Player Values and A-Rod's Value to the Sox

[example1]

Postseason:

Manny OPS - .870

ARod OPS - .844

 

Career:

Manny OPS+ - 155

ARod OPS+ - 148

 

Umm, so what's your point?

 

Ummm, I should ask you the same thing since you've basically proven my point.

 

My point is that a blanket statement like "A-Rod can't hit in the post-season" or "Of course he's a good player, but come October he chokes" are silly. Manny was seen as a choker for much of his career and then, suddenly, "found it" again (against Zito in the playoffs), got better pitches, made better contact, whatever, and now he's tied for most postseason HRs all time and nobody questions whether or not he can function in the playoffs; DESPITE having very similar numbers to A-Rod and an extended period of being called an overpaid, non-producer int he playoffs.

 

A-Rod is hitting a .400 AVG against Big-Game Playoff Curt Schilling (with an .800 OPS), .333 against all-time great Pedro Martinez (with a 1.047 OPS), and .500 with a 1.167OPS against current-God Johan Santana. Joe Nathan? 2 for 3 with 2 doubles and a 2.000 OPS.

 

 

Small sample sizes? Yep. That's what happens in the playoffs. Should we conclude that he OWNS great playoff pitching, but can't hit average playoff pitching? Should we conclude that playoff pitching (as some sort of non-existent entity) OWNS A-Rod? I don't think so. That's what people are saying when they say he's unable to produce in the clutch or in the playoffs, namely, that playoff pitching owns him.

 

Anyone who is making the postseason argument as a reason to not WANT A-Rod on this team is shortsighted and doesn't understand probability and the nature of this game very well. I understand the crippling salary thing, but the over-reliance on playoff performance is absurd. The guy hit a HR in this past series for crying out loud and he is STILL getting on base at a .361 pace, despite series of .071 OBP (DET).

 

Given that your numbers above actually support my view (that Manny is a great player whether in the playoffs or not, and A-Rod has similar playoff numbers) I'm not even sure why you're "ummm what is your point again" deserves a response this long. I'm pretty sure you get my argument TheKilo, so I'm extending it for other people. I didn't say A-Rod has been BETTER than Manny, because Manny has broken out of his 'playoff slump' and is doing what Manny normally does, this time it's just in the playoffs.

 

This all basically comes down to a discussion about "clutch hitting" and I don't believe it exists. I don't think players can turn it on and turn it off like a light switch. There may be a bit of that going on, in terms of higher concentration etc., but all discussion about "clutch" performances are overblown and completely overlook any impact that pressure situations may have on pitchers.

 

So for a guy who sucks so much how do we explain that obvious success against guys like Schilling, Pedro, Santana, and Joe Nathan? I explain it by saying the overall playoff stats are misleading, particularly if you only look at the past few years.

[RobZombie]

Yazman points to A-Rods HR in a 6-2 game with no one on base as an indication of his character.

 

I personally doubt that when you have your hits is any indication of a players character, or is predictive of his performance in such situations in the future.

 

Lets say a player performed much better than normal in playoff situations with the season on the line. If a player did this, his manager and GM would be correct to wonder why he didn't play the same way in the first inning of a Devil Rays game in June.

 

Just sayin.

[YAZMAN]

Yazman points to A-Rods HR in a 6-2 game with no one on base as an indication of his character.

 

I personally doubt that when you have your hits is any indication of a players character, or is predictive of his performance in such situations in the future.

 

Lets say a player performed much better than normal in playoff situations with the season on the line. If a player did this, his manager and GM would be correct to wonder why he didn't play the same way in the first inning of a Devil Rays game in June.

 

Just sayin.

 

 

Makes sense. But it ain't so. I'd respectfully say that to come to that conclusion that you haven't spent much time on the field. Some guys get it done. Some don't.

 

It's really that simple. And it is character. Or balls, or clutch, or whatever you wish to call it. It is what Arod isn't.

[example1]

Makes sense. But it ain't so. I'd respectfully say that to come to that conclusion that you haven't spent much time on the field. Some guys get it done. Some don't.

 

It's really that simple. And it is character. Or balls, or clutch, or whatever you wish to call it. It is what Arod isn't.

 

I've spent a fair amount of time on a ball field and I don't agree with you at all. Yes, in most amateur or 'normal' games of baseball there are guys on the field who "get it done" and others who clearly don't. Alex Rodriguez, he with the 500+ HR, on pace to possibly break the HR and H record in his career, while winning multiple MVPs playing both SS and 3B, one of the most talented baseball players of all time, is someone who gets it done on the field.

 

The fact that you claim it is clutch or balls or whatever that gets one over the top indicates that you must have neither, since--despite all your time on the ballfield--he continues to play and you do not. Or, if you do, nobody is going to be willing to pay you 30m a season to do so. I feel confident in that assertion, not even knowing you. Why? Because unless your name is Alex Rodriguez NOBODY is willing to come CLOSE to 30m a season to pay for your services.

 

Is it because your balls weren't big enough, or because you weren't clutch that A-Rod was able to take this game by storm and you weren't?

