to day...month to month...year to year...that's clutch performance.

[four tool]

Taking the romance out of the game?
We aren't doing anything Ty Cobb didn't do as far as taking the romance out of the game. :-)

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Not the same by a long shot

You can succeed in baseball and fail...yes that sounds like an oxymoron, but when you fail 7 out of ten times, you are great

When you make a shot, it is you, someone else and the basket

In football it is you reading the defense or vice versa and not looking scoreboard, Joe Montana the greatest QB in my time comes to mind, and QBs are about the only ones we can say for certain become flustered or not...I mean Montana vs. Peyton Manning...their actions in similair situations are pretty easy to see

But baseball has SO many factors its untraceable, which is something the new age numbers fan can't stand or are too ignorant to realize.

You can hit a screamer and you have 9 fielders that can make a play on the ball

In other sports you can make the adjustment to pass away from the defende etc.

Now I am not saying clutch hitting is big by any means but humans exist in baseball, (some talk around here, you'd think they are numbers) humans have emotions and emotions do dictate success in any action

Also, its misleading...clucth hitting is just the absence of suffering from a stressful situation

I agree in part but still, all the other examples I gave are by athletes in other sports who play under the same conditions. Other quarterbacks have even better teams around thgem than Staubach, just as much to work with and more but they don't match him in playing under similar situations under pressure. Same with basketball how could it be coincidence that a number of players can come through under pressure more so than others. Do thire tema have the magic formula that makes it possible for them to just "appear" to be cool under pressure.

For that matter what you say " In other sports you can make the adjustments to pass away from the defenders etc" so how does any one player have the advantage, can't they all, don't they all try to do that, are they not all equal in opportunity.

Does it sound logical that in all sports all players play on the same level in pressure situations, that none are better than some others under pressure, I don't believe that.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

I agree in part but still, all the other examples I gave are by athletes in other sports who play under the same conditions. Other quarterbacks have even better teams around thgem than Staubach, just as much to work with and more but they don't match him in playing under similar situations under pressure. Same with basketball how could it be coincidence that a number of players can come through under pressure more so than others. Do thire tema have the magic formula that makes it possible for them to just "appear" to be cool under pressure.

For that matter what you say " In other sports you can make the adjustments to pass away from the defenders etc" so how does any one player have the advantage, can't they all, don't they all try to do that, are they not all equal in opportunity.

Does it sound logical that in all sports all players play on the same level in pressure situations, that none are better than some others under pressure, I don't believe that.

Joe, I guess I'm not 100% sure on your position here. I keep reading you hint at the likelihood of players actually performing better in pressure situations; as if they rise above their norm. Is this your position?

In the NBA, it seems as if the same players come through in the "clutch" more often than others, because these players are willing to take that shot. That cutthroat, no fear, give me the damn ball attitude is rare, but it's something that goes both ways. Micheal Jordan missed far more crucial game shots than he made. Yet, the importance and impact of the ones he made, made us step back and admire. His guts for wanting to take the shot, and his talent for maintaining and making those shots. Yet he missed far more than he made. I believe he even made a commercial stating that exact point. "It's the ability to "want" to take that shot which makes a champion. Or something to that effect.

Seriously Joe, you know as much, if not more (never thought I'd say that) about Babe as I do. He had a flair for the dramatic, and seemed to perform best when the limelight was brightest. You know all the attention that was put upon his shoulders. From the barnstorming trips who basically advertised only him coming, to the spot starts he would make to boost attendance, to fans jamming the park just to see this Baby Ruth character. Everything he did was about the big stage, because his whole career was on it. He came through with flying colors because of his care free attitude. Because he treated it like an everyday thing. Had he let the pressure get to him, he could have fell below his norm, but he didn't. He came through time and time again at his same level.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Joe, I guess I'm not 100% sure on your position here. I keep reading you hint at the likelihood of players actually performing better in pressure situations; as if they rise above their norm. Is this your position?


Thats not quite my position although my wording in previous posts may have appeared that way. What I meant was that I believe that in certain pressure situations not all athletes are the same in all sports. There has to be some who perform better more often than some others, how could it be any other way.

