Greatest clutch hitter of all time?
Jersey
Posts: 542
in Sports Talk
Who? (Not based on one big hit - no matter how important it may have been - but over their career).
Wise men learn more from fools than fools learn from the wise.
0
Comments
Given a large enough sample size, most hitters will perform the same in 'clutch' situations as they do outside of them. The best example of this perceived clutch hitting is Jeter.
He has an enormous sample size of postseason at bats (the most EVER of any player, nearly a full season's worth), and when you look at his BA and OBP, they are nearly the same as his regular season stats, showing he's no better a hitter than he is outside of the postseason.
I could say with fair certainty that Ken 3 0 1 0 Oberkfell Could possibly be the least clutch hitter though.
SD
Edited to add: Clutch situations arise throughout the whole season.
to try and quantify that is not as easy as comparing 1 players regualr season and post season stats.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
<< <i> Clutch situations come up at irregular intervals mostly in the late innings of games. >>
How is a late inning at bat more valuable than one in the early stages of the game? One could argue that early game at bats are *more* important because (a) they give the starting pitcher more confidence and (b) save your bullpen innings.
I think there is a big perception problem with what's considered 'clutch', and I don't think that late-inning at bats are all that more important than ones earlier in the game.
<< <i>
<< <i> Clutch situations come up at irregular intervals mostly in the late innings of games. >>
I think there is a big perception problem with what's considered 'clutch', and I don't think that late-inning at bats are all that more important than ones earlier in the game. >>
Well managers of baseball teams sure think at bats later in the game are more important. Pinch hitting, righty lefty matchups with the bullpen, intentional walks, etc.
Also, your reasoning is the same that people use trying to prove that the April 14th game is just as important as the Sept. 28th game. While it is logical to surmise that each game is just as important, in reality they are not. They are played in a much different way, just like the late innings of a ballgame.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
<< <i>
Well managers of baseball teams sure think at bats later in the game are more important. Pinch hitting, righty lefty matchups with the bullpen, intentional walks, etc.
Also, your reasoning is the same that people use trying to prove that the April 14th game is just as important as the Sept. 28th game. While it is logical to surmise that each game is just as important, in reality they are not. They are played in a much different way, just like the late innings of a ballgame. >>
I disagree with you completely on both stats.
So the April 14th game is not as important as the Sept 28th game? Let's take the 2005 AL east season...if the yankees or red sox win just ONE more of those less important games in April, they win the division outright. So how is that not as important?
And a manager changes his strategy in late innings typically when losing, or a close game. So tell me, how were those early inning at bats less important for the manager on the winning side? Do at bats in the early innings not count as much?
I can't see how you can discount a first inning home run that puts your team (and more importantly, your starting pitcher) up 3-0, and the confidence it gives him in addition to the rest it's likely to give your bullpen from the early lead.
<< <i>
I disagree with you completely on both stats.
So the April 14th game is not as important as the Sept 28th game? Let's take the 2005 AL east season...if the yankees or red sox win just ONE more of those less important games in April, they win the division outright. So how is that not as important?
And a manager changes his strategy in late innings typically when losing, or a close game. So tell me, how were those early inning at bats less important for the manager on the winning side? Do at bats in the early innings not count as much?
I can't see how you can discount a first inning home run that puts your team (and more importantly, your starting pitcher) up 3-0, and the confidence it gives him in addition to the rest it's likely to give your bullpen from the early lead. >>
Again, although it is completely logical to think in this way, it is not the way the game is played. The New York Yankees, Boston Red Sox, and any other team are not sitting there in April thinking "gee, this game might be the difference in a tight race at the end" While they are certainly trying to win every one of those early games, they are JUST NOT played with the same sense of urgency as late season games. And they never will be.
I am not discounting that first inning home. What I am discounting is your thought process. The late innings are played with much more care and strategy when the amount of outs are dwindling to a precious few. Hey, its not MY opinion here, IT IS the way the game is played. While the early innings of games are very much important, they are not as CRUCIAL as the later innings.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
Nope. Some people respond well to pressure situations and some people don't. This includes star baseball players, and people in all walks of life.
The easiest baseball example I can think of is Dave Kingman, although he wouldn't be considered a star but he did hit a lot of home runs. He had more homeruns with his team leading or losing 10 - 0 than anyone I can imagine. I don't remember him ever hitting a clutch home run. In a clutch situation, he was virtually a guaranteed strikeout. And sometimes marginal players for whatever reason, get that adrenaline rush in clutch situations and become good hitters. Being a clutch hitter is not a myth by any means.
