Pitching & Defense

gig wrote:

>
> So you say tomato, I say tahmato. The bottom line is clutch hitters exists.

And you know this because?


>They
> want to use stats to prove no one major leager is any more a clutch hitter than
> any other? Fine. But anyone who's actually played the game day in and day out
> would most certainly disagree.

Well I know that Branch Rickey would disagree with you. He said so in
a prominent article in Life magazine in 1950. Rickey advocated
evaluating
players based on on-base percentage and slugging percentage in that
article.

And there are others. Earl Weaver comes to mind. He didn't believe in
clutch, he believed in putting players (often very limited players) in
situations where they had the best chance to succeed.

But of course I'll freely concede that most players believe in clutch.

> Of course, then, they'd use stats to say they
> don't know what they're talking about because the stat head believes statistical
> analysis can explain or prove everything,

Almost exactly wrong. Statistical analysis is most useful for shooting
down
a hypothesis.

> which of course, it can't, because
> there are many variables, both tangible and intangible, that the stats just
> don't take in account for.

Rather than waving your hands here, why don't you list the things you
feel are not considered in the studies?

This is exactly why I'm interested in getting your definition of clutch
situations.
 >> Stay informed about: Pitching & Defense 

Oh Me Oh My wrote:
> gig wrote:
>
> > A pretty cynical view, isn't it? Are you saying there are no such thing as
> > "clutch hitters"?
>
> Yes, I'm saying it and every piece of analysis says it ... there's no
> such thing.

As somebody who's done a number of these studies I'd be a heck of
a lot more comfiratable saying we haven't found much evidence of
clutch hitting using conventional definitions.

And we know it con't be real important since OBP and SLG (properly
weighted, a single point of OBP is more important than a single point
of SLG even if the precise weight varies with the offensive context)
explain roughly 95% of run scoring, and we know that team wins are
an extremely predictable function of team runs scored and allowed.

We've got 25 or so runs per team to assign to baserunning, scoring
oddities (reached on errors in particular. Derek Jeter for instance
has had sever season with 20 or more reached on errors. IE scored as
0-1, but with no out recorded and an extra baserunner. For most players
this tends to come out in the wash, but for a handful -- like Jeter --
it
matters. Kind of like evaluating Jason Kendall without considering HBP)
and all the stuff that falls unders the heading of luck, timing or
clutch
(depending on your views)

If a player has special abilities not considered in the basic stats,
his
teams will tend to either:

a) consistently score more runs than you'd expect given the basic stats

or

b) consistently win more games than you'd expect given the team's
runs scored and allowed.

Now I am aware of a few managers (Bobby Cox and Earl Weaver come
to mind) who are in category b. IE, the consistently win a few games
more than you'd expect given team runs scored and runs allowed.

I'm only aware of one player for whom this is true. Pete Rose.

I'm not aware of any player or manager who falls into category a, but
there simply have to be a few players for whom this is true too.

>
> > It's all just mechanical chance?
>
> All chance no, there are varying levels of hitters and better hitters
> tend to hit better regardless the situation... but yes the fact is there
> is and element of chance in hitting.
>
> That's why you see total zeros like Jack Wilson go nuts for three months
> some times and appear to have a good season, that's why great hitters
> occasional have a bad season or an occasion a prolonged slump... it
> just happens.
>
> The best hitters try their best every time they come to the plate an
> they still have little control over when or where they collect their it.
>
>
> > Perhaps some players just get geared-up in big situations and respond better?
>
> Doesn't speak very well of the player then does it? A hitter's job is
> to not make outs and create scoring opportunities for his team.
> Sometimes that means when players are on base when he comes to bat,
> sometimes by being the one who gets on base so someone else can drive
> him in.
>
> Even if some how convince yourself that such things exist as clutch
> hitting, you're basically arguing that "clutch hitters" aren't very good
> hitters at all since the numbers of times they find themselves in the
> situation to "clutch hit" are relatively small compared to the number of
> times they'll come to bat with less on the line - when they won't try as
> hard.
>
> If a player's talent is that they get "geared-up" only in the 15-20% of
> their plate appearances in a year, they shouldn't be on a major league
> roster.
 >> Stay informed about: Pitching & Defense 