 

The point is that A-Rod has MAD skills. Don't even come CLOSE to being fooled about that. His personality may be annoying, and he looks like a douche, but you simply cannot argue with his production. Making claims about clutch and balls completely overlooks the fact that this guy has had MANY big at-bats in his career and has obviously come through. How about the HR off of Papelbon? How about the playoff stats I cited earlier about his at-bats against Pedro, Schilling, Santana and Joe Nathan? Was he "extra clutch" when he was batting then, and just left the clutch at home against Paul Byrd? Did the clutch he brought to the plate those days outweigh the clutch that Schilling and Santana brought to the park? Or, perhaps, is baseball much more about probability and luck than all this talk of balls and clutch would lead one to believe?

 

I don't know what field you've been playing on where 54 HR and 156 RBI isn't "getting it done".

[ORS]

Close and Late (OPS/PA)

[table]Player|2004|2005|2006|2007|Career|Career OPS

Ortiz|1.014/79|1.293/94|1.199/106|.766/89|.974/694|.943

ARod|.797/92|.938/91|.694/89|1.125/82|.914/1124|.967[/table]

 

What's the point? In a sample size of 80-120 plate appearances you are going to see some drastic variation. As the sample gets bigger, it really starts approaching career averages.

 

ARod's got a decent sized career postseason sample, but far from a representative sample. He's only come to the plate 167 times in 10 series. His postseason OPS is .844 compared to a career OPS of .967. Does that mean he'll automatically play at a 1.090 level over his next 167 PAs to hit his career mark? No, streaks happen, and there's no telling how he'll be swinging it in the next September that is a prelude to a postseason appearance for him. And good pitching happens in the postseason more often than bad pitching, unlike the regular season. So maybe he won't play at a HOF level, but if I were a betting man I'd take the over if the line were .900 OPS for that many PAs looking forward, and that is damn useful in October.

 

Now may be the time to acquire him. Every season is full of good streaks and slumps. He's clearly had plenty of slump lately and a correction is likely to occur.

[YAZMAN]

I've spent a fair amount of time on a ball field and I don't agree with you at all. Yes, in most amateur or 'normal' games of baseball there are guys on the field who "get it done" and others who clearly don't. Alex Rodriguez, he with the 500+ HR, on pace to possibly break the HR and H record in his career, while winning multiple MVPs playing both SS and 3B, one of the most talented baseball players of all time, is someone who gets it done on the field.

 

The fact that you claim it is clutch or balls or whatever that gets one over the top indicates that you must have neither, since--despite all your time on the ballfield--he continues to play and you do not. Or, if you do, nobody is going to be willing to pay you 30m a season to do so. I feel confident in that assertion, not even knowing you. Why? Because unless your name is Alex Rodriguez NOBODY is willing to come CLOSE to 30m a season to pay for your services.

 

Is it because your balls weren't big enough, or because you weren't clutch that A-Rod was able to take this game by storm and you weren't?

 

The point is that A-Rod has MAD skills. Don't even come CLOSE to being fooled about that. His personality may be annoying, and he looks like a douche, but you simply cannot argue with his production. Making claims about clutch and balls completely overlooks the fact that this guy has had MANY big at-bats in his career and has obviously come through. How about the HR off of Papelbon? How about the playoff stats I cited earlier about his at-bats against Pedro, Schilling, Santana and Joe Nathan? Was he "extra clutch" when he was batting then, and just left the clutch at home against Paul Byrd? Did the clutch he brought to the plate those days outweigh the clutch that Schilling and Santana brought to the park? Or, perhaps, is baseball much more about probability and luck than all this talk of balls and clutch would lead one to believe?

 

I don't know what field you've been playing on where 54 HR and 156 RBI isn't "getting it done".

 

Your arguement is ridiculous. For starters, my problem wasn't balls, it was wheels. The scouts timed me first to third with a sundial. But please find where I made a claim about my personal skills, ability to compete at that level, or value as a professional baseball player.

 

Second, I've never disputed his skills or regular season numbers. But the fact of the matter is his 54HR and 156RBI are home now while the Sox are playing. He's a douchebag and a player who doesn't produce in the real spotlight.

 

"Amatuer" and "normal" games of baseball? No, a choker is a choker and you can find them in all walks of life. He doesn't need a hitting coach he needs a sports psychologist to figure out why he folds. And until he figures it out, come October he'll muck quicker than seven deuce off suit.

[example1]

Your arguement is ridiculous. For starters, my problem wasn't balls, it was wheels. The scouts timed me first to third with a sundial. But please find where I made a claim about my personal skills, ability to compete at that level, or value as a professional baseball player.

 

Second, I've never disputed his skills or regular season numbers. But the fact of the matter is his 54HR and 156RBI are home now while the Sox are playing. He's a douchebag and a player who doesn't produce in the real spotlight.

 

"Amatuer" and "normal" games of baseball? No, a choker is a choker and you can find them in all walks of life. He doesn't need a hitting coach he needs a sports psychologist to figure out why he folds. And until he figures it out, come October he'll muck quicker than seven deuce off suit.

 

Look at all the statistics you provided YAZMAN!! Bravo. It's like we're discussing a 16 game football season, not a 162 game baseball season.