I can't say for sure that they perform better under pressure, at a higher level than they do under not so pressure filled situations, only that the pressure does not seem to effect them as it does others.

We know in all sports there are some athletes who the opposing team would rather not face when the game could be on the line. Could all these opposing players, managers and coaches are wrong, that they know that some are more likely to hurt them when the chips are down. I choose to believe that they know what they're talking about, they speak from experience. I might add that some that they fear the most are not the best in any game but the one that seems to play the same under pressure.

I end by repeating this one, how could it be that some can't seem to believe that all athletes are not the same, that some play on the the same level under pressure and at times rise above even their own level when it counts the most and others don't. They may not have used those words but they ask us to believe that it can't be proven by using numbers. Maybe it can't but I choose to accept the opinion of those in the game, the opponents who speak from experience, they know who are the one's who are more likely to come through, they also know which ones fold the most. They take their chances based on experience, not 100 percent fool proof but they go with the percentages.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

He had a flair for the dramatic, and seemed to perform best when the limelight was brightest. He came through with flying colors because of his care free attitude. Because he treated it like an everyday thing. Had he let the pressure get to him, he could have fell below his norm, but he didn't. He came through time and time again at his same level.

Thats a good observation on the Babe. It appears that every game, every situation was the same. Pressure, whats that, playing this game is fun, be it a regular season game or the big one, the World Series.

Just two examples.

The 1926 WS against the Cards. Ruth homers in the 4th inning. In the 7th inning Sherdel "quick pitches" Ruth, strike three. Not so, legal in the NL but not the AL and agreed the quick pitch will not be used in the WS. While the Cards are all over the ump Ruth stands at home plate laughing at them. It's decided it's not a strike. As the Cards leave the field, more mocking from Ruth, he applauds them. Ruth shouts something to Sherdel and he replies to Ruth. Sherdel makes two pitches both balls. Again he and Ruth exchange words and on the next pitch he hits his second home run. In the 8th inning Ruth hits his third home run off of Alexander.

Not going to bore anyone with the 32 WS. Point or not pointing, calling the shot or not is not my purpose here. We all know one thing for sure. The Cub's were letting him have it, he was old, fat and washed up they shouted. He answered with words and his bat, thats all that matters. He acted like a kid playing in a playground, shot off his mouth and delivered.

Also from the New York Herald Tribune a column by Richard Vidmer. In that same game in the first inning as Ruth waited in the on deck circle.
" He paused to jest with the raging Cubs pointed to the right field bleachers and grinned." He stepped to the plate and hit a three run homer into the right field bleachers.

Both took place on the big stage and this guy acted like it was just another game, just another at bat. BTW after that game in the 1932, the next day Ruth was hit on the arm in his first at bat by his chief tormentor the day before Guy B. As he ran to first base he made brushed off his arm as though to flick away an insect. According to Gehrig Ruth yelled to Bush, " hey lop ears, was that your fast ball."

Ruth was only under pressure when he ate too much, this game was fun. I would imagine Ted Williams would think the same, there's no pitcher that I Can't hit, supreme confidence.

[Ubiquitous]

The lawsof probability aren't just pulled out of thin air...they MEAN something. Over the course of a full season or a full career, those robbed home runs will probably balance with the seeing eye singles and bloop triples.

That isn't what the laws of probability are, that is more like the gamblers fallacy. Nothing has to "even" out or "balance" out.

If I am at a roulette table and it spins the number 10 20 times in a row that doesn't mean that over the next 380,000 spins it will land on 10 twenty less times then expected. Probability is that given enough time true odds will prevail, but again that doesn't mean that the actual results will reflect true odds. So for instance in those 380,000 spins we can expect to see 10,000 10's come up not 9980. So the final tally for tens would be 10,010 out of 380,010 spins

So if I am robbed of 2 home runs that doesn't mean it will be balanced out by a few singles and a bloop triple. It could simply mean that from there on out I don't get robbed of any homers and at the end of the day my line will have 2 robbed home runs on it. Or since there are so many variables involved it could mean that at the end of the day I have 30 robbed homers or 20 extra homers.