Greg,

No offense meant. I wasn't accusing you of anything personally, and apologize if
you took it that way. Just gets frustrating sometimes listening to some of the
"unbiased" Pirate bashing here. Someday the Pirates will be a "winner" again,
then everyone who's suffered through this "little draught" in franchise history
will be happy again! ...And to all the "stats heads" out there, enjoy the
stats, enjoy the game, enjoy life!

Now hopefully the Pirates will get back on track tonight and all will be well in
the world, at least for one day!

Cheers,

gig


"Greg Schuler" <schuleg.DeleteThis@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1117117786.850952.301600@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> gig wrote:
>> "Greg Schuler" <schuleg.DeleteThis@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:1117048455.625885.24520@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > Wow, gig, that is just, wow. I've read a lot of rants and absurdities,
>> > and why I would expect something different is beyond me. Are you
>> > threatened by numbers, failed math, what? People have been tracking
>> > stats since baseball started and have used stats for everything.
>> > Baseball is built upon stats. What some people did was look more
>> > closely at the numbers (and this goes before James even began to
>> > publish) and decide there was value there. If people want to believe in
>> > the "Good Face" and other traditions of baseball, great. I doubt you
>> > would even know a "stats" fan from a "true" fan that bleeds black and
>> > gold. But at this point in the baseball timeline to deny the
>> > usefullness of statistical analysis is, well, - it explains why this
>> > team performs so poorly for so long. Failure to adapt and change and to
>> > cling to vagraties is what gets you last place. How would you find
>> > clutch players?
>>
>> By scouting, first-hand observation, and yes, some statistics. But to claim
>> you
>> know what's what in MLB by soley using statistical analysis (which is what
>> some
>> people do here) is absurd.
>
> Who is saying that? FInd me the quote where I have claimed you can
> build a team solely on stats - you won't, because I never have. My
> point has been that visual observation is flawed, just as statistics,
> but if you ignore one solely for the other, you end up like the
> Pirates. And for a team that has been based solely around traditional
> scouting, and still stinks, you think maybe, just maybe, the Pirates
> would want to pay attention to some advanced metrics and use them in
> player evaluation.
>
> You being threatened by the legions of stats geeks (which are probably
> as hard core a fan as you) is baffling. I'm not telling you how to
> enjoy baseball or how to be a fan.
>>
>> > Let me ask you this - how would you characterize the beloved Pirate GM
>> > - he is not using an formulae or calculator I can see and this team
>> > stinks.
>>
>> Yes, if only Littlefield read Baseball Prospectus and Sabermetrics Weekly,
>> the
>> Pirates would be a contender.
>
> At this point, the Pirates should try anything. Clearly, obviously,
> whatever they have done has not worked, doesn't look like it will work,
> and is just a furious attempt to win 75 games, keep 1.5 million tickets
> sold and placate fans like you, who would go to the games anyway just
> to see MLB baseball (which is what you are really talking about. How
> many college, HS, minor league, Legion, AAU baseball do yous ee as a
> true fan?).
>>
>> > And when they do look at advanced metrics, they produce the
>> > brilliant theory that Tike Redman would be most productive batting
>> > third.
>>
>> Well, well never know since he only got one game to prove it.
>>
>> > As for clutch players, does Randy Keisler qualify?
>>
>> CPOFTD? (Clutch Player Of The Day) Yep.
>
> He's as clutch as any of the other examples you produced - same result
> as Kirk Gibson.
>
 >> Stay informed about: Pitching & Defense 

<johnson RemoveThis @ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote in message
news:1117122788.880322.124400@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> gig wrote:
>
>>
>> So you say tomato, I say tahmato. The bottom line is clutch hitters exists.
>
> And you know this because?

Well, generally speaking...