 

Where you made claims about your playing skill was when you accused someone else of being uninformed by saying they obviously "haven't spent time on a ballfield". Your argument is ridiculous man. "A choker is a choker and you can find them in all walks of life". Again, I would say that since A-Rod got beyond the level of play that you ever did by NOT choking at the levels that you did you--and everyone else who DOESN'T play professional baseball--are much, MUCH bigger chokers than A-Rod. WHy didn't you bat .700 in high school and get a free ride to USC for baseball? Choker. How come you weren't drafted at the age of 18 and in the majors at 19? Choker. And if you say that you didn't choke it was your team, then welcome to the world of baseball and vicarious accusations of sucking thanks to your crappy pitching staff or the inability for the rest of your team to hit as well.

 

You didn't point to a single fact to back up your argument, you just made blanket "sports radio" statements that are more suitable for the short-sighted football fan than the well-informed baseball fan.

 

David Ortiz and Manny Ramirez really choked last night when they didn't hit home runs in every at bat.

 

Please, for the love of God, let's move this baseball discussion into the 21st century and not just remain in the "a high average is good" "good players come through in the clutch" mentality. If you can't prove that hitting-clutch exists, then just be quiet.

[a700hitter]

If you can't prove that hitting-clutch exists' date=' then just be quiet.[/quote']It exists. I watched 17 of Yaz's 23 year career. The bigger the situation the better he played. He always explained it in terms of focusing more in those spots. He felt that he would tend to get mentally lazy during the 162 game season in games that didn't mean a lot. If Yaz said he concentrated more and performed better in meaningful situations, I don't need a statistical analysis to prove that he was a clutch player.

[example1]

It exists. I watched 17 of Yaz's 23 year career. The bigger the situation the better he played. He always explained it in terms of focusing more in those spots. He felt that he would tend to get mentally lazy during the 162 game season in games that didn't mean a lot. If Yaz said he concentrated more and performed better in meaningful situations' date=' I don't need a statistical analysis to prove that he was a clutch player.[/quote']

 

You DO need statistical analysis to prove that he was a clutch player, a700. Given how few post-season games he played in, I could look at is his 65 post-season ABs and conclude that he did very well in those opportunities (.369/.447/.600, 4 HR, 11 RBI). Good point.

 

But wouldn't clutch also count down the stretch? I mean, when only one or two teams gets into the WS or playoffs then one would think the last two or three months in particular would include a lot of opportunity for clutch performance. You mentioned "meaningful situations", so I'm sure you agree that July, August, and September are pretty meaningful, right?

 

Well, Yaz hit a less-than-stellar .224 in August, September and October of 1975, one of the years of his 'clutch' playoff performances. That's in 46 starts. He had 1 HR after August 1st that year while his team is pushing for the playoffs. Is THAT when he started getting "mentally lazy"? Or is that a player you would say can't play down the stretch?

 

A-Rod had 18 HR in the same stretch this season. In 1975, Yaz had 13 go-ahead hits. This year, A-Rod had 33. Yaz's SLG was below .500 for July, August, September of 1975. A-Rod had a post All-Star SLG of .624. Were those games not clutch? Did Yaz somehow know that the rest of the team was going to come through so he could finally 'turn it on' in the playoffs?

 

Or, is it just POSSIBLE that for every A-Rod, Vlad, and 10 years-ago-Manny Ramirez, there is a Reggie Jackson, Carl Yastrzemski and David Ortiz, who comes through a few times when it really mattered most and forever lived with the stigma of being 'clutch'?

 

Baseball is a game where the memorable moments can be so powerful that we end up affording traits and skills to players despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

 

Again, I ask for SOMEONE to prove it statistically. Your gut feeling that clutch hitting exists and that Alex Rodriguez does NOT have it is contradicted by the many, many examples of both players who struggled for multiple years in the playoffs and then came through in the 'clutch', as well as by Alex Rodriguez's own strong performances IN THE PLAYOFFS.

 

One could conclude--weakly--that perhaps A-Rod doesn't come through in the playoffs FOR THE YANKEES. That would at least have some data to back it up. But to say that overall he is absolutely incapable of coming through in a playoff game or series is just absurd and requires more than a gut feeling.

 

I would be willing to bet that the FO does NOT see A-Rod as metaphysically unable to perform in the clutch. The statistics they have these days can be shown to prove many, many gut feelings about players. How come nobody is confident citing stats to discuss clutch if it is such an obvious statistic? How come most of the statistics just show it to be a matter of timely accumulation of statistics. Even the collection of split-stats called "clutch stats" show higher splits in nearly every category for Alex Rodriguez's career than Yaz's. Clutch, in terms of needing to come through when it matters for your team to win, happens outside of the playoffs more than it does in the playoffs. Post-seasons are such a varied and bizarre statistical grouping that the statistical conclusions taken from them must be taken with a grain of salt.

 

Did Yaz hit well when it mattered? Yep. Has A-Rod hit well when it mattered before? Yep. Would it be inconceivable for Yaz to have had a stretch of 3 for 30 ABs over a 2 year period if he played in the wild card against Johan Santana or Josh Beckett or Fausto Carmona? Yes, especially if he's coming down the stretch hitting .220 over the last 3 months. None of that would be unrealistic. What is unrealistic is the idea of a clutch switch that players turn on and off. It simply doesn't make sense.

