Master Index of Archived Threads


Clutch?

Rotblatt Apr 28 2006 10:52 AM

Now, clearly, it's early still, but I found these numbers kind of interesting. Nady & Reyes, I think, have the biggest discrepencies. Hernandez was just killing us. We've done very, very well overall with runners in scoring position & 2 out: .298/.372/.464/.837. That's frankly amazing. And probably unsustainable. Anyway, take a look. Mets stats through 04/27/06 Top 3 with Runners On (10+ AB) As a team: 307 AB, .283/.338/.472/.810 1. Delgado: 39 AB, .410/.489/.846/1.335 2. LoDuca: 22 AB .409/.480/.545/1.025 3. Beltran: 16 AB, .250/.391/.625/1.016 Bottom 3 with Runners on (10+ AB) 1. Hernandez: 20 AB, .050/.050/.050/.100 2. Floyd: 35 AB, .200/.250/.343/.593 3. Nady: 31 AB, .226/.286/.387/.673 Top 3 with Runners in Scoring Position (10+ AB) As a team: 180 AB, .278/.341/.439/.780 1. Delgado: 16 AB, .250/.400/.688/1.088 2. Reyes: 25 AB, .360/.407/.600/1.007 3. LoDuca: 10 AB, .400/.500/.400/.900 Bottom 3 with Runners in Scoring Position (10+ AB) 1. Hernandez: 12 AB, .000/.000/.000 2. Nady: 17 AB, .176/.250/.235/.485 3. Floyd: 19 AB, .211/.292/.368/.660 Top 3 with Runners in Scoring Position, 2 out (5+ AB) As a team: .298/.372/.464/.837 1. Delgado: 8 AB, .375/.500/.875/1.375 2. LoDuca: 5 AB, .600/.600/.600/1.200 3. Reyes: 10 AB, .300/.417/.700/1.117 Bottom 3 with Runners in Scoring Position, 2 out (5+ AB) 1. Nady: 8 AB, .000/.000/.000/.000 2. Woody: 6 AB, .333/.429/.333/.762 3. Matsui: 6 AB, .333/333/.500/.833

Vic Sage Apr 28 2006 11:19 AM

why try to draw any conclusions from such absurdly small sample sizes? I am suspicious of "clutch" except as a backward-looking assessment of a particular player's (or team's) game, series or season, as in: "he had a clutch hit there", and "they came up clutch by winning that series", and "they had alot of clutch hits this season... thats what put them over the top." I don't buy "clutch" as one of a hitter's attributes based on which you can make an assessment of his future production (like batting avg, for example), unless you can demonstrate that a player has consistently hit better (no, not just hit better, but hit WELL) in a range of specifically defined "clutch" situations over the course of his career (not just a season here or there, followed by "unclutch" seasons), and in so determining, you're using substantial sample sizes (not 20 ABs here and 20 ABs there). Otherwise, "clutch" is no more than luck.

old original jb Apr 28 2006 11:49 AM

I agree about small sample sizes, but I am intrigued by the idea mentioned in the Chavez thread that "clutch hitters" may be mediocre hitters who improve markedly when the game situation forces the pitcher to throw strikes. Of course in that case, you would expect that plain old "good hitters" would still be better than "clutch hitters" even in "clutch" situations. Can anyone think of "anticlutch" hitters who have good overall stats but do worse with runners on? And are there any "clutch hitters" who really exceed both their usual output and the output of most "better hitters" with runners on? If so, is there a particular style of hitting that lends itself to this?

Centerfield Apr 28 2006 11:55 AM

I can think of plenty who had that reputation (Darryl Strawberry) but whether his anti-clutchness was a reality or not I have no idea. I think, as Vic says, "clutch" for the most part, lives only in perception. I have never seen anyone establish "clutch" on any statistically significant basis. Most of the time, it's like Derek Jeter being "clutch" during the post-season despite his batting average dipping from his career norm.

sharpie Apr 28 2006 12:04 PM

Don't MFY fans feel that Alex Rodriguez is unclutch?

Edgy DC Apr 28 2006 12:04 PM

] think, as Vic says, "clutch" for the most part, lives only in perception. I have never seen anyone establish "clutch" on any statistically significant basis. Find the numbers for Tony Perez somtime. They're pretty astounding --- not so much for the size of his improvement in "clutch" situations, but for the relative consistency from year to year.