LOL
<< <i>
The easiest baseball example I can think of is Dave Kingman, although he wouldn't be considered a star but he did hit a lot of home runs. He had more homeruns with his team leading or losing 10 - 0 than anyone I can imagine. I don't remember him ever hitting a clutch home run. In a clutch situation, he was virtually a guaranteed strikeout. And sometimes marginal players for whatever reason, get that adrenaline rush in clutch situations and become good hitters. Being a clutch hitter is not a myth by any means. >>
Your line of reasoning is exactly what I am referring to.
For example, what is 'clutch'? How do you define it? Is it putting your team ahead late in the game? What about the runs that were scored earlier in the game? If they hadn't been scored, that late inning hit/RBI/whatever would be meaningless.
I think sports fans as a whole are so needy for a hero that we grasp at whatever we can to classify them as such. And on the opposite end of the scale, we are such a society of critics, we feel the need to absolutely lambast anyone we feel doesn't measure up to where we feel they should be (just read the comments in the Arod thread about his performance in the postseason).
I think in baseball, it's really next to impossible to classify someone as 'clutch', because so much of the game is dependent on the rest. I think the only way I personally would believe someone as clutch would be someone who consistently, in big game (rivals, playoffs) situations put his team on the scoreboard first. That to me is clutch.
Nobody has been more "clutch" than David Ortiz over the last three years...but, you have to consider someone like Ichiro Suzuki, who has the highest batting average with RISP in the last 60 years. Or, what about Manny? Or Pujols? I would have also mentioned Vlad, but this postseason has diminished his "clutch" reputation a bit...
Going back a bit, Eddie Murray and Tony Perez were always mentioned and viewed as great performers when it counted. There is no one solid answer to this.
Edit to say - I was typing my post as Ax was typing his...so, how do you define clutch, then?
- Yogi Berra
(if Yogi didn't say this he could have - LOL)
I think "clutch" as far as sports is concerned can be defined as performing successfully at a crucial time in the game. Scoring first would only be crucial late in the game. Someone putting his team on the scoreboard first early in the game is of course good, but that would not be considered a crucial situation.
<< <i>Given a large enough sample size, most hitters will perform the same in 'clutch' situations as they do outside of them. The best example of this perceived clutch hitting is Jeter. >>
<< <i>He has an enormous sample size of postseason at bats (the most EVER of any player, nearly a full season's worth), and when you look at his BA and OBP, they are nearly the same as his regular season stats, showing he's no better a hitter than he is outside of the postseason. >>
Axtell, your Yankee hatred really clogs your thinking.
<< <i>
Axtell, your Yankee hatred really clogs your thinking. >>
has nothing to do with hatred, but the perception that he somehow, miraculously is a better hitter in the postseason is verifiable by simply and objectively looking at numbers.
So, for those who are ready to jump up and down and tell me I'm wrong, define clutch in baseball for me?
Late inning hits? How late? Tie game? Your team down? I'd like to find out why people are so willing to discount an early inning RBI(s) that put your team ahead and gives your pitcher breathing room?
<< <i>So, for those who are ready to jump up and down and tell me I'm wrong, define clutch in baseball for me? >>
One defiinition of clutch is doing what is needed when it is needed to be done, although there are varying degrees. For example in the Yankees final game down by two in the ninth they need a baserunner. Jeter comes up and gets on = clutch, A-Rod comes up and grounds into a double play = anti clutch. As far as varying degrees, getting a two out single in the first inning to score 2 runs is clutch. Get a game winning two run single in the ninth inning is David Ortiz clutch.
And if you want webster's definition of it here it is:
1 : made or done in a crucial situation <a clutch hit>
1) There are typically three realms of clutch that define a hitter A)HItting with men on,.... B)Close and Late,...... C)Post season/or obviously more meaningful games...(wheras a game in APril and September have equal value, the perception of the Sep. game is that of being more important, thus 'rising to the occasion' is in the mind of everyone, therefore a 'clutch' player would do well in them, or so to speak.