[CrespoBlows]

Yaz really wasn't that much better or worse in clutch situations. In situations, which usually require the most focus, he was over .100 points lower in OPS.

 

 

Career OPS - .841

 

 I Split          G   GS    PA    AB    R    H   2B  3B  HR  RBI  BB  IBB  SO  HBP  SH  SF ROE GDP  SB   CS   BA   OBP   SLG   OPS  BAbip tOPS+ Split
+-+------------+----+----+-----+-----+----+----+---+---+---+----+----+---+----+---+---+---+---+---+----+---+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------------+
  2 outs, RISP 1257       1538  1194       306  52   5  39  447  339  93  165   5   0   0   6   0           .256  .423  .406  .829  .270   100 2 outs, RISP 
  Late & Close 1581       2161  1830       510  89   8  72  280  293  73  263   5   9  24  16  43           .279  .375  .454  .829  .288    97 Late & Close 
  Tie Game     2623       4355  3660      1026 215  19 131  537  645  71  456  12   6  32  47  98           .280  .387  .457  .844  .288   101 Tie Game     
  Within 1 R   3067       7598  6431      1795 358  33 232  957 1070 113  788  21  11  64  82 169           .279  .380  .453  .833  .285    98 Within 1 R   
  Within 2 R   3217       9915  8439      2412 480  42 320 1295 1353 149 1021  28  13  81 100 222           .286  .383  .466  .849  .291   102 Within 2 R   
  Within 3 R   3254      11440  9759      2787 542  49 368 1486 1546 165 1159  33  13  88 113 256           .286  .382  .464  .846  .291   101 Within 3 R   
  Within 4 R   3276      12436 10639      3039 584  52 406 1627 1651 177 1243  36  13  96 128 273           .286  .380  .465  .845  .290   101 Within 4 R   
  Margin > 4 R  936       1556  1349       380  62   7  46  217  194  13  152   4   0   9  18  52           .282  .371  .440  .811  .288    93 Margin > 4 R 
  9th inning   1001       1003   869       211  32   2  31  101  121  22  106   3   6   4  13  20           .243  .336  .391  .727   
 

[a700hitter]

Well' date=' Yaz hit a less-than-stellar .224 in August, September and October of 1975, one of the years of his 'clutch' playoff performances. That's in 46 starts. He had 1 HR after August 1st that year while his team is pushing for the playoffs. Is THAT when he started getting "mentally lazy"? Or is that a player you would say can't play down the stretch?[/quote']If you had witnessed and followed the season, you would know something that is not reflected in the statistics. He was playing the final two months of 1975 with a separated shoulder that was injured on a tag play at 1B. If he wasn't such a tough SOB and had there not been in a penant race, he'd have been on the DL. He knew that a lineup with him injured was better than one without him, so he stayed in the lineup even though he had trouble pulling the ball and going deep. He played the rest of the season bandaged up to hold the shoulder in place. The fact that he raised his game to a different level in the playoffs and World Series despite the effects of the shoulder separation makes the case of his clutch play even stronger. Any argument that Yaz was not clutch based on his performance in August and September 1975 is just not valid. Stats don't tell the story when it comes to being clutch. What matters more is being the guy who your teammates want to see with a bat in your hands in the big situation or being the guy that the other teams fear in those situations. That was Yaz.

[YAZMAN]

Look at all the statistics you provided YAZMAN!! Bravo. It's like we're discussing a 16 game football season, not a 162 game baseball season....

 

...brief interlude of reiterating completely unrelated ********...

 

If you can't prove that hitting-clutch exists, then just be quiet.

 

Ummm, I threw up some stats on page two that you conveniently ignored:

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by example1 http://www.talksox.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif

Do you really expect 10 more years of A-Rod "only" hitting .280/.361/.483 in the playoffs? Manny Ramirez's career postseason numbers: .260./362./508

He's a choker too, apparently.

 

My Reply:

You inadvertantly left out a few very important numbers:

 

Manny - 315AB, 22HR, 52RBI

(now - 322AB, 23HR, 58RBI)

 

Payrod - 147AB, 7HR, 17RBI

 

So, Mr. Almighty Sabermetrician, what do you do with that? Go ahead, extrapolate Arod's playoff numbers since past performance is such a great indicator of future results at Pocket Protector Park. Oh, wait, "sample size is too small" is starting to echo across the page. How big of a sample size can you get of postseason results? Wouldn't these numbers be a large sample compared to the postseason results of all MLB players?

 

If you can't prove that clutch hitting doesn't exist, then you can just be quiet.

 

 

Quite simply put, Arod's value to the Sox boils down to this: After a few years of yelling "Yooooook" when our first basemen came to the plate, it would be an easy transition to yelling "Doooooosh" when our third baseman/SS now did.