I've seen it. If a guy gets a hit in an important situation, that's a clutch
hit, which makes him a clutch hitter. Does he remain a clutch hitter for his
entire career? No, not neccessarily. Do some guys have better averages with men
on base than other guys? Yes. They're more of clutch hitter than those with less
of a percentage, that's all.
>
>
>>They
>> want to use stats to prove no one major leager is any more a clutch hitter
>> than
>> any other? Fine. But anyone who's actually played the game day in and day out
>> would most certainly disagree.
>
> Well I know that Branch Rickey would disagree with you. He said so in
> a prominent article in Life magazine in 1950. Rickey advocated
> evaluating
> players based on on-base percentage and slugging percentage in that
> article.
>
> And there are others. Earl Weaver comes to mind. He didn't believe in
> clutch, he believed in putting players (often very limited players) in
> situations where they had the best chance to succeed.
>
> But of course I'll freely concede that most players believe in clutch.
>
>> Of course, then, they'd use stats to say they
>> don't know what they're talking about because the stat head believes
>> statistical
>> analysis can explain or prove everything,
>
> Almost exactly wrong. Statistical analysis is most useful for shooting
> down a hypothesis.
>
>> which of course, it can't, because
>> there are many variables, both tangible and intangible, that the stats just
>> don't take in account for.
>
> Rather than waving your hands here, why don't you list the things you
> feel are not considered in the studies?

Where the team is in the course of their season? Who they're playing & how the
team they're playing has been playing? Who's the opposing pitcher? How's he been
pitching lately? What type of game is it? What inning are they in? How important
is the particular series they're playing in at the time?... These types of
variables, and others like them, are never factored in any statistical analysis
I know of. Yet a hit to win the game in October can be much more "clutch" than
to win a game in April. Just the sheer timing of it. Why are World Series games
so much more pressure packed than meaningless games by last place teams in
September? There's no way to measure accurately how important any one particular
game is to the psyche of a team and unless your down there in the pits day in
and day out, how can anyone arcurately judge the impact of any one player over
the course of 162 plus games. But if your there, you know who your "clutch" guys
are. You know the guys who have picked the team up all season long up at just
the right time. I see no way to accurately measure this with mere numbers.

> This is exactly why I'm interested in getting your definition of clutch
> situations.
 >> Stay informed about: Pitching & Defense 

"Lance Freezeland" <freezelandlaw.nospam DeleteThis @consolidated.net> wrote in message
news:1kqe9157k7ehk4fa3k8vconmgflsprp5hq@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 26 May 2005 18:19:14 -0400, "gig" <osled DeleteThis @lycos.com> gave us:
>><johnson DeleteThis @ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote in message
>>news:1117122788.880322.124400@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>> gig wrote:
>
>>>> So you say tomato, I say tahmato. The bottom line is clutch hitters exists.
>
>>> And you know this because?
>
>>Well, generally speaking...
>
>>I've seen it. If a guy gets a hit in an important situation, that's a clutch
>>hit, which makes him a clutch hitter. Does he remain a clutch hitter for his
>>entire career? No, not neccessarily. Do some guys have better averages with
>>men
>>on base than other guys? Yes. They're more of clutch hitter than those with
>>less
>>of a percentage, that's all.
>
> Well, this is just silly. Under your definition, David Eckstein is a
> "home run hitter" because he's hit two of them this year.

Perhaps. But then, just how many home runs would need to be hit for someone to
be considered a "home run hitter"? And if we can answer that with a set number,
25? 35? 45?, couldn't we find a set number to define someone as a "clutch
hitter"? So it's all arbitrary really, depending on the criteria and standards
of the one doing the considering.
 >> Stay informed about: Pitching & Defense 

Oh Me Oh My wrote:
>
(snip)
>
> Let's see who's laughing mid June when the Pirates are flat on their
> back staring up at the Reds and the rest of the NLC.
>
> Boy I'm going to enjoy rubbing the whole month of June in your face.