2)Hitting with Men on has a technical aspect to it (Eddie Murray was famous for his two strike 'flick' swing), and the situation may dictate a pitcher 'being backed into the corner' because of the base situation, which may result in a batter being able to look for fat pitches. Some hitters may certainly have a better ability at reading pitches/pitchers in these situations based on previous at bats, or previous pitches in the current at bat, or just being good at 'geussing' or 'reading'. Some batters are better at shortening up, while some are not. None of this has to do with the MYSTICAL "RISING TO THE OCCASSION".
Since men on base at bats have large sample sizes, you can avoid that problem of not enough info. But there are still other factors that influence these numbers. Murray is usually the guy that is used to show that this type of ability exists, as his career numbers(as well as first hand info etc...) do suggest that it does, and it isn't luck. The problem is, is that most people give TOO MUCH credit for this ability, or TOO MUCH blame for somebody that is perceived to not hit good with men on. But there is certainly something there.
3)Late Inning heroics. A home run in the first carries the same value as in the 9th. You've all seen the stats on how often a team that scores first wins etc...But the 'pressure' isn't the perceived to be the same as in the 1st as it is in the 9th, and it is 'clutch' that you are trying to measure, and not value. The biggest problem with this measurement is that players are not put into those 9th inning situatiosn very often. The sample sizes are waaay to small to reach any meaningful conclusion. The second problem is where do you draw the line of a clutch hit late?? Is it only a walk off HR that is clutch? The more you expand the defintion, the more difficult it becomes to isolate if the ability does exist. When you do isolate it, there isn't near enough opportunties to draw a conclusion from.
4)Post Season. The notion of "Rising to the Occasion" has serious flaws in professional sports. You have already risen to the occasion if you even made it that far!! Skilled players with weak psyche would typically get weeded out before even high school, then at high school for sure. They wouldn't even have a chance in college or the minors.
If a professional player had some ability to all of a sudden become a better player because the calendar turns Oct., then why would he only do it in OCT? Why not use that ability to hit 85 home runs in the regular season? Because that ability MOST LIKELY does not exist in PRO sports, and if it does, it is in such a minute difference between the competitors it would be nearly impossible to tell who has it or doesn't. A players abilit is what it is, and that is usually determined by thousands of examples of a players work. No player has been able to sustain levels well above their determined ability in the post season when the at bats started to mount, nor have they been able to carry it from series to series and avoid BAD series. Mr. Octobor has SIX horrible post season series on his resume for example. If he was Mr. October and could truly will himself to the occasion, then he wouldn't let that happen.
Axtell is correct with the Jeter thing. If you look at all the all time leaders in BA in the post season, you will see that they do not have very many at bats. The more at bats in the post season they get, the more their numbers start to represent what their true ability is(as evident by their thousands of regular season at bats). Things start to normalize as the at bats mount, and that is why they don't award batting titles in May!
5)Perception, anger, and bias. Those all get in the way of who people say are clutch. The gentlemen above mentioned Kingman. Your perception of a big moment may be different than another. You may also be selectively remembering the bad times and forgetting the good. That is common, as hurt sticks with people more than joy. Actually, I was at a game in the early 80's where Kingman hit a game winning walk off home run in a double header, so he has done it. Again, he really ins't put into many close/late situations as people think, especially with late 70's early 80's cub teams
Men on hitting is worth looking at, but the other two really aren't if you want to determine anything close to truth.
<< <i>Axtell is correct with the Jeter thing. If you look at all the all time leaders in BA in the post season, you will see that they do not have very many at bats. The more at bats in the post season they get, the more their numbers start to represent what their true ability is(as evident by their thousands of regular season at bats). Things start to normalize as the at bats mount, and that is why they don't award batting titles in May! >>
Sounds good in theory but you cannot prove that. Of the top ten players in postseason ab's five players have averages near their regular season avgs the other five aren't within 30 pts. These are all guys with over 280 ab's so you would think in what is basically half a season their numbers would closer. I'm not saying the theory is wrong because maybe as their postseason ab's climb to 500 or 1000 the averages would become more similiar; however, if you've ever been to a postseason game then you know it is not the same as the regular season. Everything is magnified and I believe you will have players that will not perform as well under these conditions no matter how many ab's they get.
You bring up the May thing but there are players who go whole careers starting off slow and having bad May's. If the theory of ab's are true you would think that over a career their numbers would closer to those put up in other months. You can also apply this logic to October certain players hit better in the postseason.