[example1]

My Reply:

You inadvertantly left out a few very important numbers:

 

Manny - 315AB, 22HR, 52RBI

(now - 322AB, 23HR, 58RBI)

 

Payrod - 147AB, 7HR, 17RBI

 

So, Mr. Almighty Sabermetrician, what do you do with that? Go ahead, extrapolate Arod's playoff numbers since past performance is such a great indicator of future results at Pocket Protector Park.

 

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. If you're trying to prove that Manny Ramirez has had more than twice the playoff ABs as A-Rod I guess you did it. Bravo.

 

At the same point in their career, here are what their numbers looked like: 147 ABs in. This was Manny's 1998 season with Cleveland.

 

Payrod- 147 AB, 7HR, 17RBI, .279/.361/.473/.844

Manny- 147 AB, 11HR, 21 RBI, .231/.321/.490/.821

-career totals after the next 102 Manny ABs after the first 147:

-.232/.332/.473/.805

 

In the same number of ABs their numbers were similar. Manny's NEXT 100+ ABs (probably a sufficient sample size for you in and of itself, right?) actually LOWERED that total. A-Rod has a higher average, OBP and OPS through the same number of ABs. He didn't produce as many HR or RBI, but in terms of at-bat to at-bat performance I would say they are pretty similar. Care to disagree? I'm pretty sure that if this were 1998 (or 2003) you would be claiming that Manny was a choker, a douche, a huge loser and a horrible clutch baseball player, given his horrible numbers.

 

Oh, wait, "sample size is too small" is starting to echo across the page. How big of a sample size can you get of postseason results?

 

You can just read above... basically, Manny was given another 100+ ABs in his career before he started putting up anything CLOSE to his regular season stats. Unclutch or statistical anomoly?

 

Or, you could just make character judgments about someone you don't know, based on your small observation and sample size, and belittle those who try to have discussions about how the ACTUAL discussion will be made. I don't imagine Theo saying "A-Rod can't hit in the clutch" or "he's a douche so we shouldn't get him". The guy can hit the freaking ball, the question is who has him when he gets there hot (again, like he did with the Mariners for a season).

 

If you can't prove that clutch hitting doesn't exist, then you can just be quiet.

 

Here's a link to a list of common logical fallacies: http://www.nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm

 

Among them, the claim to prove non-existence (emphasis added by ME): when an arguer cannot provide the evidence for his claims, he may challenge his opponent to prove it doesn't exist (e.g., prove God doesn't exist; prove UFO's haven't visited earth, prove that clutch hitting doesn't exist etc.,). Although one may prove non-existence in special limitations, such as showing that a box does not contain certain items, one cannot prove universal or absolute non-existence, or non-existence out of ignorance. One cannot prove something that does not exist. The proof of existence must come from those who make the claims."

 

You claim clutch hitting exists. YOU have the burden of proof, and can sulk in the corner when/if the Sox make a move on A-Rod and your all-time least favorite player is suddenly putting up Ruthian (or at least Manny-ian) numbers on your hometown club.

[example1]

If you had witnessed and followed the season' date=' you would know something that is not reflected in the statistics. He was playing the final two months of 1975 with a separated shoulder that was injured on a tag play at 1B. If he wasn't such a tough SOB and had there not been in a penant race, he'd have been on the DL. He knew that a lineup with him injured was better than one without him, so he stayed in the lineup even though he had trouble pulling the ball and going deep. He played the rest of the season bandaged up to hold the shoulder in place. The fact that he raised his game to a different level in the playoffs and World Series despite the effects of the shoulder separation makes the case of his clutch play even stronger. Any argument that Yaz was not clutch based on his performance in August and September 1975 is just not valid. Stats don't tell the story when it comes to being clutch. What matters more is being the guy who your teammates want to see with a bat in your hands in the big situation or being the guy that the other teams fear in those situations. That was Yaz.[/quote']

 

My argument was that Yaz wasn't "clutch" down the stretch of 1975. Making outs is not being clutch, no matter how much of a "tough guy" or "gamer" he was. Yaz was a great player. An astoundingly great player. Someone who deserves more credit than he gets and whose numbers will blow anyone who looks at them away by their sheer magnificence. That said, I put the burden on you to do the equivalent work to what I just did. If you claim that he IS clutch, that he has that little something in him that most other people lack, then that should show up by his not making outs. Otherwise he's just making outs. The common way to do this is to look at the "Clutch Stats" which can compare players by 2-out hitting, RISP, close and late, etc., Those numbers can look at more than simply 2 years in the playoffs in big situations, where he should be extra focused.

 

Sorry a700, but the "clutch stats" just don't show it. His clutch stats are pedestrian. Does that mean I think he wasn't a good player in big games, who was able to stay focused and treat his ABs just like they were batting practice, or high school, or mid-season. No. He was able to do that. But he doesn't have some extra gear that he turns on when his team needs him to get a win. If he did that would show up in the regular season, down the stretch, in May, in April, etc.,.

 

It's not dissing Yaz. Again, my point is that NOBODY is "clutch" in that sense. There are good ball players and not-so-good ball players. You want the good ballplayers on your team and the best way to tell is by looking at the thousands of ABs in a career, not 147 ABs in postseasons spread over 10 years.

