Master Index of Archived Threads


Improving next year's lineup without making the "big trade"

Mex17 Jul 14 2013 04:21 PM Edited 3 time(s), most recently on Jul 14 2013 04:34 PM

Admit it, wouldn't you LOVE to keep all these pitchers? Imagine a top four going into next year of Harvey/Wheeler/Niece/Gee with Hefner and Montero battling for the last spot and Syndergaard waiting in the wings. Not to mention Parnell closing with Familia/Leathersich/Edgin setting up. I think that there is a way to keep all of them while still building a good lineup for 2014. It won't be by landing a "slam dunk stud" like Stanton or CarGo, and will take a little luck and a little faith, but it's a plan. The first part is landing Shin-Soo Choo as a free agent. I suppose that it's open to speculation about what it is going to take to get him, but I know that he is making around $7 million this year and Jody Mac speculated on WFAN that he would command a 5 year deal at $12 million per. So for the sake of discussion, let's throw out 5 years-$60 million, but you front load it it order to hedge against him declining as he approaches his mid 30s. Pay half the value of the entire thing in the first two years ($15 million for '14 and '15, when he will be 31 and 32), drop it down to $13 million in the middle year, then pay him only $8.5 million the last two years when he will be 34-35.

Mex17 Jul 14 2013 04:29 PM Re: Improving next year's lineup without making the "big tra

Next, first base. Hopefully Ike rebounds, but if he spits the bit, non tender him (saving around $3-4 million) and move on. James Loney is a free agent after the year and is quietly doing very well for the Rays. The only real bad season he had was 2012, so maybe you just chalk that up to whatever (like playing for two dysfunctional teams that year). He is 29 and is making $2 million this year, but he would be due for a pretty big raise. I would be willing to speculate that something between three years for $21 million to four years for $32 million gets him. So that covers having two lefties for the middle of the order, IMO. As for adding new rightys, we already have them in Flores and d'Arnaud. Sitck them in the Opening Day lineup and let them go. Granted, it's high risk, but it's also high reward. It also has the added benefits of making Murphy trade bait for extra pieces (and taking his arb elibigle salary off the books) as well as their rookie minimum salaries offsetting Choo and Loney. I think that Young is a keeper for LF and the leadoff spot, and I am cool with letting Lagares and/or Nieuwenhuis cover CF while hopefully developing at the plate (so long as they are lower in the order so there is not a reliance on them). I have not totally given up on Tejada, and Quntanilla can stick around to motivate him. So there you go. Thoughts?

Edgy MD Jul 14 2013 05:10 PM Re: Improving next year's lineup without making the "big tra

Enough things are going in the right direction that one modestly big deal like signing Choo could make a big difference. The Mets two big decisions seem to be negative ones --- whether to keep Ike and whether to keep Doo.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 14 2013 05:29 PM Re: Improving next year's lineup without making the "big tra

I suspect they make that decision sooner than later. I mean, I think they could. Not a Loney fan.

Mex17 Jul 14 2013 05:44 PM Re: Improving next year's lineup without making the "big tra

Ike has 71 games to show something. I hope he does. Duda, I believe, will not be arb eligible and has options. No rush to make a call on him at all. Give me the anti-Loney argument (outside of the bad 2012).

Edgy MD Jul 14 2013 06:09 PM Re: Improving next year's lineup without making the "big tra

The rush is neither one of time nor money, but whether there remains room in the lineup for them. Or even on the roster. The question becomes one of space. They have five outfielders, each with a different profile from Duda, and while he has more offensive potential going forward than many or most of them, the pitching staff has been revived since he's gone a-huntin'. You don't want to make too much of it, but is absence is certainly a factor. There's a few guys in the pipeline (den Dekker, Puello), a few guys on the fringe (Baxter, Valdespin), a few guys nobody is thinking about but are nonetheless hitting (Campbell, Vaughn), and guys deep down like Nimmo. Sticking with him is a big decision.

dinosaur jesus Jul 14 2013 06:10 PM Re: Improving next year's lineup without making the "big tra

Loney's got no power at a power position, and he's a poor fielder. He's only got value if he hits well over .300, which he's doing now and which he did in 2007. But those seasons are outliers as much as the awful 2012. In a normal season he's basically replacement-level. Not a good risk even if you can get him cheap, and he won't be cheap.