If you signed a .280 hitter who hit .400 in the postseason this year, and paid him more than a .280 hitter is worth because of that .400... well he is just as likely to hit .200 the next post season. How do I know that? Well, those types of swings happen ALL THE TIME in the regular season, and that doesn't stop just because the calendar turns octoboer. Those types of swings happen all the time in the history of post season as well. Nobody has been able to avoid that to any degree of validity.
If a guy had an ability to all of a sudden become a better player in the post season, then he must be stupid, because if he could morph himself into a different player, then why waste it just on those six games? Why not do it all year and hit .400 with 75 HR? If those are the paces he is doing in the post season, he should be able to call on that ability at will, but he can't. He can't do it in the regualr season, nor the post season. Players get hot, players get cold. The ball bounces your way, it doesn't. You geuss right, you geuss wrong. Sometimes it happens for you in OCt, sometimes not. GO through the bios of every player in the playoffs, and you see that there is soo much randomness at work, and success and failur are NOT attributed to clutchness nor chokeness.
I also think you guys are overcomplicating the whole clutch hitter discussion. Lighten up and have a little fun.
JoeBanzai
<< <i>If a guy had an ability to all of a sudden become a better player in the post season, then he must be stupid, because if he could morph himself into a different player, then why waste it just on those six games? >>
Of the top ten postseason ab guys I mentioned only one had a higher avg during the postseason then his career avg and that was Mr.October. So my theory is that certain players can continue to play at the same level while some cannot. Likely due to the added mental stress of a postseason, which there definitely is. Pitching matchups or also more important in the postseason. You don't see managers leaving pitchers out there to take one for the team and save the bullpen in the postseason.
As far as the average out theory you still didn't explain why certain players can have months, or halfs in which they do not perform as well. According to the average theory, over enough ab's players wouldn't perform better in certain months or times of the season. Craig Biggio for example has a .255 September batting avg since 1997, which is over .20 points lower then any other month. This is in over 1400 ab's in that month at what point should his September Average deviate less? Or is that players perform different at different times of the year?
The players that you say cannot play to their 'level' of ability, is because they haven't had enough post season at bats to show their true level of ability. It is funny how the poster above states Manny Ramirez as clutch, because just a few of years ago he was known as a World Series choker. Bonds finally caught a couple of hot streaks and turned from a 'PERCEIVED' choker hitter in the post season, to being what he normally does. Again, given enough time, the good times would come with the bad. How many times do you see a star hitter batting .250 during a 100 stretch at bat? It happens all the time! Then it usually gets evened out with a different 100 stretch at bat. Just because one of those good or bad stretches happens to fall within post season time, it doesn't make him clutch of NOn Clutch. How on earth can anybody claim that those good/bad swings cease to exist when the calendar turns to Oct? "Do the laws of physics cease to exist in your kitchen?" - Vincent Gambini
.20 points in batting average over 1,400 at bats is within standard deviation.
.311, .350, .310, .326, .296,....those numbers are some Septembers from Craig Biggio. He had a couple of abysmal ones to bring his overall average down. But if he didn't have an ability to hit that month, then how could he have some incredible Septembers then?
A .280 hitter is not going to bat .280 every single month! A .20 swing is within standard deviation. What if you went through Biggio's career and found out that he only batted .240 on every 5th, 15th, and 25th of the months? Would you conclude that he can't hit on days ending in 5's? Based on what you are saying, since it happened often, then it must be. There MAY be some relevance to a guy starting out slow, but typically that is over blown.
How did Mike Schmidt go from SLUGGING .714 in the 1980 WS to Slugging .050 in the 1983? Did he forget how to be clutch in 1983? Did he all of a sudden become stressed out and not handle it anymore? The history of post season bio's is like this all over the place.
Please, it is VERY stressful to even get to MLB. Going through the rigors is VERY HARD, and maybe even MORE stressful then once you are there. High School can be extremely stressful, and probably MORE stressful because one isn't as cognitively/emotionally developed at that age. MLB players, just by virtue of being there, have already passed the stress test. The post season numbers are a combination of a players true ability, and of just doing something at the right, or wrong time just as it is ALWAYS done during the regular season. EVERYONE hypes a player who has a good post season, ESPECIALLY TV, as that makes for more drama. Heck, just ask Tim McCarver as he talked about Livan Hernandez's big gameness when he was pitching for SF int he playoffs. Moments later, Hernandez got Whiplash, as he post season ERA went from ONE something, right to his normal ERA. One or two good shellings will do that to a pitcher, just like in the regular season. IS it possible some are better post season players? Maybe. But by looking at the availabe numbers, you can't even remote conclude that, as has proven time and time and time and time again.