[a700hitter]

My argument was that Yaz wasn't "clutch" down the stretch of 1975. Making outs is not being clutch' date=' no matter how much of a "tough guy" or "gamer" he was. [/quote']So the outs he made when he was badly injured and playing with a separated shoulder when his team needed him are equally weighted in the world of statistics when proving whether a player is clutch?

The common way to do this is to look at the "Clutch Stats" which can compare players by 2-out hitting' date=' RISP, close and late, etc., Those numbers can look at more than simply 2 years in the playoffs in big situations, where he should be extra focused.[/quote'] This may be your way of establishing clutch by using black and white stats on a sheet. Being clutch is like winning a pennant or a World Championship. The best team on paper probably loses as often as it wins. When it comes to clutch, the only thing that matters to me is the regard in which his teammates and opponents hold him.

Sorry a700' date=' but the "clutch stats" just don't show it. His clutch stats are pedestrian.[/quote']You are assuming that the clutch stats that you are looking at are indeed situations that yaz thought were particularly important. LAte inning 1 run games were not necessarily important to him. If his team was 10 games out of first or eliminated, it was probably no different of an AB to him than most other ABs.

But he doesn't have some extra gear that he turns on when his team needs him to get a win.

How do your stats explain hot streaks-- those times when the ball appears bigger and slower for a batter? Are they just a function of probability and the laws of large numbers? I don't think that's true. There is a mental aspect that has to be taken into consideration. Sometimes it is attributable to increased confidence. When players describe the feeling of the game slowing down, blocking out everything else etc., this is the increased focus. It's not another gear. You cannot completely deny the mental and emotional aspect of the game. Anyone who saw Calvin Schiraldi in the 86 playoffs and World Series would tell you that he crumbled under the pressure. However, if you looked at his pressure save situations down the stretch and lumped it together with the WS and playoffs, you might conclude that he was no better or worse than any other reliever. There's a big difference between a 1 run save in the regular season and a one run save in the playoffs or World Series.

 

It's not dissing Yaz. Again' date=' my point is that NOBODY is "clutch" in that sense. There are good ball players and not-so-good ball players. You want the good ballplayers on your team and the best way to tell is by looking at the thousands of ABs in a career, not 147 ABs in postseasons spread over 10 years.[/quote']As I said before, when your peers and teammates think you were a clutch performer, that's what matters. If that's not good enough for you and you don't want to limit your analysis to 147 post season ABs that's fine, but don't pick some generic statisitical definition of clutch, because as I explained, Yaz probably did n't give a s*** about a late inning 1 or 2 run situation when his team was out of the race, which was more often than not. Look at the games that meant the most to him. The stretch drive in 75 meant alot to him, but it was not a good indicator, because he couldn't physically perform. The shoulder wasn't an ache or pain. It was separated and he shouldn't have been playing. if you want to go beyond the post season stats, look at the September stretch drives in 67, 72, 74, 77, 78, and 79. I haven't looked at those numbers (and he was 39 and 40 in those last 2 years), but those games were important to him. Also, the All Star games were very important to look at. He played in a bunch of those, and his ego was such that he was always trying to prove himself against the best. Lump those together with the post season and the September stretch drives and you'll at least be looking at games that were more important to him. Even this would not tell the entire story. Pure statistical analysis can never prove or disprove clutch, because the assumptions regarding pressure situations can never be proved to be accurate with regard to any player.

[YAZMAN]

700 makes some great points.

 

You can't possibly come up with a formula for "clutch". The fact of the matter, and the point I'm trying to make, is that Arod is an under performer in the playoffs, and hasn't got many "clutch" hits in pressure situations. It's not mathematical, it's psychological. Familiar with the Inverted "U" theory? It basically states that an athlete's performance will go up as their intensity increases to a point, and then will begin to decline past that point as their intensity continues to escalate. It looks like an upside down bell curve. In the biggest moments, the human element comes into play, some rise to the occasion, others do not. Playoff baseball creates a level of intensity that Arod simply hasn't been able to deal with, his performance diminishes, he "folds", he "chokes".

 

I wish I could find a link to Tom Verducci's article "Does Clutch Hitting Truly Exist". In it, the biggest stat boy of them all, the Boy Wonder Theo Epstein sat on the fence and wouldn't deny that clutch hitting exists. And he hired Bill James as a consultant!

 

So screw μ ! :harhar:

[example1]

Sorry this is so long, but I will take a700's advice and look at the stats:

 

 

So the outs he made when he was badly injured and playing with a separated shoulder when his team needed him are equally weighted in the world of statistics when proving whether a player is clutch?

 

Unless you're willing to go in and pluck those numbers out based on where he was in recovery and pain, you'll have to settle for his overall stats.

 

This may be your way of establishing clutch by using black and white stats on a sheet. Being clutch is like winning a pennant or a World Championship. The best team on paper probably loses as often as it wins.

 

Teams on paper tend to win based on how many runs they score and how few they give up, and players tend to follow a statistically predictable career path. If the right person is looking at the paper then that "best team on paper" should win more games than it loses.