Willets Point Apr 28 2006 12:36 PM

I've nothing valuable to add to this thread, hence the silly pictures

Rotblatt Apr 28 2006 01:31 PM

Vic Sage wrote: why try to draw any conclusions from such absurdly small sample sizes? I'm not. I'm just sharing information I thought was interesting. I mean, I certainly was surprised to find out that Nady hasn't hit a lick with men on base . . . Now, in a post a while ago, I DID note that, after our trade/free agent madness was over, most of our new acquisitions had consistently performed better in "clutch" situations over the past couple of years, and thought that was pretty interesting, especially since I had just read [url=http://www.dolphinsim.com/ratings/notes/clutch.html/]this[/url] study finding some evidence of clutch. Anyway, I did more or less what you had proposed in looking at Valentin, LoDuca & Delgado's numbers over about 4 years and they had pretty consistently outperformed in various "clutch" situations each year. Unfortunately, that post is long gone, and I'd rather not go back and do it all over again, as ESPN's website is fucking slow. Anyway, I'll be curious to see if LoDuca & Delgado continue to perform better in said clutch situations. Valentin's toast, I think, and will be useless no matter when he hits.

Vic Sage Apr 28 2006 02:05 PM

I'm not saying "clutch" does NOT exist. I'm just skeptical of that label, in most cases, as being a designation foisted on a hitter by fans, the media and other players, based on anecdotal data and limited sample size. If Perez consistently hit well, and better than he normally did, in those various "clutch" situations, and he continued to do so over a sustained period of years, one would have to discount luck and acknowledge that he was a player who excelled in pressure situations. Even Bill James has sort of come around on this topic. But i still think its an overused tag, and is often used to justify otherwise mediocre players, or to villify terrific players, based on little more than a media or fan perception not otherwise supportable by existing data.

old original jb Apr 28 2006 03:09 PM

Rotblatt wrote: Valentin's toast, I think, and will be useless no matter when he hits. That's because these days, when he hits (as opposed to when he bats) is best described as almost never.

Rotblatt Apr 28 2006 04:53 PM

="Vic Sage"]I'm not saying "clutch" does NOT exist. I'm just skeptical of that label, in most cases, as being a designation foisted on a hitter by fans, the media and other players, based on anecdotal data and limited sample size. I agree and I'd like to avoid doing that. I still think there's a worthwhile discussion to have here, though, at a minimum as a way of taking a snapshot of current team performance--how are our boys doing in various "clutch" situations? Is anyone consistently performing well or poorly? Is it part of a larger pattern dating back to previous years? For example, seeing how remarkably bad Nady has been with runners on this year despite his incredible start makes me wonder if he's had that problem in the past. 2005 Overall .261/.321/.439/.760 Runners On 140 AB, .243/.321/.407/.728 Scoring Position 85 AB, .212/.309/.388/.697 Scoring Position, 2 out 40 AB, .175/.250/.400/.650 Small sample size, but he performed worse in all situations. 2004 Overall 77 AB, .247/.301/.416/.717 Runners On 35 AB, .200/.263/.314/.577 Scoring Position 21 AB, .238/.304/.429/.733 Scoring Position, 2 Out 11 AB, .364/.417/.455/.872 Tiny sample size, but the first time he's performed better so far. 2003 Overall 371 AB, .267/.321/.391/.712 Runners On 181 AB, .249/.305/.387/.692 Scoring Position 101 AB, .218/.286/.307/.593 Scoring Position, 2 out 49 AB, .250/.311/.309/.620 2002-2005 Overall 774 AB, .262/.319/.413/.732 Runners On 356 AB, .242/.307/.388/.695 Scoring Position 207 AB, .217/.297/.353/.650 Scoring Position, 2 Out 100 AB, .220/.291/.360/.651 Now, even over the span of 3 years, it's a fairly small sample size, but it's probably fair to say that Nady has struggled with runners in scoring position, right?

Frayed Knot Apr 29 2006 12:22 AM

Has struggled? -- Yes Has struggled because of the situations(s) to the point where you'd be confident that it's likely he'll continue to do so in the future? -- Doubtful

Edgy DC Apr 29 2006 09:14 AM

]Perez consistently hit well, and better than he normally did, in those various "clutch" situations, and he continued to do so over a sustained period of years, one would have to discount luck and acknowledge that he was a player who excelled in pressure situations. As I said in the other thread, I'm more prone to believe that such players excel in situations where the pitcher has to come after them. (Pretty much the same thing, I know.) ]Even Bill James has sort of come around on this topic. Yay. I knew he would. ]But i still think its an overused tag, and is often used to justify otherwise mediocre players, or to villify terrific players, based on little more than a media or fan perception not otherwise supportable by existing data. Agreed. Agreed and then some.

mlbaseballtalk Apr 29 2006 11:53 AM

="sharpie"]Don't MFY fans feel that Alex Rodriguez is unclutch? The other problem is, define a "clutch" situation as well. Knock on ARod stems from such examples as hitting into a DP in the 9th against Anaheim last year and falling apart in the final games of the 2004 ALCS, when according to media types it always SEEMED that David Ortiz was hitting the game winning HR or driving in the game winning run late in the game. Is clutch having a great overall year or series or making the final scoring play of a game and unclutch coming up a little short just when the rest of your team goes into the tank?