Reexamining Clutch: A New Year

Thanks, I'm glad to be back.

Summer was good and busy. I did get to go to Yankee Stadium and Shea Stadium for the first time.

Now I am back in school, so it looks like I will have a lot more Armchair time.

huzzah!

Bonds' R3BI% is 27.5%, fyi.

Do you count walks against a player in these stats? Because I'd imagine that a lot of the times that Bonds comes up with a runner on third, he doesn't get a whole lot of pitches to hit...

Yeah, if a player comes up with a man on 3rd, and he gets walked, then he is counted as failing to drive in the runner. This definitely hurt Bonds.

I don't believe in "clutch" as an ability/skill, but guys DO deliver in "clutch" situations, which is what this "stat" measures. I think you and I are on the same page, Manny.

And just to spark debate, given so many variables (baserunners, when the batter comes up in the inning, how the batter gets pitched to/around) do you feel that RBI are still a valuable statistic in today's spreadsheet environment?

I'm not saying it's an end all, but RBI have to mean something right? I think due to the OVERawareness of putting ducks on the pond (OBP, taking walks) people have begun to UNDERvalue the RBI lately! What's the point of getting baserunners if you don't knock 'em in, right?

I mean statistics can show you how a game was won in retrospect (assuming there are no freek occurances - which do to happen EVERY game), but things that don't make waves on the stat sheet (moving runners along, knocking in runners on fielder's choices, sac bunts, sac flies) seem to put games in the position to be won by the simple RBI more than measurable things like OPS...

Is it just me?

What's your take, BBAll?

My official view on the RBI: In retrospect, RBI's meant something to the team, but they aren't predictable. The goal for a team should be to acquire someone with the skill set to drive in runners (i.e. high OPS). Good players generally have a lot of RBIs, because they are good. Sometimes bad players have a lot of RBIs, because they are lucky/hot at the right time. RBI's shouldn't really be used except in retrospect, and probably only with adjustments made to them.

ok, maybe this is where I creep in with some argumentation...

Yet OPS isn't affected positively on "RBI events" such as Sac Flies, sac bunts or fielder's choices - events which DEFINITELY can have an impact on winning and losing, correct?

Just reminding everyone what is counted as "important" and what isn't...

too late... I just like these discussions!

I can't tell you how many times I've said "Huh?" and pondered things after reading a BBall article. I am never SO sure about my ideals that I will discount all evidence contrary. Sure, I might never agree that strikeouts are the most efficient outs (I'll take 3 pop outs on three pitches EVERY inning), but BBAll puts the data out there, backs it up with rational thought, I question it and shoot as many holes in it as I can and he ALWAYS has an explanation!

Besides, me and Bball are of the similar vain - Stats clearly mean something, there's no denying the numbers when THERE THEY ARE, they just don't mean everything as far as winning and losing!

Too many games have been won on plays that didn't rattle the calculator... (I've experienced the sting of losing despite favorable stats - hell, I've lost two one-hitters in my life)

and who the hell is arguing? I am picking brains!

The thing you guys fail to realize about me is that I am ALL for STATS and ALL for scouts/eyes... Numbers can give you a clue, just as percieving for yourself can (as long as your objective and as honest as the numbers should be)

But ultimately, stats can only tell you how games were won (most times), not how they will be won! They still gotta play the game!

Knowing is HALF the battle!

Sage wisdom I should heed FAR more often.

But I am definitely glad to see Tim around these parts again.

isn't this whole site about debating or some might say "arguing" about sports?

Speaking as a person who grew up around mental patients (my Mom worked very closely with mental patients for 35 years, then came home to deal with me!?!?!) I know for a fact, there are a much greater percentage of "retarded" people in this world that are thoroughly happy in life than NON-"retarded" people...

Better yet... show me a (medically certified) "retard" on Prozac.

Who's arguing?

IMHO, the site wasn't made for the zealous, religious-style arguments we get into over sabermetric shit. Protestant-Catholic conflicts in Northern Ireland don't get this heated. It's better to stay away from it and find an uneasy middle ground.