<< <i>Craig Biggio for example has a .255 September batting avg since 1997, which is over .20 points lower then any other month. This is in over 1400 ab's in that month at what point should his September Average deviate less? Or is that players perform different at different times of the year? >>
Possibly fatigue? Not like he's taking many games off, short of 2000 and 2002, he's played in 153+ games every year.
And if it was possible for a hitter to be 'clutch', why wouldn't that player hit that well ALL the time? It doesn't make sense. The pressure? Highly unlikely.
We're not trying to overcomplicate the issue, what I'd like to know is what constitutes 'clutch', and why the perception that late inning runs scored are more important than ones earlier in the game.
.311, .350, .310, .326, .296,....those numbers are some Septembers from Craig Biggio. He had a couple of abysmal ones to bring his overall average down. But if he didn't have an ability to hit that month, then how could he have some incredible Septembers then?
A .280 hitter is not going to bat .280 every single month! A .20 swing is within standard deviation. What if you went through Biggio's career and found out that he only batted .240 on every 5th, 15th, and 25th of the months? Would you conclude that he can't hit on days ending in 5's? Based on what you are saying, since it happened often, then it must be. There MAY be some relevance to a guy starting out slow, but typically that is over blown.
That is the answer to the Biggio question.
The perception comes from one occuring where the outcome still has endless possibilites, and the other coming when the outcome has much more clearly defined possibilites. It really isn't worth trying to determine that stuff anyway, as it is usually based on random outcome.
All one needs to do is spend time studying the body of work that the player has done, and base all decisions on that. The fool GM who signs a guy for more than what his regular season stats show, just because he had a hot post season or hit a couple of walk off home runs, is in for a rude awakening....because history has shown that the player is more than likely to go the opposite direction, as he is to continue that type of 'clutchness'. In the end, if he is given enough at bats in those situations, his numbers will begin to mirror what you already know
<< <i> The value of a home run is the same in the 1st as in the 9th. >>
Not if that home run hit in the ninth is in blow out. It doesn't matter. Baseball is a game of streaks of momentum and a game winning home run in the ninth has more of an emotional effect on a team. Plus a game winning home runs are likely to come off closers who are usually the other team's best pitchers this makes them clutch. Do you really think confidence has nothing to do with how a batter plays? So what if he hit .300 in the regular season if he comes up in a clutch situtation and has been labeled as being anti cluth more then often he will compound the problem by not relaxing and fullfilling what is believed.
<< <i> Check out Bernie Williams first 55 career post season at bats, and then check his next 52 post season at bats. Tell me what you draw from that. >>
That Jeter has been consistently clutch in the postseason. Just because a player has a good October doesn't mean that every one will be. Some players just handle pressure situations better consistently. If you do not believe in clutch, lets take a football example, superbowl- 2 seconds left you're on the 30 down by 2. Do you want Gary Anderson taking that kick or Adam Vinatieri? They have about the same career kicking pct.?
Best clutch hitter I ever personally witnessed was George Brett. Went to several Tiger games when our company used to buy season tickets and I can't remember how many times he either hit a double with the bases loaded or a home run when they needed it. All the freekin' time!
The 3rd basemen for the Sox came up clutch in the field last night with that diving play that ended an inning.
Bagwell came up (his 4th app) and in a clutch situation failed.
Clutch= Coming through with a situation on the line. of course with varying degrees.
To say that a batter hits better in the post season or not can not be used in an equation for the simple reason that NOT all post season at bats are in clutch situations.
JMO
SD
I think "Clutch" has to be witnessed to discuss. To try to do it by looking at the stats is impossible. Unless you're Skinpinch of course. Who can prove anything with a handy baseball encyclopedia and few strategically placed CAPITAL WORDS in his argument. Interesting though that he's used BA to guide his argument in most of the posts, having remarked on many previous occations that BA is as useless as tits on a bull when it comes to measuring a player's value and ability.
To me, clutch hitting is the guy you want at the plate when the game is on the line, either to save the team from defeat or singlehandedly carry them to victory. In the game today, no one is more clutch in that regard than David Ortiz. And just right behind him, Manny Ramirez. Nomar was probably the most cluch hitter in baseball until he got hurt two years ago. Same for Jason Giambi before his steroid related physical problems slowed him down. Lance Berkman seems to come up big a lot. And Ichiro of course.