 

I'm not saying clutch situations don't exist and that players don't come through in the clutch. The situations do exist and the players come through. But they also fail. They fail regularly. It's a HUGE part of baseball that gets overlooked when talking about clutch. The difference between hitting .265 with a reputation for not coming through when it matters, and being a World Series MVP with the most home runs in post-season history is sometimes only a series or two away. Furthermore, while I acknowledge that those situations exist, it is because you cannot quantify it that you should not use it as a valuation for whether or not to acquire a player. It's all well and good if it is unquantifiable, but unless you can actually talk about and specify how valuable "clutch" is to a player, a players' 'clutchness' shouldn't be a deciding factor on a contract. That was my point 3 pages ago and it has devolved into this!!

 

When it comes to clutch, the only thing that matters to me is the regard in which his teammates and opponents hold him. You are assuming that the clutch stats that you are looking at are indeed situations that yaz thought were particularly important. LAte inning 1 run games were not necessarily important to him.

 

I have a really hard time believing that. Do you have a source? I mean, late inning 1 run games should have been important to him, if winning was important to him. Also, I imagine his teammates and opponents held him in high esteem, whether in the 1st inning with nobody on, or in the 9th. Your definition of "clutch" is starting to look a lot more like "good". Guys like Yaz can look clutch because they were just good and followed through on their potential.

 

How do your stats explain hot streaks-- those times when the ball appears bigger and slower for a batter? Are they just a function of probability and the laws of large numbers? I don't think that's true. There is a mental aspect that has to be taken into consideration.

 

I would describe hot streaks the same way that I would explain my own good days and bad days on a golf course. Like you say, it is largely a matter of mental state. But hot streaks are very different from clutch. Hot streaks don't come whenever a player wants one, and they don't center themselves around anything in particular. Perhaps they can be encouraged or discouraged by numerous factors (like resting for most of September), but they too are not a light switch. They just come and then they disappear. Confidence is definitely a factor, as players who get 'in the zone' sometimes look unworldly, but can go into huge slumps with a weekend off and a plane flight.

 

Over the long haul a player's numbers will end up as they should based on his career average. So if A-Rod has had 147 ABs then it seems perfectly valid to think that if he has 200 more ABs at some point there will be a streak where A-Rod is A-Rod.

 

You cannot completely deny the mental and emotional aspect of the game. Anyone who saw Calvin Schiraldi in the 86 playoffs and World Series would tell you that he crumbled under the pressure. However, if you looked at his pressure save situations down the stretch and lumped it together with the WS and playoffs, you might conclude that he was no better or worse than any other reliever. There's a big difference between a 1 run save in the regular season and a one run save in the playoffs or World Series.

 

I've elaborated before on my thoughts about clutch pitching, which I think is more likely than clutch hitting.

 

A clutch hitter has an approach that, in retrospect, ended up being correct for the situation. Whether that means looking for a particular pitch, trying to drive the ball to a particular place, swinging early, or whatever. They are called clutch because the action based on that approach was favorable to their team. The players who are going to be best in the "clutch" are those who have the best approach and mindframe when going to the plate, and those who have the best approach when going to the plate tend to USUALLY have the best approach when going to the plate. I can hit a 300 yard drive sometimes, and Doug Mirabelli can get a "clutch" single. I'm less shocked when Tiger Woods does it in the Masters because he also did it last week, and the week before and the week before that. It's not "clutch" that he scores a 62 at Augusta; he shoots that well regularly. Like Papi said the other day, essentially, "people know Manny and I are good hitters, we have an approach and we are professionals". He wasn't saying "the situation really got me going" he was saying "I do what I do, whether in the clutch or not".

 

Ultimately, though, the big hits come on a pitcher's mistake or a correct guess. If a hitter gets 10 pitches per at bat and takes balls 1/2 inch off the plate, then he increases his chances of hitting the ball well relative to the guy who swings at the first pitch 40% of the time. If he does that each and every at bat his numbers are better and he conditions himself for playoff and clutch type situations. They don't turn it on and off, they have a solid approach. At times that approach meets with a particular mental state, a lack of a perfect pitcher, and the "zone", and players do absurd things. Kobe scores 81 points, Manny hits bombs and battles back from 0-2 to drive in walk-runs, Ortiz looks for a cutter on the hands and fists it over the outstretch glove of the barely-ill-placed 2nd baseman, and the season continues... etc.,.

 

As I said before, when your peers and teammates think you were a clutch performer, that's what matters. If that's not good enough for you and you don't want to limit your analysis to 147 post season ABs that's fine, but don't pick some generic statisitical definition of clutch, because as I explained, Yaz probably did n't give a s*** about a late inning 1 or 2 run situation when his team was out of the race, which was more often than not. Look at the games that meant the most to him. The stretch drive in 75 meant alot to him, but it was not a good indicator, because he couldn't physically perform. The shoulder wasn't an ache or pain. It was separated and he shouldn't have been playing. if you want to go beyond the post season stats...

 

look at the September stretch drives in:

67: .417/.504/.760/1.264 !!

72: .300/.381/.558/.939

74: .232/.422/.366/.788

77: .306/.348/.529/.877

78: .207/.303/.414/.717

79: .269/.329/.313/.642

 

Let's pretend those are all weighted equally (i.e., same number of PA) each year. Here's his avg during the important stretch drives you listed (NOT counting his injury plagued 75 season).