For the record, the Pirates went 3-1 against the Marlins and are 1-0 so
far against the Braves. In fact, since you made this amazing statement,
Einstein, the Pirates have increased their lead over the Reds.

This morning the Bucs are 3 games under .500 for the season, which is
pretty good work considering their horrendous start. I have a feeling
its going to take longer than 10 days for the Bucs to fall behind the
Reds. You can apologize now, if you like.

Alan
 >> Stay informed about: Pitching & Defense 

Off the top of my head, I can definitely tell you that runners would
need to touch the next base if this had been a two-out, game-winning
single. Runners failing to properly advance could be called out via an
appeal, creating a force play and thus wiping out the winning run.

But with a bases-loaded walk? Hmm. Going to need to track down a
good rule book on that. I suspect you do indeed need to advance, as
well.
 >> Stay informed about: Pitching & Defense 

> I'm outta here. Kids playoff game! Snack bar duty! Good stuff!
> gig

We want an updated score...who won?
 >> Stay informed about: Pitching & Defense 

"ROBERT MARSILI" <rmarsili99.DeleteThis@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:o8spe.2063$5M2.1527@trndny06...
>
>> I'm outta here. Kids playoff game! Snack bar duty! Good stuff!
>> gig
>
> We want an updated score...who won?

Oh man, you had to ask...

Lost with two outs in the bottom of the last inning, after starting the inning
with a one-run lead. Kid walks in the winning run, only thing is, the opposing
baserunner on second doesn't go directly to third! For some strange reason, the
kid who was on second starts walking to the pitcher's mound. My son, catching,
notices this and runs out at him with the ball, thinking he can tag him out. The
baserunner darts for back for third and is safe. Both coaches argue whether the
baserunner should be called out for being out of the basepaths (on a walk!?) and
a fiasco unfolds. The umpire finally rules the kid safe and the game is over.
(Which I believe is the correct call.) My son though (10 years-old), freaks out.
He's so upset he goes after the umpire after the game. My son, 50 pounds sopping
wet, chases down this big 6' 3'' (I mean big as in big and wide) umpire and is
crying and carrying-on in front of him still pleading his case. The ump looks at
him and laughs, which sends the little tike into even more of a hissy fit. He's
spitting nails now. I then saw what was going on and ran over and grabbed him
under my arm like a football and carried him away, (told the ump "nice game,
sorry for this little nutcase going off on you and all." He understood. Nice
guy.), and then proceeded to try and talk some sense into him for the next 30
minutes. After all this, he forgets his baseball bag with his glove inside at
the field. I go back for it. It's gone. His mother then proceeds to freak-out
because he lost a new $50 glove. 30 minutes later his coach calls and says he
has it.

....Ah, kid's sports, ya gotta love 'em.

So now I'm sitting here watching the most wonderful Pirates highlights, relaxing
and having a beer, thinking, can a baserunner be called for being out of the
basepaths while advancing on a walk? What if the runner would have walked off
the field without touching third?
 >> Stay informed about: Pitching & Defense 

ROBERT MARSILI wrote:
>
> > I'm outta here. Kids playoff game! Snack bar duty! Good stuff!
> > gig
>
> We want an updated score...who won?

Pirates 6, Orioles 5.

Oh. YOu mean gig's playoff game. Sorry.

