October is now.

<mrl DeleteThis @psfc.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:1183885552.928182.277520@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Is clutch hitting still overrated? We outhit Detroit, but still lost.
>

No, I don't think that clutch hitting is overrated, but I don't agree
with the thread title. October is NOT now. These games count
exactly as much as the games against the D-rays.
 >> Stay informed about: October is now. 

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 02:05:52 -0700, mrl.TakeThisOut@psfc.mit.edu, during a pipe dream
babbled:

> Is clutch hitting still overrated? We outhit Detroit, but still lost.

Clutch hitting is not overrated. It is a fantasy or myth.

Numerous statistical studies of baseball results show that clutch hitting
does not exist. I've posted links to these studies before.

Here is perhaps the original study:

http://www.geocities.com/cyrilmorong@sbcglobal.net/CramerClutch2.htm

--
Quis corriget ipsos correctores?
 >> Stay informed about: October is now. 

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 10:31:08 -0400, eric <eric DeleteThis @local.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 02:05:52 -0700, mrl DeleteThis @psfc.mit.edu, during a pipe dream
>babbled:
>
>> Is clutch hitting still overrated? We outhit Detroit, but still lost.
>
>Clutch hitting is not overrated. It is a fantasy or myth.
>
>Numerous statistical studies of baseball results show that clutch hitting
>does not exist. I've posted links to these studies before.
>
>Here is perhaps the original study:
>
>http://www.geocities.com/cyrilmorong@sbcglobal.net/CramerClutch2.htm

Actually I thougt Neyer and the Inside Baseball people came to a
definitive: Maybe.
 >> Stay informed about: October is now. 

On Jul 8, 7:39 am, "Fred Burton" <fbur....DeleteThis@starfire.mv.com> wrote:
> These games count
> exactly as much as the games against the D-rays.

Not true. Tampa isn't a playoff team, and if they were we would be
fortunate to face them. The same cannot be said of Detroit. The Sox
have (had) a chance to hurt Detroit's playoff/wildcard bid, and they
choked.
 >> Stay informed about: October is now. 

On Jul 8, 4:05 am, "m...@psfc.mit.edu" <m... RemoveThis @psfc.mit.edu> wrote:
> Is clutch hitting still overrated? We outhit Detroit, but still lost.


MIT my ass!
 >> Stay informed about: October is now. 

"Bob-Nob" <bobnob15.TakeThisOut@SPaMol.com> wrote in message
news:Xns996761C20D0DCbobnob15aolcom@207.217.125.201...
> eric venit, vidit, et dixit:
> Put differently: David Ortiz has hit well in the clutch.
> Clearly clutch hitting exists. Whether his success in the
> clutch is something that we can expect him to repeat in the
> future is far from certain, and even if he continues to get
> 'tails' on more tosses than we'd expect, it can be difficult
> to discern whether or not he does so through some repeatable
> skill or merely through random distribution of his successes.

its all about how well you can handle pressure

sure a homer in the 4th counts the same as one in the 9th. but in the 4th
you have a cushion of 5 innings to ease your mind.
 >> Stay informed about: October is now. 

eric venit, vidit, et dixit:
> mrl.RemoveThis@psfc.mit.edu, during a pipe dream babbled:

>> Is clutch hitting still overrated? We outhit Detroit, but
>> still lost.

> Clutch hitting is not overrated. It is a fantasy or myth.

This is too easily misunderstood. "Clutch hitting" exists
in the sense that there are times of higher leverage when
a player gets a hit. If Bill Mueller gets a hit off Mariano
Rivera that wins the game, that's a "clutch hit."

What may not exist are "clutch hitters" which are typically
understood to be players who consistently and predictably
perform better on average in those high-leverage situations.
We'd expect some hitters, by chance, to hit better in "clutch
situations" (whatever they are defined to be), just as we'd
expect some people to be able to toss a coin five times and
get 'tails' each time -- success in a limited number of trials
does not necessarily imply a repeatable skill, however, and
genuine "clutch hitters" as a group are things which have not
(possibly yet) been found.

> Numerous statistical studies of baseball results show that
> clutch hitting does not exist.

Again, I'm aware of the studies, but I think your shorthand
reference to them here (by saying "clutch hitting does not
exist" rather than "there is insufficient statistical
evidence that clutch hitters exist") is just going to lead
to a misunderstanding by the people who aren't aware of the
studies and who were raised (as all of us were) to believe
otherwise.

Put differently: David Ortiz has hit well in the clutch.
Clearly clutch hitting exists. Whether his success in the
clutch is something that we can expect him to repeat in the
future is far from certain, and even if he continues to get
'tails' on more tosses than we'd expect, it can be difficult
to discern whether or not he does so through some repeatable
skill or merely through random distribution of his successes.

<snip>

> http://www.geocities.com/cyrilmorong@sbcglobal.net/CramerClutch2.htm

Cool. I've read other articles which referred to the above,
but I'd never actually read the above. Thanks for the link!

Catch you later.
--Robert Machemer

--
Robert Paul Aubrey Machemer | For each time he falls, he shall
Amherst College, Math & Classics | rise again, and woe to the wicked!
IF22: Cliff wins best film, cast | --Don Quixote (Man of La Mancha)
"Can't complain; had his chance, and in modern parlance, blew it."
 >> Stay informed about: October is now. 

On Jul 8, 2:05 pm, "Fred Burton" <fbur... DeleteThis @starfire.mv.com> wrote:
> "Throws like Mary" <yank_ees_s... DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1183916713.511218.196680@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jul 8, 7:39 am, "Fred Burton" <fbur... DeleteThis @starfire.mv.com> wrote:
> >> These games count
> >> exactly as much as the games against the D-rays.
>
> > Not true. Tampa isn't a playoff team, and if they were we would be
> > fortunate to face them. The same cannot be said of Detroit. The Sox
> > have (had) a chance to hurt Detroit's playoff/wildcard bid, and they
> > choked.
>
> True, but as far as the Red Sox OWN playoff chances, these games
> count exactly the same as games against the D-rays, since it's rather
> unlikely that the Red Sox are going to need to worry about the wildcard
> race for themselves.

Thank you, master of the obvious. It is so much clearer to me now.
It does matter /which/ matchup the Sox get in the playoffs, because
right now they don't look like a team that can beat the Tigers. The
Tigers played sloppy ball this weekend (7 errors) and still kicked our
ass. (Simply getting into the playoffs is almost a certainty at this
point.) By defeating the Tigers, who are in a close race, the Sox
would have taken a step towards controlling their destiny. You can't
tell me that is the same as beating the Devil Rays -- it isn't.
 >> Stay informed about: October is now.