Mex17 Jul 14 2013 06:18 PM Re: Improving next year's lineup without making the "big tra

Edgy MD wrote: The rush is neither one of time nor money, but whether there remains room in the lineup for them. Or even on the roster. The question becomes one of space. They have five outfielders, each with a different profile from Duda, and while he has more offensive potential going forward than many or most of them, the pitching staff has been revived since he's gone a-huntin'. You don't want to make too much of it, but is absence is certainly a factor. There's a few guys in the pipeline (den Dekker, Puello), a few guys on the fringe (Baxter, Valdespin), a few guys nobody is thinking about but are nonetheless hitting (Campbell, Vaughn), and guys deep down like Nimmo. Sticking with him is a big decision. I'm sure that Vegas will need a first baseman next year. If they control him and do not need to pay him anything crazy, stick him down there and save him for a rainy day.

Edgy MD Jul 14 2013 06:29 PM Re: Improving next year's lineup without making the "big tra

I believe Duda will be out of options.

Mex17 Jul 14 2013 06:36 PM Re: Improving next year's lineup without making the "big tra

Edgy MD wrote: I believe Duda will be out of options. My error in assuming then.

Frayed Knot Jul 14 2013 06:41 PM Re: Improving next year's lineup without making the "big tra

Loney's got no power at a power position, and he's a poor fielder. I remember him as a good fielder (at least when he first came up, haven't seen him enough recently) but, yeah, the power is minimal* for his position. If we're trading or demoting Ike I'd prefer to stick Duda there and take a chance on him unless a better alternative from outside is available. I don't think Loney is significantly better. Duda's sudden problem is that an OF spot for him is completely gone right now unless Byrd is dealt and, even then, Young in RF and Duda in LF isn't as strong offensively or defensively as what we've got now. To the question that we first started to tackle here maybe two years back: Duda-v-Ike: Who do you keep?, the answer clearly has to be Lucas right now although the final answer may wind up being -- Neither! * IsoP = .123 for the cumulative years 2008-2012. That's below league average for all players and certainly below what you'd want from 1B

Mex17 Jul 14 2013 06:45 PM Re: Improving next year's lineup without making the "big tra Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Jul 14 2013 07:20 PM

dinosaur jesus wrote: Loney's got no power at a power position, and he's a poor fielder. He's only got value if he hits well over .300, which he's doing now and which he did in 2007. But those seasons are outliers as much as the awful 2012. In a normal season he's basically replacement-level. Not a good risk even if you can get him cheap, and he won't be cheap. http://www.baseball-reference.com/playe ... ja01.shtml Your best argument is the defensive one. I have no idea whether or not he has a good glove, so I will assume that you are correct. In two of the seasons where he did not reach .300 he still had 90 RBI and in all of those seasons save for one he reached at least 30 doubles (and that one was one of the 90 RBI years). Excluding 2012, his lowest average was a respectible .267 and he knocked 41 doubles and 88 RBI that year. He is not a slugger but what I think he can be is a reliable piece in an ensamble lineup who will "move the chain" and hit line drives in the gaps. Plus, factor in the fact that acquiring him will not cost you any of the young pitching via trade, so the lack of dingers is offset by runs potentially saved through mound performance (think the same thing for Choo, and you can even add keeping Flores to that logic. . .so you get three in the lineup for the price of two).

smg58 Jul 14 2013 06:50 PM Re: Improving next year's lineup without making the "big tra

Gee should not be ahead of Hefner on the depth chart at this point. The call on Duda will be the opposite of whatever the call on Ike is. One of them will be our first baseman (at least against righties), and one of them won't be back. Duda has the better trade value right now, but cutting bait on Davis is looking like an unfortunate but perhaps necessary possibility. I think I like Young as a centerfielder, especially if we can find a leftfielder who can hit without killing the defense. Let Kirk and either Lagares or Brown come off the bench. Brown would be needed if Choo gets signed, because Choo has never hit lefties well. A sleeper FA outfield option, depending on his health, is Corey Hart. D'Arnaud still has time to get enough ABs this year to make catching in Queens next year a viable option. Hopefully that will happen. The pen has a few spots to fill, but in theory we should be able to pay for some quality to go with what we already have. I'd like to see Aardsma come back, and I think Torres is legit. And pitching is the strength of our farm system, so we'll have more depth than we've had in a while.