I'll agree... heated arguments are silly... but i think sabermetrics are an interesting topic so I'd certainly hope if someone brings up an interesting article like this we could debate about it. Granted i don't know the history of AGM sabermetrics debates so who knows.

I live in the uneasy middle ground, Davis...

And to reiterate - I LOVE stats! I want to understand them fully. I just won't base EVERY decision on them - let's face it... GREAT baseball statistics are still very poor percentages compared to the real world!

A guy with GREAT stats can suck as easily in one styretch of time as easily as Mickey Hatcher can hit more HR in one playoff series as a whole regular season... ya know?

(I'm not trying to fight - I'm gathering info for a future article!)

No, you're right, I just meant that it can take the tone of a religious war sometimes, which is wrong. We should respect each other's view of the game, and appreciate baseball for what it is, rather than taking potshots at each other's "belief systems". A civil discussion on the topic that didn't devolve into "Jocks vs. Nerds" (I'm torn on that one because I'm both!) would be a welcome change, and it would be a debate I'd have no problem engaging in.

And, Manny, you're just totally schizoid on this whole issue... You think A-Rod's better than Jeter but also think Mattingly's better than Bagwell, you don't believe in clutch but think stats mean less than HUMAN EYES, etc., etc. You won't be pigeonholed, damn you! :)

I wrote a beautifully eloquent comment explaining how we are all friends, we all LOVE the HELL out of the game and how we're ALL better when discussing these things and how I have begun to question what I thought I knew (NO STAT will prove to me that Bagwell was better than Mattingly - Mattingly, No Contest, while my eyes AND stats are in agreement with A-Rod over Jeter - A-Rod, No Contest)

but then my 2 year old son walked by and turned my computer off (at least he didn't wipe out a WHOLE article this time), my wife got home and I'm drunk, so I'm gonna let him play Noggin.com now... (the only website that gets mroe traffic from this IP than Armchair!)

PLEASE - NOTE to EVERYONE - I may antagonize the hell out of you, but words about things that aren't about my wife or kids will never make me angry!!!

And Bball, now tht you're back, and DDub, since you're here... when can I hit you guys up for Episode 2 of "Raise_or_Raze_the_Rays"_-_Episode_One "Raze or Raise the Rays"?

The data is there waiting to be scoured over!!! And bitched about by me =)

Manny, I'll probably be busy this weekend (Labor Day), but I am game for Raise or Raze the Rays ASAP.

No rush, let the Rays generate some more positive statistics first!! Eight wins in their last ten games!!!

Yes, but those factors are the same for everyone involved. Let's simplify... is a singles hitter EVER going to be "clutch"? He's a SINGLES HITTER!!! That means he's he's "scrappy" not "clutch"! Besides, any manager worth a damn will have the singles hitter in position to be knocked in by the "clutch" guy... not the other way around.

You're not talking personal things in the same vein as Robbie Alomar personal, are you?

Not quite...

Unless he grabbed a bird's nest, he "seized" the moment... that's as close as I'll allow to "clutch".

Just because "clutch" doesn't exist doesn't mean it's not there... come on - I'm semantical, not maniacal... ok, I'm maniacal too, but not beyond rational discussion...!

But once again, I must note that if the Mets knock in 10 runs in the first inning, is the EXACT same scenario you described suddenly "NOT clutch" even though the same exact thing happened??? You can't have it both ways!

"Clutch" is a term for AFTER you did good, "CHOKE" is for after you didn't... either way, you're only as good as your last at-bat!

In other words, clutch SHOULS be the same in EVERY inning, not just the last few...

Long live GWRBI!!! (I'm kidding)

I'm not saying everyone on Prozac isn't a "retard"... I was saying mentally challenged people are closer to the pure human essence (we were made to ENJOY LIFE, not fret over it)

clap , clap , clap! Stats will NEVER tell you what you can or will do!

Well said. In fact, the whole point of finding OBP and SLG to be the only offensive stats of any consequence came from people sitting down and saying, "What numbers correlate the most with run scoring?" Obviously, the only point of an offense is to score runs. So what stats, for teams, go hand in hand with runs per game? Turns out On-Base % and Slugging % stood head and shoulders above the rest. And that's what separates the good statistical analysts from those people trying to sell books -- the good ones find the stats that are proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be meaningful, and throw out the ones that aren't. The bad ones betray the scientific method by inserting their own biases into the research, and come out with numbers that mean nothing.