[SABR Matt]

Please don't lecture me about the laws of probability Ubi...I have studied statistics for a while now.

I know that things don't necessarily have to "even out"...but the larger you play...the higher the cahnces are that you will approach the true distribution...if you play noticeably better in a certain situation...and you do that for a long time...it will more likely than not start to show up. If that weren't true we would have .330 hitters routinely hitting .240 for whole seasons for no particular reason...that's not what happens. There are fluctuations...but the longer you play...the more the true you will show in the statistics.

[Ubiquitous]

What you wrote was wrong and the examples you gave were wrong. Just because you believe you know what you are talking about means that what you say should go without judgement. If you take a test put down as an asnwer 5 to the question 2+2=, that doens't mean I shouldn't mark it incorrect.

Your first statement had that if one was robbed of a homer on should expect for that to be balanced out by singles or triples. That is incorrect, nobody should expect that. What one should expect is true odds in your next at bat. The falling to expectations that one gets because of larger sample sizes isn't because of evening out or balancing out but because the data gets so large that small extremes have less imprortance, but nothing has to even out or balance out.

Take the roulette example first ten spins it comes up ten. Now the actual odds are way out of whack to true odds. Do another 90 spins, 10 comes up twice so now the actual odds have fallen drastically from 100% to 12% but still way out of line to true odds. Spin it 379,900 more times, 10 comes up 9997 times, now in 380,000 spins 10 has come down to happening 2.634% of the times as compared to the true odds of 2.632% So after 380,000 spins basically true odds has prevailed but at no time was there ever a evening out. It was simply that a small extreme doesn't have the same impact on a large set of data.

So while you may be correct in that if there is a skill then given enough data it will show up you are incorrect in your way of explaining why. On top of that in terms of skill showing up, I personally don't believe it has to show up, or at least in this specific case. Clutch hitting happens in very specific instances that are spread out throughout the day, year, and season, against a vast array of players and strategies. A player could very well be an above average clutch hitter but had the misfortune of coming up to bat more times against clutch pitchers and defenders in parks favoring the defense then the average situation dictates. In otherwords his clutchness doesn't have to float to the tiop at all, he could sink to the bottom and still be a clutch hitter.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

Thats not quite my position although my wording in previous posts may have appeared that way. What I meant was that I believe that in certain pressure situations not all athletes are the same in all sports. There has to be some who perform better more often than some others, how could it be any other way.

I can't say for sure that they perform better under pressure, at a higher level than they do under not so pressure filled situations, only that the pressure does not seem to effect them as it does others.

We know in all sports there are some athletes who the opposing team would rather not face when the game could be on the line. Could all these opposing players, managers and coaches are wrong, that they know that some are more likely to hurt them when the chips are down. I choose to believe that they know what they're talking about, they speak from experience. I might add that some that they fear the most are not the best in any game but the one that seems to play the same under pressure.

I end by repeating this one, how could it be that some can't seem to believe that all athletes are not the same, that some play on the the same level under pressure and at times rise above even their own level when it counts the most and others don't. They may not have used those words but they ask us to believe that it can't be proven by using numbers. Maybe it can't but I choose to accept the opinion of those in the game, the opponents who speak from experience, they know who are the one's who are more likely to come through, they also know which ones fold the most. They take their chances based on experience, not 100 percent fool proof but they go with the percentages.

I think we agree then. I must have misunderstood you before.

Thanks for resetting a couple of those Babe moments. The quick pitch one is one of my fav's. Ya know, Babe has amazing recall too. As you know, he hit #60 in '27 in his next to last game of the year (#150), off Tom Zachary. It was right down the right field line just fair, and Zachary was yelling "Foul Ball!, Foul Ball!", arguing with the ump. Later in '47, Zachary was at Yankee stadium and shook hands with Babe, and in his cancer-stricken hoarse voice said, "You crooked arm son of a bitch, are you still claiming that ball was foul?"

btw; I've seen video of Babe brushing off that beanball. Can't remember exactly where, maybe it was on the HBO DVD, but I know I've seen it. Classic.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

As you know, he hit #60 in '27 in his next to last game of the year (#150), off Tom Zachary. It was right down the right field line just fair, and Zachary was yelling "Foul Ball!, Foul Ball!".