Going back a bit, I agree 100% with Brett. Dave Winfield, one bad post season aside, was a great clutch hitter. Kenny Loften and David Justice are two guys in the 90s that always seemed to get the big hit when needed. Joe Carter was very clutch, not just because of the WS HR. Carter always seemed to win games at Fenway every year with a big late inning hit, usually a HR. He was the last guy you wanted to see up with the game on the line as a Sox fan, a title that was subsequently passed on to the likes of Tim Salmon and Jim Edmonds, to Soriano, and now Matsui. And Wade Boggs was quite clutch thoughout his whole career, although it's hard to distinguish since he was such a great hitter anyways, you (rightfully) expected him to get a hit when it was needed. Historically (in my lifetime), no one was more clutch than Yaz though.
<< <i>
Clutch= Coming through with a situation on the line. of course with varying degrees.
To say that a batter hits better in the post season or not can not be used in an equation for the simple reason that NOT all post season at bats are in clutch situations.
JMO
SD >>
What? ALL postseason at bats aren't clutch at bats? Huh? Isn't the game (therefore your season) on the line at EVERY at bat?
The guy you would want to have in a crucial situation(late and close) is simply the best hitter. George Brett fits that bill, as does Murray, Boggs, Papi, etc.. You don't take a lesser hitter in that situation just because he is 10-33 in late inning pressure situations, and the BETTER hitter is only 9-33 in those same situations. There is no need to debate on who is the most clutch in the late innings, because it is the best hitter period that you would want. YOU JUDGE THE BEST HITTER OVER A LARGE ENOUGH SAMPLE TO GIVE YOU A VALID RESULT!
I asked about Bernie Williams first 55 at bats in the post season, which would make him the best 'clutch' hitter in the playoff history! Because going on his that performance, one would have to say that this is the guy I want in the post season. One would want him over Bonds because Bonds was horrible in his post season. Well, in Bernie's next 52 at bats in the post season may qualify as the absolute worst post season performance. Bonds, went on to do very well. So, just because a guy showed 'clutchness' in limited at bats, IT DOESN'T MEAN HE WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO! ESPECIALLY POST SEASON WISE!
DGS, I could answer pretty much anything.
DGS, you base yours on perception. You mention Joe Carter as clutch. Well, go through every one of his games and see how many times he failed to hit in a close and late game. You will see that he wasn't as clutch as you think. In fact, do that for every player you listed. You will see that as their at bats mounted in clutch scenarios, that their clutch results will fall right in line with their 'non' clutch results. There is just waay to small of samples to say that so and so can rise to the occassion in the late innings, better than what he normally does.
Why doesn't he just rise to that occasion EVERY at bat and be 'clutch' all the time then? Why not use his mojo and do it all four at bats and bat .390 with 75 home runs for the season?
Eddie Murray is generall considered the most clutch of his time, both with MEn on and in Late Innings. Take a look at Murray's clutchness, and he is probably the poster boy for Late Inning Clutch, and certainly for MEN on clutch.
Through 1985 look at Eddie Murray's late inning clutchness. LIPS=Late Ining Pressure Situations. RISP= Runners in scoring position.
Career numbers through '85
BA in LIPS .324
BA LIPS MEN on .379
BA LIPS RISP .407
BA LIPS RISP w/ 2 outs .424
Notice how Murray's clutchness swells to the pressure occasion.
Murray career nubers through '88
BA in LIPS .........................297 with 922 at bats
BA LIPS MEN ON ...............353 with 390 at bats
BA LIPS RISP ....................373 with 193 at bats
BA LIPS RISP w/ 2 outs.... .378 with 82 at bats
Still impressive, but notice how the more at bats he is getting, the more his numbers in late inning situatios are starting to normalize.
The next five years saw Murray bat .260 in LIPS with MEn ON. HE saw the same decline in all others as well. Before you knew it, he wasn't much different in the clutch spots as he was in any other spot(he was still better, but not to any significant degree). You can do that same exercise with any other player and you will find very similar resutls. The only players who will show marked differences are guys who haven't played long enough yet.
Through 1988 Eddie Murray was considered the premier clutch man in both men on and LIPS categories, and that was over a 12 year body of work. Is it possible that Murray's decline in ability also made a decline in Late Inning clutchness? POSSIBLY. But he did not see a decline in the more technical MEN on Base hitting ability. That ability continued throughout his career, and over thousands of at bats of data. He actually had some of his best MEN on hitting in some of his later years, so if a decline in skill would cause a decline in clutchness, then it didn't show in the Men on base area for Murray.