Nymr83 Jul 14 2013 06:51 PM Re: Improving next year's lineup without making the "big tra

I think Duda is a defensive disaster in the outfield and he isn't a (late career) Bonds or a Ramirez whose bat makes that OK. The Mets, I think, need to decide who they would rather have at First Base going forward, as I'd call that Duda's only reasonable position. Given the choice, I'm going with Davis as I think he provides far superior defense at 1B and has about the same upside with the bat. Mex, RBI are about as stupid an individual stat as pitcher Wins and I find it hard to believe you'd want to use them to "bolster" your argument. In my opinion, Loney is not an appreciable upgrade on the Mets' in-house younger and cheaper options at First Base,

Mex17 Jul 14 2013 07:00 PM Re: Improving next year's lineup without making the "big tra

Nymr83 wrote: Mex, RBI are about as stupid an individual stat as pitcher Wins and I find it hard to believe you'd want to use them to "bolster" your argument. No offense intended, but are you nuts?

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 14 2013 07:01 PM Re: Improving next year's lineup without making the "big tra

I'm trading Davis and keeping Doodoo/Satin/Flores/Mr. X etc. I've had it with Davis's slumps, his slow recoveries from them, and no longer believe he can play without encountering them. Plus he spent a whole year injured. PLus he has Valley Fever. Plus he needs a platoon partner. I think probably we get back less than Davis is worth if/when he's going well and hold onto the less spectacular/worse defensive player in Doodoo. But Doodoo at least can hit LHP, doesn't whiff as much, reaches base a lot, and might still find the CAHNfidence to become the monstrous slugger he sometimes looks to be.

Frayed Knot Jul 14 2013 07:06 PM Re: Improving next year's lineup without making the "big tra

Mex17 wrote: Nymr83 wrote: Mex, RBI are about as stupid an individual stat as pitcher Wins and I find it hard to believe you'd want to use them to "bolster" your argument. No offense intended, but are you nuts? The problem with RBIs is that they're very team and lineup dependent; what team you're on at what time and where you hit in that lineup are all big factors. RBIs are, to some extent, an outcome based on one's circumstances rather than a measure of ability.

Mex17 Jul 14 2013 07:18 PM Re: Improving next year's lineup without making the "big tra

Frayed Knot wrote: The problem with RBIs is that they're very team and lineup dependent; what team you're on at what time and where you hit in that lineup are all big factors. RBIs are, to some extent, an outcome based on one's circumstances rather than a measure of ability. I think that argument works better if all your numbers are up to par with the exception of RBI (such as in the case of Stanton his first few years I believe). Being presented with an opportunity (in the case, men on base) and what you do with that opportunity is a measure of ability, is it not? I think that it is.

Ashie62 Jul 14 2013 07:40 PM Re: Improving next year's lineup without making the "big tra

I would like Choo better if he didn't have a DUI on his dance card two years back..

Frayed Knot Jul 14 2013 07:42 PM Re: Improving next year's lineup without making the "big tra

Being presented with an opportunity (in the case, men on base) and what you do with that opportunity is a measure of ability, is it not? I think that it is. Your hitting ability (that is to say your overall hitting ability) is the best measure of your hitting ability. The problem with throwing in RBIs is that it's often a measure of how often you come up with men on base (what's the rest of your lineup, where you hit within that lineup) and/or (mostly 'And') the timeliness of your hits. Again, RBIs are more a byproduct of your hitting than a measure of it. And if you ask; 'What's wrong with timely hitting?' ... well, nothing of course, except that it's usually random and not a repeatable skill. For example, even when Ike was lost in a forest during the first half of 2012 he was getting a surprising number of RBIs because the HRs that he was hitting usually came with men on base. He hit much better in the 2nd half but it's not like he had the ability to decide when those hit came. Look at these numbers: Ike 2012 - 1st half -- 268 ABs .201/.271/.388 (BA/OBA/SLG) with 12 HRs and 49 RBIs ... FORTY NINE RBIs!!! the dude was on pace for a 100 RBI season and we couldn't stop talking about how much he stunk!! Ike 2012 - 2nd half -- 251 ABs .255/.346/.542 with 20 HRs but just Forty-ONE RBIs He hit better--MUCH Better--post-ASB yet drove in fewer runs despite nearly twice as many HRs in virtually an equal number of ABs, and I don't think any of us would opt for his first half over his 2nd. The difference was all in when the hits came but if 'when' were a skill he would have simply chosen to direct those hits to ABs with better circumstances.