Alan
'see Jack hit'
 >> Stay informed about: Pitching & Defense 

> Lost with two outs in the bottom of the last inning, after starting the
> inning with a one-run lead. Kid walks in the winning run, only thing is,
> the opposing baserunner on second doesn't go directly to third! For some
> strange reason, the kid who was on second starts walking to the pitcher's
> mound. My son, catching, notices this and runs out at him with the ball,
> thinking he can tag him out. The baserunner darts for back for third and
> is safe. Both coaches argue whether the baserunner should be called out
> for being out of the basepaths (on a walk!?) and a fiasco unfolds. The
> umpire finally rules the kid safe and the game is over. (Which I believe
> is the correct call.) My son though (10 years-old), freaks out. He's so
> upset he goes after the umpire after the game. My son, 50 pounds sopping
> wet, chases down this big 6' 3'' (I mean big as in big and wide) umpire
> and is crying and carrying-on in front of him still pleading his case. The
> ump looks at him and laughs, which sends the little tike into even more of
> a hissy fit. He's spitting nails now. I then saw what was going on and ran
> over and grabbed him under my arm like a football and carried him away,
> (told the ump "nice game, sorry for this little nutcase going off on you
> and all." He understood. Nice guy.), and then proceeded to try and talk
> some sense into him for the next 30 minutes. After all this, he forgets
> his baseball bag with his glove inside at the field. I go back for it.
> It's gone. His mother then proceeds to freak-out because he lost a new $50
> glove. 30 minutes later his coach calls and says he has it.
>
> ...Ah, kid's sports, ya gotta love 'em.
>
> So now I'm sitting here watching the most wonderful Pirates highlights,
> relaxing and having a beer, thinking, can a baserunner be called for being
> out of the basepaths while advancing on a walk? What if the runner would
> have walked off the field without touching third?


Oh my God...you're Larry Bowa's dad!
 >> Stay informed about: Pitching & Defense 

"SoHillsGuy" <sohillsguy.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1118201131.076244.83160@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Off the top of my head, I can definitely tell you that runners would
> need to touch the next base if this had been a two-out, game-winning
> single. Runners failing to properly advance could be called out via an
> appeal, creating a force play and thus wiping out the winning run.
>
> But with a bases-loaded walk? Hmm. Going to need to track down a
> good rule book on that. I suspect you do indeed need to advance, as
> well.

Well, the runner did actual advance. Just not directly. ...An interesting one
for the rule book though.
 >> Stay informed about: Pitching & Defense 

"ROBERT MARSILI" <rmarsili99.DeleteThis@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:gutpe.8974$%23.8605@trndny02...
>
>
>> Lost with two outs in the bottom of the last inning, after starting the
>> inning with a one-run lead. Kid walks in the winning run, only thing is, the
>> opposing baserunner on second doesn't go directly to third! For some strange
>> reason, the kid who was on second starts walking to the pitcher's mound. My
>> son, catching, notices this and runs out at him with the ball, thinking he
>> can tag him out. The baserunner darts for back for third and is safe. Both
>> coaches argue whether the baserunner should be called out for being out of
>> the basepaths (on a walk!?) and a fiasco unfolds. The umpire finally rules
>> the kid safe and the game is over. (Which I believe is the correct call.) My
>> son though (10 years-old), freaks out. He's so upset he goes after the umpire
>> after the game. My son, 50 pounds sopping wet, chases down this big 6' 3'' (I
>> mean big as in big and wide) umpire and is crying and carrying-on in front of
>> him still pleading his case. The ump looks at him and laughs, which sends the
>> little tike into even more of a hissy fit. He's spitting nails now. I then
>> saw what was going on and ran over and grabbed him under my arm like a
>> football and carried him away, (told the ump "nice game, sorry for this
>> little nutcase going off on you and all." He understood. Nice guy.), and then
>> proceeded to try and talk some sense into him for the next 30 minutes. After
>> all this, he forgets his baseball bag with his glove inside at the field. I
>> go back for it. It's gone. His mother then proceeds to freak-out because he
>> lost a new $50 glove. 30 minutes later his coach calls and says he has it.
>>
>> ...Ah, kid's sports, ya gotta love 'em.
>>
>> So now I'm sitting here watching the most wonderful Pirates highlights,
>> relaxing and having a beer, thinking, can a baserunner be called for being
>> out of the basepaths while advancing on a walk? What if the runner would have
>> walked off the field without touching third?
>
>
> Oh my God...you're Larry Bowa's dad!

LOL. Good one. Not really though. Usually the kid is pretty heady. However, this
was an emotional playoff game against the dreaded Yankees. He's fine now though.
Just got his mind on the next game. That's baseball for ya. There's always
another game.
 >> Stay informed about: Pitching & Defense