[Tom figured in some key moments.

In 1920 he stopped Tris Speakers consecutive hits at 11, which was the record at that time.

In 1925 he gave up a hit to Tris Speaker, Speakers number 3000.

In 1927 it was Ruth's number 60. Also in that same game Zachary is pulled for a pinch hitter in the 9th inning. The pinch hitter is Walter Johnson who flies out.... to Ruth. This is the last time Johnson is on the playing field as player.

Most probably know this.....Zachary going to the Yanks in 1928 and posting a 12-0 record in 1929.]SHOELESSJOE3


btw; I've seen video of Babe brushing off that beanball. Can't remember exactly where, maybe it was on the HBO DVD, but I know I've seen it. Classic. SULTAN

This may have appeared in a few videos, programs but I can say for sure that it was shown on that Ken Burns special. I have yet to see when it was ever shown that they explain Ruth's actions but some research I did explained it. You will also see Ruth yelling at the pitcher as he trots to first.
There were two on whan Ruth was hit, Combs singled, Sewell singled. With Ruth on first the bases were loaded and only a spectacular catch, crashing into the bleachers by the Cub's Demaree stopped a grand slam by Gehrig. Runners advanced. All this time, from first base and now from second base, Ruth does not let up on the pitcher Guy Bush. Bush now walks Lazzeri again loading the bases. Bush never finishes the first inning he is pulled after two singles, a hit batter and a walk. The only hitter he retired was Gehrig who was robbed of a grand slam.
You are probably aware of this, for those who are not. Ruth with the Braves in 1935 meets Bush who is now a Pirate. In his words Bush is almost sympathetic in watching Ruth from the Pirate bench, " he looked old and tired, limped a bit". When called on in relief Bush puts those feelings aside, Ruth already has two home runs and Bush declares he will not give in to Ruth. Ruth hits his third home run of the game, over the roof out of Forbes Field. As he rounds third, Bush tips his cap, in his own words, "I've seen it all now Babe.'

This one appeared on the boards before... but for the new posters... take a look.

[Ubiquitous]

To me so much of the debate isn't even about clutch hitting but what is a clutch situation and what defines a clutch hit or failure. To me what is being used isn't really clutch. Just because its close and late doesn't mean it is clutch nor with RISP or the 9th inning or any of that. Is Luis Gonzalez clutch because he got a hit against the great Rivera in the 9th inning of game 7? If he is why? Rivera did what he was supposed to do, he got the batter to weakly hit a ball that barely got out of the infield. Bobby Thomson is clutch because he its a home run off of Ralph Branca. But Ralph is a gopher ball pitcher playing in a home run park against a batter who has hit several homers off of him. If is it clutch that Bobby did what was likely to happen?

To me clutch is succeeding when the odds say you should have failed. To take all the variables and say that one has a 90% chance of failing and instead succeed 25% of the time. That would be clutch, not something where one should succeed 25% of the time and in fact one does do that.

In other words we take all the variables, weather, park, who is pitching, who is hitting, the defense, the base/out situation, the score, time of day, the inning and figure out the odds of failure or success for the league and then compare that to the individual.

Its an almost impossible task for us but I think it could be done.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

Hard to really prove clutch or no such thing as clutch. Even looking at all kinds of stats and results in certain game situations. Too many variables.
Myself, I don't exactly call it clutch but there are probably some hitters who hit about the same in non clutch and clutch situations and some that may do a bit better in clutch situations than non clutch situations but not better enough to really be measured and proven beyond a doubt.


