Master Index of Archived Threads


Team o' Clutch?

Rotblatt Dec 09 2005 04:56 PM

Recent studies have been debunking the belief long-held by statisticians that there's no such thing as clutch. As it turns out, we've gobbled up two of the most clutch players out there--namely Valentin & Delgado (both referenced in this HT article--http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/clutch-masters). (Please note the presence of Tejada & Manny on said list.) Is Omar actually on the cutting edge of SABREmetric theory and gobbling up clutch hitters, recognizing that they are an undervalued asset in the current market? Let's look at the "clutchness" of our other recent acquisitions, shall we? Old Man River's OPS (3-year splits) +.278 with the bases loaded (25 AB) +.009 "Close & Late" (145 AB) +.571 Man on 3rd, <2 out (35 AB) +.067 Men On, 2 out (160 AB) +.113 Scoring Position (217 AB) -.039 Scoring Posn, 2 out (111) LoDuca's OPS (3-year splits) +.151 bases loaded (42 ) +.006 "Close & Late" (233) +.308 Man on 3rd, <2 out (65 AB) +.045 Men on, 2 out (272) +.065 Scoring Position (379 AB) +.051 Scoring Posn, 2 out (197 AB) Now, Tike Redman & Xavier Nady don't fit the profile (they both have been worse in "clutch" situations) but given that finding clutch players is generally considered to be rather difficult, I find it interesting that we've acquired 4 of them in the last few weeks. And so, only somewhat facetiously, I find myself thinking that just maybe Omar has a broader, more sophisticated plan at work than I gave him credit for.

Rotblatt Dec 09 2005 05:08 PM

Mets OPS As a Team in 2005 +.036 Bases Loaded (thank you, David Wright--1.819 OPS in 13 AB) +.011 Scoring Position (in large part thanks to Cliff's 1.000 OPS in 151 AB) -.054 Scoring Psn, 2 Out (K-Mat, Woody & Cairo sunk us here) -.037 "Close & Late" (K-Mat)

Nymr83 Dec 09 2005 06:15 PM

sample size alone will explain away most "clutch" stats.

Zvon Dec 09 2005 08:37 PM Re: Team o' Clutch?

="Rotblatt"] Old Man River LMAOOOOOOOO :):):) whoa:)

Edgy DC Dec 09 2005 11:14 PM

]sample size alone will explain away most "clutch" stats. Apparently not all.

Frayed Knot Dec 10 2005 12:35 AM

No, but random variations help explain away the ones that sample size doesn't.

Edgy DC Dec 10 2005 12:55 AM

That's the same effect. Small sample sizes just amplify random variation.