dinosaur jesus Jul 14 2013 08:06 PM Re: Improving next year's lineup without making the "big tra

Mex17 wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: The problem with RBIs is that they're very team and lineup dependent; what team you're on at what time and where you hit in that lineup are all big factors. RBIs are, to some extent, an outcome based on one's circumstances rather than a measure of ability. I think that argument works better if all your numbers are up to par with the exception of RBI (such as in the case of Stanton his first few years I believe). Being presented with an opportunity (in the case, men on base) and what you do with that opportunity is a measure of ability, is it not? I think that it is. If you're exceptionally good at capitalizing on those opportunities, then yes, that is a measure of ability. But Loney is not exceptionally good. His career high in rbi's is 90, which he accomplished twice, in 2008 and 2009. In 2008, there were 491 runners on base when he batted. He drove in 77 of them, or 15.7%. In 2009, he drove in 77 of 480, or 17.1%. (He also hit 13 home runs each of those years, which is why the overall total is 90.) By comparison, last year Daniel Murphy drove in 59 out of 373, or 15.8%, which is also his percentage this year. In other words, James Loney, in a good year, is about as good as Daniel Murphy at driving in runners. No offense to Murphy, but that doesn't really seem what you want to be spending your free agent money on.

Mex17 Jul 15 2013 10:44 AM Re: Improving next year's lineup without making the "big tra

RBIs are more a byproduct of your hitting than a measure of it. This statement implies that there is no human element to the game whatsoever. I'm pretty sure that, deep down, you know that is not true. "Here you are in the ninth, two men out and three men on. Nowhere to look but inside." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iyv905Q2omU

Edgy MD Jul 15 2013 11:01 AM Re: Improving next year's lineup without making the "big tra

He said one is more than the other, not that the other doesn't exist whatsoever. But given the choice, with three on and two out in the ninth, I'd rather have the skill of Babe Ruth than the courage of Daniel Inouye --- in that situation anyhow. Gee should not be ahead of Hefner on the depth chart at this point. Is he? Does it matter either way? The only step in the depth chart that matters for starting pitchers is the step between numbers five and six, I think.

Frayed Knot Jul 15 2013 11:55 AM Re: Improving next year's lineup without making the "big tra

RBIs are more a byproduct of your hitting than a measure of it. This statement implies that there is no human element to the game whatsoever. I'm pretty sure that, deep down, you know that is not true. It's not that a human element doesn't exist, it's more that simple RBI numbers are an inaccurate way of showing it because there are just too many other factors involved. And, again, succeeding in RBI situations over and above the norm is certainly a fine thing to do. The problem is that such prowess is rarely repeatable over time. We've already seen that with Davis last season when his lousy 1st half produced RBIs at a greater rate than his much better 2nd half - and we're not even talking about different players with different psyches here, this variation was all just from one player within one season. Another example: when Hidecki Matsui was in his early years with the Yanx, Mike Francesa and other Yanqui fans marveled at his "clutch hitting ability" and usually cited his RBI stats as proof of such. Now 'Godzilla' was a very good hitter in those days at the prime of his career so, yeah, that makes him a great guy to have in the middle of your lineup. But unmentioned in the RBI stats was the fact that Matsui was 1st, 2nd, and 1st in all of baseball in having runners on base at the time he came to bat in those first three NYY seasons. Obviously, more runners on base equals more opportunities for RBIs giving him an advantage over equal or possibly even superior hitters based on just opportunity alone. What was NOT true was that his hitting suddenly improved, or, put more accurately, that he was not consistently better in those situations; in some years he was but in others he was not. And that's the overall problem with believing in "clutchness" as some kind of innate trait; if it's not repeatable or consistent it's tough to say that it really exists in the first place. The bottom line is, when I want runs driven in and I'm given the choice of a so-so hitter who is rumored to possess some sort of ability to suddenly out-perform his usual self in given (and often poorly defined) situations, or a guy who's just plain the better hitter -- give me the better hitter.