Were on the same page Ubiquitous or close to it, I think. The above is a an earlier post of mine, post# 72 from 1/21. If I recall your post #90 you say there are a great number of variables and it would be some task to enter them all and come to some conclusion as to the clutch or what some call pressure situations. I say the same in my post only use the words too many variables. Maybe I could bend some and take out the words too many. By using that "too many" it seems I am saying it can't be done. A Monumental task in my mind but maybe your correct it could be done. I would bet there are a good number of other variables that could be thought of.

My point and it seems to be close to your view, that all the numbers and stats that have appeared on this board up to now are not enough to prove the clutch issue either way, lots of work to be done.

[SABR Matt]

What you wrote was wrong and the examples you gave were wrong. Just because you believe you know what you are talking about means that what you say should go without judgement. If you take a test put down as an asnwer 5 to the question 2+2=, that doens't mean I shouldn't mark it incorrect.

Your first statement had that if one was robbed of a homer on should expect for that to be balanced out by singles or triples. That is incorrect, nobody should expect that. What one should expect is true odds in your next at bat. The falling to expectations that one gets because of larger sample sizes isn't because of evening out or balancing out but because the data gets so large that small extremes have less imprortance, but nothing has to even out or balance out.

Take the roulette example first ten spins it comes up ten. Now the actual odds are way out of whack to true odds. Do another 90 spins, 10 comes up twice so now the actual odds have fallen drastically from 100% to 12% but still way out of line to true odds. Spin it 379,900 more times, 10 comes up 9997 times, now in 380,000 spins 10 has come down to happening 2.634% of the times as compared to the true odds of 2.632% So after 380,000 spins basically true odds has prevailed but at no time was there ever a evening out. It was simply that a small extreme doesn't have the same impact on a large set of data.

So while you may be correct in that if there is a skill then given enough data it will show up you are incorrect in your way of explaining why. On top of that in terms of skill showing up, I personally don't believe it has to show up, or at least in this specific case. Clutch hitting happens in very specific instances that are spread out throughout the day, year, and season, against a vast array of players and strategies. A player could very well be an above average clutch hitter but had the misfortune of coming up to bat more times against clutch pitchers and defenders in parks favoring the defense then the average situation dictates. In otherwords his clutchness doesn't have to float to the tiop at all, he could sink to the bottom and still be a clutch hitter.

I will say I agree with you that some of the skill involved in hitting in the clutch may be masked by the fact that in clutch situations teams tend to use their best pitchers and be more on their toes on defense.

[digglahhh]

Please don't lecture me about the laws of probability Ubi...I have studied statistics for a while now.

I know that things don't necessarily have to "even out"...but the larger you play...the higher the cahnces are that you will approach the true distribution...if you play noticeably better in a certain situation...and you do that for a long time...it will more likely than not start to show up. If that weren't true we would have .330 hitters routinely hitting .240 for whole seasons for no particular reason...that's not what happens. There are fluctuations...but the longer you play...the more the true you will show in the statistics.


This is also assuming consistency in variables which is not the case in baseball. The amount of variables in a baseball game is expontentially greater than that of a coin flip or roulette spin. Only the hitter remains the same, pitchers, fielders, weather, official scorers and tons of other relevant factors change. This fluctuation, by its nature, is more condusive to statistical variation than the events we are comparing the game to.

[Dasperp]

Have there ever been any studies done on clutch pitching?

[four tool]

The only studies on clutch pitching have been looking at how relievers do when they in with the game, or the score, on the line. Branca vs. Thompson could be a case study.

Did Branca fail or did Thompson maintain because he usually hit Branca well?
Should it be a case of clutch managing because there were options besides Branca?

[digglahhh]

Clutch is in the eye of the beholder.

I'm sure there are situations when players feel that the situation is "clutch" personally, despite the overall situation of the game. For example, when team is administering a whooping and everybody in the staring line-up has a hit, or an RBI except one guy, that guy might view his AB as "clutch" for personal/pride reasons, though as spectators we wouldn't consider the AB clutch at all, in a 13-3 game.

Aside from the obvious situations, players' makeups dictate much of what distinguishes clutch from non-clutch situations. I think perception is reality here, most of the time.