"Well said" was to Kelsdad. Manny... um, I welcome your opinion as well. I'm being tolerant! :)

let me re-word. Stats tell the past, not the future!

You HAVE to admit that stats are skewed... A fst guy that turns singles into doubles isn't the same as the guy who is slow as molasses but hits alot of doubles...

Deciphering baseball stats is not an exact science - as a fan of science you know that a "control" is neccessary - NO pitcher and batter is the same today as they are the next time they face each other... it's a valuable, yet fuzzy math.

(It seems) Every time an announcer says a guy "never did something" they always do, ya know?

While (it seems) every time the numbers say something should happen, it doesn't.

Baseball is beautifully unique. You can hit a franchise record 10 HRs and lose one day, then get one measly hit and win the next...

Hell, you can LOSE a no-nitter@!!! (it's happened more than once!)

Manny, what you're being obtuse about (intentionally, I believe), is that in the loooonnnnggggg run of a season, fluke things tend to balance out against other fluke things, and the stats begin to converge on a player's "true" ability. Sometimes it takes years. Sometimes you can filter out some of the distortions. But eventually, if you give a true .300 hitter enough at-bats, his average will converge on .300. Now, all that means is that he has a 30% probability of getting a hit in his next at-bat; in his next ten at-bats he may get 7 hits or 0. But the WHOLE point of using sabermetrics to build teams is to play those percentages in the knowledge that, while they may not always work out, you'll be better off in the long run. It's like casinos -- sometimes the house loses, because luck can be crazy. But the casino is okay with that, because they know the odds are on their side. And just like you wouldn't hit on 19, you don't lead off with a speedy guy who has a .317 career OBP.

I'm not being obtuse, I'm being REALISTIC...

Over the course of a full season, say 700 plate appearances - about 4.3 a game

let's figure you're a PURE .300 hitter by GOD's given ability over those 8 months of baseball, a you feel like crap/hungover/in an unexplanable funk/tired from banging groupies/recuperating from injuries/didn't get sleep on the plane flight/had a false fire alarm wake you up at 4am/personal issues/legal issues/whatever for a MERE 2 and 1/2 games and goes oh-fer in those games... say 0-10 due to conditions NOT pertaining to your ability... let's say you face your personal nemesis 2 extra times, let's say your kids are in trouble in school, you're wife is divorcing you, your mistress is posing for playboy...

Do these things that affect you somehow skew you're TRUE ability? OF COURSE THEY DO!!!!

0-10 in three days over a season is the difference between the .280 HITTER AND THE .300 HITTER, EH?

These are HUMANS we are talking about! Each with their own lives, set of circumstances and each with varying degrees of fighting through it...

Not only that, but EACH of these "variables" change day to day, week to week, month to month, season to season....

Then there's our good friend luck... hit 'em where they ain't, right? Is it YOUR fault you tattooed FOUR line drives right at fielders today? Is Derek Jeter's bloop single REALLY a better measure of talent over your screaming HR caught over the wall by a fantastic CF?

Point being... there are TOO MANY variables to HONESTLY and SCIENTIFICALLY to value statistics when they are so skewable...

I'm kind of torn on the whole Prospectus thing. I think they're funny/snarky, and can bring a lot of understanding to fans in moderation. The flip side of that is that they're arrogant, their attitude smacks of "I'm smarter than you" (certainly something I've been guilty of before as well, but I'm trying!), and -- worst of all -- they fail to EVER explain what their stats mean to people who are just getting into the stat side of the game. VORP sounds stupid, and in their arrogance they never correct the perception that it's a made up stat. All it means is "Runs Produced/Allowed Over What Some AAA Player Would Produce/Allow". You have to dig deep to find that definition, though, and that "you have to work hard to understand what we're talking about" attitude is what turns a lot of people off to BP's whole deal. They would be much better served to keep things simple, tone down the ego, and be ambassadors for stat analysis rather than having this holier-than-thou attitude toward fans who are new to that side of player evaluation. So I share your frustration with those guys, Kelsdad. A lot of times, they just don't get it.