metirish Jul 15 2013 12:08 PM Re: Improving next year's lineup without making the "big tra

Great thread, some good reading in here.

dinosaur jesus Jul 15 2013 12:17 PM Re: Improving next year's lineup without making the "big tra

When I hear that some player is really clutch, that he's at his best in the big games, I always wonder what the hell he's doing the rest of the time. Is he dogging it, saving himself for the TV cameras? Screw him. I don't want that glory hound on my team.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 15 2013 12:17 PM Re: Improving next year's lineup without making the "big tra

David Wright leads the Mets in Human Element, but trails Marlon Byrd for the team lead in RBIs.

metirish Jul 15 2013 12:25 PM Re: Improving next year's lineup without making the "big tra

Keith often harps on about "clutch", which surprises me and it shouldn't.

batmagadanleadoff Jul 15 2013 12:31 PM Re: Improving next year's lineup without making the "big tra

dinosaur jesus wrote: When I hear that some player is really clutch, that he's at his best in the big games, I always wonder what the hell he's doing the rest of the time. Is he dogging it, saving himself for the TV cameras? Screw him. I don't want that glory hound on my team. Exactly. If a player had the ability to elevate his performance in "clutch" situations, why would he wait for the end of the game when his team is down by a run or two to turn it on? Wouldn't he wanna get a hit all the time? Isn't he supposed to realize that it's just as important to be the runner in scoring position waiting to be driven in? And so wouldn't he wanna turn on the clutchy clutchiness when nobody's on base, so some teammate could, in turn, drive him in with the clutchy clutchy hit?

batmagadanleadoff Jul 15 2013 12:33 PM Re: Improving next year's lineup without making the "big tra

metirish wrote: Keith often harps on about "clutch", which surprises me and it shouldn't. Keith loves the hit and run, too. Groan. The problem with Keith is that he was once Keith Hernandez. Even at the major league level, more than half of the everyday players either struggle to hit, or outright suck at hitting.

Ceetar Jul 15 2013 12:45 PM Re: Improving next year's lineup without making the "big tra

RBIs are more a byproduct of your hitting than a measure of it. This statement implies that there is no human element to the game whatsoever. I'm pretty sure that, deep down, you know that is not true. "Here you are in the ninth, two men out and three men on. Nowhere to look but inside." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iyv905Q2omU The human element manifests itself by making a baseball player better, not just in "RBI spots" but better overall. If you're saying a guy has some skill that allows him to really turn it on in clutch spots, what you're really saying is he's pretty freaking lazy most of the time.

Edgy MD Jul 15 2013 12:54 PM Re: Improving next year's lineup without making the "big tra

Or maybe that some folks wilt under pressure while others don't. In which case, the latter are doing better just by standing still. But it's all largely speculative. There are guys whose numbers have stood out in clutch situations on something like a regular basis (depending on how you define those situations, and how you define "stood out"). Maybe it's a question of a trait or maybe it's just random distribution. I don't think it's been proven either way.

Ceetar Jul 15 2013 12:59 PM Re: Improving next year's lineup without making the "big tra

Edgy MD wrote: Or maybe that some folks wilt under pressure while others don't. In which case, the latter are doing better just by standing still. Sure, but wilting and channeling it are different things. Think about it, if you're consistently able to thrive in pressure situations they have to become a little less pressure filled because you've got that confidence. And if the pressure is lesser, and the pressure is what was causing you to thrive? well..

batmagadanleadoff Jul 15 2013 01:02 PM Re: Improving next year's lineup without making the "big tra

Edgy MD wrote: There are guys whose numbers have stood out in clutch situations on something like a regular basis Really? Who? Actually, I read a piece many years ago on this topic, claiming that in the entire history of baseball, there were only two players who performed better in the clutch over a large enough sample size and with a large enough difference that the findings might be statistically meaningful. Of course, another conclusion to be drawn is if that study could only come up with two out of all players who ever played the game, then those two might be outliers. Whatever. Wanna guess at who the two players were? Hints. They both played baseball for a NY team and are both in the Hall of Fame. That they're both HOF'ers probably undermines the idea that they were clutch hitters. They were probably great hitters who did well in the clutch and in the non-clutch. If clutch hitting was a real skill, independent of regular hitting, you should be able to find hundreds and hundreds of players who were terrific in the clutch, but average overall.