[four tool]

Unfortunately that type of perception would get players a horse laugh. Gee he thinks it's clutch when the team is up 13-3 what does he call this when the score is tied?
I know a lot of people who use that kind of logic in everyday life, well I thought it only cost $10 and that's all I have, so...and that is rarely a good thing.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

There are just too many variables in baseball. You'd think that a large enough sample size would even things out, but it wouldn't. Too many factors that have various impacts on various situations.

Digg said it best; it's in the eye of the beholder. It's impossible to gauge all of the aspects necessary for an accurate indication of clutch. Even if you could gauge all of them, and put proper importance on each one, there's no telling how they affect some players over other, or what motivates each player.

Let's say in a "clutch" situation that someone puts the ball in play hard 7 out of 10 times. If 5 of these hits are directly at someone does that make him any less clutch? He did what you're supposed to do as a hitter, in a big spot, but baseball is baseball.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

What about the runner or runners on base in some situations. Would the speed of a runner on first dictate or at the least effect the hitter. If hitter A and hitter B come up in the same situation, say the 8th or 9th inning, no outs down a run. If the runner on first in the case of hitter A is a threat to steal, would the hitter be more likely to take a pitch or two assuming the first pitch is a ball, giving the runner the chance to steal and get into scoring position.

Would hitter B be less likely to take a couple of pitches, since the runner on first is not a threat to steal. Is one hitter facing a pitcher easy to steal on and the other not, should one hitter give the runner a chance to advance to second base

Would it matter if the pitcher is having control problems in one case but not the other. Even if the situations the hitters face "seem" similar but in one case facing a pitcher throwing a high percentage of strikes and the other not make the hitter more or less likely to take a pitch. Possiibly one of the hitters might get behind in the count and the other may get what most hitters strive for, a hitters count. Would one hitter have the advantage, the pitcher with the stealing threat on first, thowing more fastballs, making it more difficult to steal.

This is only one variable, the runner on first, speed or no speed could have something to do with the hitter at the plate, behind in the count ahead in the count. Rambling a bit here, I hope some understand or at least get an idea of what I tried to say.

My point, there has to be no end to the variables, the differences in some situations that "seem" to be the same for both hitters. I don't believe I''ll live long enough for anyone to convince me that they have entered and used all the variables that would prove clutch or disprove it.

I would bet that there are posters out there that could come up with some variables that many of us have never even thought of.

[Sultan_1895-1948]

What about the runner or runners on base in some situations. Would the speed of a runner on first dictate or at the least effect the hitter. If hitter A and hitter B come up in the same situation, say the 8th or 9th inning, no outs down a run. If the runner on first in the case of hitter A is a threat to steal, would the hitter be more likely to take a pitch or two assuming the first pitch is a ball, giving the runner the chance to steal and get into scoring position.

Would hitter B be less likely to take a couple of pitches, since the runner on first is not a threat to steal. Is one hitter facing a pitcher easy to steal on and the other not, should one hitter give the runner a chance to advance to second base

Would it matter if the pitcher is having control problems in one case but not the other. Even if the situations the hitters face "seem" similar but in one case facing a pitcher throwing a high percentage of strikes and the other not make the hitter more or less likely to take a pitch. Possiibly one of the hitters might get behind in the count and the other may get what most hitters strive for, a hitters count. Would one hitter have the advantage, the pitcher with the stealing threat on first, thowing more fastballs, making it more difficult to steal.

This is only one variable, the runner on first, speed or no speed could have something to do with the hitter at the plate, behind in the count ahead in the count. Rambling a bit here, I hope some understand or at least get an idea of what I tried to say.

My point, there has to be no end to the variables, the differences in some situations that "seem" to be the same for both hitters. I don't believe I''ll live long enough for anyone to convince me that they have entered and used all the variables that would prove clutch or disprove it.

I would bet that there are posters out there that could come up with some variables that many of us have never even thought of.

There is no end to it, you're right Joe. How difficult a task would it be to just come up with all the variables. Then each one of those have their own individual variables spiraling off of them, and then more off of those. It would end up being a tangled web.