Agreed. Until you realize that Babe Ruth's slugging percentage is so much greater than Barry Bonds' because of how many more triples he hit... those triples that don't occur in today's game... yet no one will ever say Ruth was speedier than Bonds, would they?

Then again Barry hit a lot of HR in which Ruth would have had fly outs...

SABR had the right theory, but like most theories, they only work IN THEORY!

I don't want to badmouth any more users than I already have, so I'll just say what I said the other day -- Mattingly was a better fielder than Bagwell. He was a more consistent hitter than Bagwell. He definitely made contact more often. He had a better eye at the plate (although Bagwell was more likely to take a walk). He didn't have as much power as Bags, even if you think about the various leagues and parks in which they played. And, if pressed, I'd say I'm not sure who was a better baserunner, because Bagwell was faster (especially earlier in his career), but Mattingly was an intelligent player who probably made up some of that by running the bases smart. Minus points to Mattingly for peaking too early; big minus points to Bagwell for maybe roiding. So I guess the final decision is up to everyone individually -- given the skill sets I laid out above, which one would you choose? What are your priorities in a player? If we were playing on a cornfield in Iowa with the "ideal" version of each player, which would you take? You know, thinking about it that way, I'm not so sure I wouldn't take Mattingly.

I kind of ran with the pro-computer argument on the Bagwell thread because everybody else seemed to be bashing it, and probably went a little overboard with some of my comments. Of course these complicated stats have limitations, and we need to know what these limitations are. That being said, I still think they're useful in evaluating a player. (In response to another question, the concept of a "replacement player" isn't really important at all to fans, but is important to front offices - if you can promote a player from AAA with similar skills as a free agent that you're gonna pay $4 million for, you want to know that before inking the contract.)

I don't really want to turn this thread into another Bagwell argument, but two things: 1) Bagwell wasn't really helped by his park; he did play the last six years of his career in Minute Maid, which is definitely a hitter's park, but he played most of his prime in the Astrodome, which favors pitchers at least as much. And 2) Even the "non-computer" stats like OBP and SLG say that Bagwell was better than Mattingly. You have to put them in their proper context blah blah blah, so even that isn't set in stone, but it's pretty tough to make an argument for Mattingly using those stats.

One more note on this - sure, there is stuff that doesn't show up in the box scores that is important...but how do you prove it? You pretty much just have to say that you "know" something about a player, and if enough people "know" the same thing, it becomes conventional wisdom, even if it's not true. For example, the Mattingly baserunning thing...I'm not saying that it isn't true that Mattingly was a smart baserunner, and it could definitely be accurate...but how do you prove it?

Mattingly was slower than frozen molasses, and rarely made outs on the basepaths becaus eof it... how many times was Bagweell caught stealing?

Stolen bases are hard to quantify because too many times they were meaningless steals...

Mattingly had health issues far beyond what Bagwell encountered and that's what makes it tough... Donnie played years after his back was already toast. And clearly, that affected his career totals... It was very tough to watch him play after 1988 (yet, because he was a Yankee, it was ok) because you remembered how GREAT he was!

Note: the year his back went south was one of the Yankees worst seasons EVER...

When Bagwell went down to injury, the Astros went to the WORLD SERIES!!!

Usually numbers are fine as comparison tools, but there's always "factors".

I still simplify it like this - Ask Bagwell who was better and I GUARANTEE he says Mattingly...

Plus, (takes deep breath) another thing that plays into this - I know things (personal things) about Bagwell I'd rather not have to share...

When the difference between a pop up and a HR is so minutely and nearly immeasurable, HOW can you value the statistics so MUCH? For the pitchers OR the hitters?

Seriously.... no clock, bang-bang plays all game long, every play could be the difference between winning and losing, something weird (seemingly) in every game, endless arguments over statistical nonsense that can never be proven one way or the other...

How anyone can say baseball isn't the greatest game on earth is beyond me... It passes time, it doesn't KEEP it....

Maddux's sole win was last year, wasn't it?

Now I know you don't believe that!

Shave those sideburns mattingly...

++ A good Simpsons reference is something we can all relate to!