One cannot discount what Murray did through 1985 in his Late Inning heroics! That hitting won his teams MANY games, and more than the average superstar. That stuff is useful for determining MVP and such. Ironic, since that hitting of men on and of LIPS (coupled with his overall hitting dominance) shows Murray was the MVP for probably an 8 year span (even though he never won the award).
BOTTOM LINE? The best hitters are the guys you want in a tough spot. Never choose a lesser hitter because he has had more succes in limited at bats, because that success will even out to normalty! Then you will bypass the better hitter, and lose out! Post season hitters are a myth. Late inning hitters are most likely a myth. Hitting with men on is true, but not to the extent that everyone attributes it it. This is as short as I could condense a complex topic, that has thousands of data samples, both statistically and witnessing.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
NO
<< <i>What? ALL postseason at bats aren't clutch at bats? Huh? Isn't the game (therefore your season) on the line at EVERY at bat?
NO >>
Wrong again, sir.
edited to add: you have the "SIR" part right.
SD
Exactly as I said. I believe clutch is a matter of opinion, and is built and believed based on what we see. Sure I can go back and look at Joe Carter's stats and see his BA/RISP+?ADJ/%/RATIO/SAT or whatever to see that on paper he doesn't look "clutch" to you.
And then I can remember at least a dozen crushing late inning HRs or 2Bs or other big hits he got at Fenway to beat the Red Sox in some of the most exciting and frustrating games I've ever been to.
All the numbers in the world aren't going to erase that, and this is turning into just another example where you can't prove or disprove something you didn't see just by flipping through a stat book. You'll try, no doubt. But it can't be done.
Quite a bit of hypocrisy in this:
Batting average is used to simplify things, plain and simple
My first clash with you on BA was over Jim Rice and Robin Yount. My point and stance, as you remember, was that there isn't much reason to go beyond BA/HR/RBI when assessing the value of great players, and that all you stat geeks can basically come up with any crazy stat to prove the sky is green if you wanted to, but in the end there's no reason for all that nonsense, and the basic stats are good enough.
You pretty much arrogantly called me a moron, simpleton and dinosaur etc. for arguing that.
Frankly, I think you should pick and choose when to use whatever stats you want, and since BA does fit this discussion nicely, it’s a great argument to use. And I would not be calling you out had you not so vehemently attacked others for doing it in the past. It makes you look like a hypocrite and diminishes your otherwise interesting and valid arguments.
98% of the time a player who has high splits in batting average also sees a similar percent increase in the more pertinent stats like SLG% and OB%. Since it is far quicker to compute a batting average, and since I already know that these players we are talking about have the same increase in their more pertinent stats, I use the batting average to show the increase. Is that clear enough on my methodology? I could spend much more time computing the other stats, but I am going to come away with the same results as in percent increase/decrese.
You keep saying that you 'saw' Joe carter beat you, and you can't forget that. Did you see how many times he failed in Oakland? Memory has a way of not putting things into what really happened.
Name the dozen late inning home runs to win the game. Then go through every other game and see how many times he represented the tying run and he didn't come through. You don't have to see a game to realize what situations are clutch or not. A game log will tell you quite well what is. Perception of what you feel is what flaws things.
The last dozen years Cub fans swore that Sammy Sosa never gets hits with a man on third/less than two outs. They say all he does is strike out, just like you say Carter is clutch. Yet when you look, Sammy has a lifetime average of .315 with man on third and less than two outs. So those people are obviously doing selective memory. Not only is it the stats that say it, but MYSELF WATCHING and remarking when he did come through!
I'm not just flipping through a stat book, I've probably examined all this more than anybody. I see people lke you all the time come with their perceptions, and then I point out reality, both in the figures AND when it occurs as a game is going on! When it is all layed out, what I wrote is right on the money.
I would still like for you to answer one question.....If Joe Carter had some sort of ability to make himself a better player when the game is on the line, then why in the heck doesn't he use that ability in all of his at bats??? Please answer.
If Joe Carter had some sort of ability to make himself a better player when the game is on the line, then why in the heck doesn't he use that ability in all of his at bats??? Please answer.