Edgy MD Jul 15 2013 01:06 PM Re: Improving next year's lineup without making the "big tra

I'm trying to follow that sentence. Ceetar wrote: Think about it... Thinking cap on. Ceetar wrote: ... if you're consistently able to thrive in pressure situations... Well, consistently, relative to the league at large. Ceetar wrote: ... they have to become a little less pressure filled because you've got that confidence. You lose me here. The definition of a pressure situation would be decided beforehand based on the game factors, regardless of the aplomb of the batter. Ceetar wrote: ... And if the pressure is lesser, and the pressure is what was causing you to thrive? well. I really tried hard to suggest that an alternative persepective is that the pressure isn't necessarily causing you to thrive, but rather causing other, shakier players to wilt. You could therefore look good in comparison, not because you upped your game, but because everybody else (including the typical opposing pitchers [or hitters] you've faced in those situations) have tended to down theirs.

Edgy MD Jul 15 2013 01:10 PM Re: Improving next year's lineup without making the "big tra

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Edgy MD wrote: There are guys whose numbers have stood out in clutch situations on something like a regular basis Really? Who? Two that come to mind are Tony Pérez and Steve Sax. It's worth noting that the former is exactly what we think of when we think of a clutch hitter (if we think of one at all), and the latter is exactly not. But again, it depends on how you frame the definition of a clutchity clutch situation.

Ceetar Jul 15 2013 01:14 PM Re: Improving next year's lineup without making the "big tra

Edgy MD wrote: I really tried hard to suggest that an alternative persepective is that the pressure isn't necessarily causing you to thrive, but rather causing other, shakier players to wilt. You could therefore look good in comparison, not because you upped your game, but because everybody else (including the typical opposing pitchers [or hitters] you've faced in those situations) have tended to down theirs. Those shakier players aren't going to stick around long , and are probably a long shot to make the majors anyway. Except for a rare few, the pressure situations and challenges of getting to the major league level are so large that they'd be filtered out. And hell, say a couple of really good players happen to cave under pressure, that's barely going to move the dial for the league at large. If you flip 50000 coins, a couple of them might come up heads 80+ times. They're not special coins, it's just a statistical oddity.

Edgy MD Jul 15 2013 01:22 PM Re: Improving next year's lineup without making the "big tra

[list:3pkftmc1]Tony Pérez, all situations: .279 / .341 / .463 // .804. Tony Pérez, late and close: .300 / .370 / .490 // .860.[/list:u:3pkftmc1] Now, that may not make eyes jump, and I'm perfectly willing to call it statistical noise, but it's a guy with a 10,000 PA career (and 1,886 L&C) plate appearances. But it seems a .021 / .029 / .027 // .056 bump is worth noting and further study. But again, that difference can disappear, depending on how you slice the data. [list:3pkftmc1]Steve Sax, all situations: .281 / .335 / .358 // .692. Steve Sax, late and close: .299 / .355 / .380 // .735.[/list:u:3pkftmc1] Those differences for both guys would obviously be larger if comparing L&C situations to no-L&C situations, rather than L&C to the full record, but I don't have the time, and you get the idea. None of this is to necessarily argue for the primacy of clutch theory (far from it), only to say the question is still partly open in my mind.