Because he sucks. That's the best stupid answer to a stupid question I can come up with. If you're asking questions like that, you're missing the point of the conversation. If Joe Carter can hit one HR, why doesn't he hit 700 HR every year. I don't know.
98% of the time a player who has high splits in batting average also sees a similar percent increase in the more pertinent stats like SLG% and OB%
Thanks, but I'm wasn't really looking for a justification. The point is you're using the stat prominantly in your own argument here, while having repeatedly trashed others for relying on it or even bringing it up in the past. Explain and justify all you want. When others have mentioned BA, you don't reply with "98% of the time a player who has high splits in batting average also sees a similar percent increase in the more pertinent stats like SLG% and OB%" You reply by calling them stupid and ignorant.
I see people lke you all the time come with their perceptions, and then I point out reality, both in the figures AND when it occurs as a game is going on! When it is all layed out, what I wrote is right on the money.
Look Skinny, I often enjoy going back and forth with you, but sometimes your arrogance is just too much to deal with. I'm talking about what really happened, what I saw, what I've observed, what I know, as a true and vastly educated fan and observer of baseball. You're quoting numbers. "People like you"? Do you mean "People who reference and make arguments based on what they actually saw in person, who probably understood the game of baseball far better in little league than you ever will today playing fantasy baseball and pouring over your stat sheets".
And thanks for pointing out reality. If you don't mind though, I'd prefer to live in my own reality, you know, the one that includes actual real memories of things that happened, as opposed to the reality you formulate and recreate by reading stats.
<< <i>
Look Skinny, I often enjoy going back and forth with you, but sometimes your arrogance is just too much to deal with. I'm talking about what really happened, what I saw, what I've observed, what I know, as a true and vastly educated fan >>
DG, be careful with the "true" and "vastly educated fan" stuff. We are all true fans of the game, and we all see things differently. You see red, I see stripes. Remember that! Afterall, you did classify a Trot Nixon 2003 post season HR as one of (in your eyes) biggest post-season HR's in history. While you really do feel that way, I of course laugh at it. Just like you laugh at Scott Brosius
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
Brosius sucks.
TWO, and most importantly, you say you understood the game better than me when you were in little league? It just so happens that I was, and STILL am one pretty good player. I can still hit 85 on the gun, and I could still drive the ball over 400 feet. I can guarantee one thing, I am a far better player than you will or have ever dreamed of. I am also a far better coach when I also dabble in that! I've forgotten more about baseball than you have ever known. If that is arrogance, then so be it, but it is truth fella! Just sitting your weak *ss in a chair and watching doesn't give you expertise, as your dribble has shown.
P.S. Then go home and fantasize about clutch players, because you need to believe in such things to obviously make yourself feel better to cover your own shortcomings. You probably belive Elvis still lives, the Moon was never breached, THe LochNess monster is alive, Big Foot is around, and that Dinosaurs never exisisted. How do you convince a man that Dinosaurs never existed when he just says "I belive what I see." You don't, you just count him off as some zealot and move on.
And fantasy baseball was a way to make extra cash off of myth believers like yourself.
<< <i>
Brosius sucks. >>
"vastly educated fan"
maybe in your little world
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
dgs, two things! One, you still don't get it. You probably just need to keep re-reading my posts until comprehension sinks in, as obviously that is not your strong point. Read the reason why I used average, again, you still don't understand. Do I need to break it down like you are a two year old? That moron talk I used before starts to hit home again if you can't understand the why. You make yourself look very stupid by not understanding WHY I did that.
TWO, and most importantly, you say you understood the game better than me when you were in little league? It just so happens that I was, and STILL am one pretty good player. I can still hit 85 on the gun, and I could still drive the ball over 400 feet. I can guarantee one thing, I am a far better player than you will or have ever dreamed of. I am also a far better coach when I also dabble in that! I've forgotten more about baseball than you have ever known. If that is arrogance, then so be it, but it is truth fella! Just sitting your weak *ss in a chair and watching doesn't give you expertise, as your dribble has shown.
P.S. Then go home and fantasize about clutch players, because you need to believe in such things to obviously make yourself feel better to cover your own shortcomings. You probably belive Elvis still lives, the Moon was never breached, THe LochNess monster is alive, Big Foot is around, and that Dinosaurs never exisisted. How do you convince a man that Dinosaurs never existed when he just says "I belive what I see." You don't, you just count him off as some zealot and move on.
And fantasy baseball was a way to make extra cash off of myth believers like yourself.