Edgy MD Jul 15 2013 01:27 PM Re: Improving next year's lineup without making the "big tra

Ceetar wrote: Those shakier players aren't going to stick around long , and are probably a long shot to make the majors anyway. What if they're otherwise really good? I'm not sure what 50,000 coin flips producing 80+ heads means? If it's even close to a mere 80 out of 50,000, that's pretty pectacular. What if that coin flips 1,000 times? Or 10,000? At what point is the nature of the coin worth considering? [list]Lucas Duda, all situations: .235 / .353 / .438 // .791. Lucas Duda, late and close: .242 / .327 / .382 // .709.[/list:u] Again, it may WELL be random statistical fallout, but I reject the notion that players who are otherwise capable but less so in the clutch --- wiltingly, randomly, or otherwise --- don't stick around for meaningful lengths of time.

Ceetar Jul 15 2013 01:43 PM Re: Improving next year's lineup without making the "big tra

Edgy MD wrote: Those shakier players aren't going to stick around long , and are probably a long shot to make the majors anyway. What if they're otherwise really good? I'm not sure what 50,000 coin flips producing 80+ heads means? If it's even close to a mere 80 out of 50,000, that's pretty pectacular. What if that coin flips 1,000 times? Or 10,000? At what point is the nature of the coin worth considering? [list]Lucas Duda, all situations: .235 / .353 / .438 // .791. Lucas Duda, late and close: .242 / .327 / .382 // .709.[/list:u] Again, it may WELL be random statistical fallout, but I reject the notion that players who are otherwise capable but less so in the clutch --- wiltingly, randomly, or otherwise --- don't stick around for meaningful lengths of time. Lucas Duda has WAY too small a sample to draw something conclusive from splits. And as you mentioned, it does matter on how you define it. And using the pre-defined statistical splits to define them probably doesn't quite jive with how real pressure is felt by the player. What's "late and close" if it's a September game and you're 20 out? or already clinched? Same for 9th inning stats. or whatever you choose. It doesn't take much either. Take those guys you just mentioned, is the late and close difference starker in one of their career years? Is it perhaps simply good luck that when they were at the top of their game the hits happened to fall more often with runners on late in the game?

Vic Sage Jul 15 2013 01:55 PM Re: Improving next year's lineup without making the "big tra Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 15 2013 01:56 PM

"clutch" is a perfectly good adjective when looking at a player's past production in certain games or situations ("wow, that was a clutch hit Steve Sax just got!"), but it just sucks for projecting his future production (eg. "that guy has the mental toughness of a clutch hitter, so we should sign him to a big long-term contract"). as for the Perez/Sax examples, that they hit better OVERALL in late-close situations is great for their teams, but its also possible that they still fluctuated wildly from season to season in those situations, yet put up some years with huge numbers in those situations (perhaps because they put up huge numbers in ALL situations that year, or years?), thus skewing their career stats. I'm not saying that's what happened; i haven't looked at the numbers. It just seems possible. Anyway, i would sooner accept a possibility of statistical noise and random occurrence than a scenario in which players who have played in "pressure-filled" situations and games since they were 8 years old (pressure being relative), and have succeeded in those situations their whole lives, from little league to travel team to high school to college to various minor league levels, but when they went from AAA to the majors, suddenly their stool went soft. Barry Bonds wasn't a clutch hitter until he was. A-Rod, the same. Once those guys hit well in a few post-season short series, their characters were enhanced (until they were exposed as cheats). good hitters hit good. on edit: it concerns me that my view coincides with Ceetar... perhaps i should reconsider.

Edgy MD Jul 15 2013 01:56 PM Re: Improving next year's lineup without making the "big tra

Ceetar wrote: Lucas Duda has WAY too small a sample to draw something conclusive from splits. What's enough though? We've got more than a season's worth of data with Perez and Saxie. Ceetar wrote: And as you mentioned, it does matter on how you define it. Yes, that's why I menitoned it. Ceetar wrote: And using the pre-defined statistical splits to define them probably doesn't quite jive with how real pressure is felt by the player. Well, we have to agree on some objective definition, or else why bother? That's science. Ceetar wrote: What's "late and close" if it's a September game and you're 20 out? or already clinched? Same for 9th inning stats. or whatever you choose. An objective measure that accounts for the same type of at-bats regardless of the time of year or standings and hopefully finds a meaningful bottom line that speaks neither of May nor September but something in between. Ceetar wrote: It doesn't take much either. I'm not sure what that means. Ceetar wrote: Take those guys you just mentioned, is the late and close difference starker in one of their career years? I would imagine, as all other statistical measurements vary. Ceetar wrote: Is it perhaps simply good luck that when they were at the top of their game the hits happened to fall more often with runners on late in the game? Those are guys with a long careers and a lot of plate appearances. So maybe it's random but maybe it's still worth noting.

Edgy MD Jul 15 2013 02:00 PM Re: Improving next year's lineup without making the "big tra

Keep in mind, I'm in no way jonesing for Loney here.

dinosaur jesus Jul 15 2013 02:02 PM Re: Improving next year's lineup without making the "big tra

Jay Payton, not clutch: All situations: .279 / .323 / .425 // .748 Late and close: .259 / /297 / .385 // .683 That son of a bitch was in the majors for twelve years. To be fair, I'd expect those late and close numbers to be lower for most players, not because of the pressure, but simply because they're more often facing a reliever brought in for the lefty-lefty or righty-righty matchup. Someone who hits at about his overall numbers when it's late and close is pretty clutch if you look at it that way.

Edgy MD Jul 15 2013 02:18 PM Re: Improving next year's lineup without making the "big tra

I agree that you're unlikely to see a consistent display of late-and-close numbers for a player each year of his career. But then we're necessarily cutting the data to sets of about 90 plate appearances for a full-time player, at the same time we're deeming the much larger data set of a career to be to too small to be meaningful. I mean, in most years, Nolan Ryan was no better than anybody else in the no-hitter department..

Ceetar Jul 15 2013 02:19 PM Re: Improving next year's lineup without making the "big tra

Another thought is that perhaps, and not to say some guys are slackers these days, the clutchiest hitters are simply the ones that prepare best? The ones that tailor their diets and workouts and take naps and rests where they need it? Chances are that after 9 innings of baseball in the hot sun no one is at 100%, but perhaps through preparation and property hydration some guys are at 85% instead of 60? Just like some guys continue to have, or at least seem to, good AB deep into extra innings games when everyone else is getting HR happy?

Frayed Knot Jul 15 2013 02:23 PM Re: Improving next year's lineup without making the "big tra Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jul 15 2013 02:25 PM

batmagadanleadoff wrote: The problem with Keith is that he was once Keith Hernandez. The other problem is that MLers/ex-MLers tend to believe that results from clutch situations CAN be easily disseminated and that they themselves have/had that ability to raise their games at such times. IOW, I don't believe Keith is particularly unique here. A lot of it, I suspect, is selective memory. As Joe Morgan often (inadvertently) made clear during his announcing days, player memories of their careers, or of specific instances within those careers, are often at odds to those 'fact' things that tend to get in the way of a good story. I remember reliever Rob Brantley yapping on TV one time (MLBN I think) about how he surely had bad days out of the pen 'but if the game was on the line ...' he never failed - or something along those lines, I forget his exact claim. But at the time I looked up his record and of course it didn't back up what he was saying was stone-cold fact. There's probably also a healthy dose of constant reinforcement from those around them (media, fans, managers, relatives, agents, etc) telling such players how truly special they are/were that it probably becomes hard for them Not to believe it.

seawolf17 Jul 15 2013 02:24 PM Re: Improving next year's lineup without making the "big tra

Did we not answer batmags' question? I'm going to say Yogi and Mantle.

Edgy MD Jul 15 2013 02:31 PM Re: Improving next year's lineup without making the "big tra

Vic Sage wrote: "clutch" is a perfectly good adjective when looking at a player's past production in certain games or situations ("wow, that was a clutch hit Steve Sax just got!"), but it just sucks for projecting his future production (eg. "that guy has the mental toughness of a clutch hitter, so we should sign him to a big long-term contract"). I would tend to agree. If such a trait exists, I'm not sure it's presence is isolatable enough to put a dollar sign on it. If I'm choosing between Steve Sax and a similar player at 28 (I don't know, let's say Johnny Ray) and all other things are equal, sure I'd go for a guy with a clutch track record. But the things I'd sooner look at are whether I like the guy's lifestyle or is he fun to be around or other peripheral ephemera. I just don't think the arguments have shown the matter of clutch theory to be as dead as all that. But certainly it has been necessarily and convincingly marginalized.