 

67, 72, 74, 77, 78, 79 overall: .289/.381/.490/.871

career: .285/.379/.462/.841

 

Unsurprisingly, Carl Yastrzemski's career numbers and his numbers leading down the stretch are very similar. Some years, Yaz was fantastic, particularly the two years where he made the playoffs. Some years, Yaz was less than fantastic. Overall, the numbers work out to about his career average. Clutch? Not necessarily. Un-Clutch? Definitely not. Able to have a game plan most of the times he approaches the plate and able to make it happen at a high level? Certainly, indicated by his ability to get on base one way or the other. Perhaps more likely to execute his gameplan than the pitcher was to execute his? Possibly; maybe he intimidated pitchers into losing their minds. That wouldn't shock me at all.

 

I haven't looked at those numbers (and he was 39 and 40 in those last 2 years), but those games were important to him. Also, the All Star games were very important to look at. He played in a bunch of those, and his ego was such that he was always trying to prove himself against the best.

 

14 Career All-Star Games: .294/.368/.441/.809

(again) Career: .285/.379/.462/.841

 

Nice numbers, but worse in all categories than his career numbers.

 

Lump those together with the post season and the September stretch drives and you'll at least be looking at games that were more important to him. Even this would not tell the entire story. Pure statistical analysis can never prove or disprove clutch, because the assumptions regarding pressure situations can never be proved to be accurate with regard to any player.

 

There are leverage situations, for instance, when the winner of a game hangs in the balance which SHOULD get many people excited. Most of those are what are accounted for by the traditional clutch stats, but you can get as creative as you want with it--and people have--the conclusion is that "clutch" does not exist.

 

What matters, in this discussion, is that the front office is most likely to look at performance in high leverage situations throughout one's career if they are looking for a clutch factor at all. Their reasoning is likely that an AB against Papelbon as the winning run in August is perhaps only SLIGHTLY less stressful than that same AB in October. Both of them are high leverage situations where the fate of the game is in the balance. Players don't put heightened importance on random events--they watch the game like we do. If Yaz were up as the winning run he will want to win the game. Every player is that way.

 

I don't think being clutch matters. I don't need to tell my kids that Manny Ramirez was a great player because he came through in the clutch. He would have been a great player had he signed with Texas and not gone back to the playoffs after his first 250 playoff ABs, and I would have wanted him to get another AB as soon as the opportunity affords it. Good hitters are good hitters for the most part. Some get more leeway than others, and the guy who is likely to hold the all-time HR record and who has won multiple MVPs should get more leeway rather than less instead of jumping into the unfounded clutch argument.

[a700hitter]

Sorry this is so long, but I will take a700's advice and look at the stats:

 

 

 

 

Unless you're willing to go in and pluck those numbers out based on where he was in recovery and pain, you'll have to settle for his overall stats.

 

 

 

Teams on paper tend to win based on how many runs they score and how few they give up, and players tend to follow a statistically predictable career path. If the right person is looking at the paper then that "best team on paper" should win more games than it loses.

 

I'm not saying clutch situations don't exist and that players don't come through in the clutch. The situations do exist and the players come through. But they also fail. They fail regularly. It's a HUGE part of baseball that gets overlooked when talking about clutch. The difference between hitting .265 with a reputation for not coming through when it matters, and being a World Series MVP with the most home runs in post-season history is sometimes only a series or two away. Furthermore, while I acknowledge that those situations exist, it is because you cannot quantify it that you should not use it as a valuation for whether or not to acquire a player. It's all well and good if it is unquantifiable, but unless you can actually talk about and specify how valuable "clutch" is to a player, a players' 'clutchness' shouldn't be a deciding factor on a contract. That was my point 3 pages ago and it has devolved into this!!

 

 

 

I have a really hard time believing that. Do you have a source? I mean, late inning 1 run games should have been important to him, if winning was important to him. Also, I imagine his teammates and opponents held him in high esteem, whether in the 1st inning with nobody on, or in the 9th. Your definition of "clutch" is starting to look a lot more like "good". Guys like Yaz can look clutch because they were just good and followed through on their potential.

 

 

 

I would describe hot streaks the same way that I would explain my own good days and bad days on a golf course. Like you say, it is largely a matter of mental state. But hot streaks are very different from clutch. Hot streaks don't come whenever a player wants one, and they don't center themselves around anything in particular. Perhaps they can be encouraged or discouraged by numerous factors (like resting for most of September), but they too are not a light switch. They just come and then they disappear. Confidence is definitely a factor, as players who get 'in the zone' sometimes look unworldly, but can go into huge slumps with a weekend off and a plane flight.

 

Over the long haul a player's numbers will end up as they should based on his career average. So if A-Rod has had 147 ABs then it seems perfectly valid to think that if he has 200 more ABs at some point there will be a streak where A-Rod is A-Rod.

 

 

 

I've elaborated before on my thoughts about clutch pitching, which I think is more likely than clutch hitting.

 

A clutch hitter has an approach that, in retrospect, ended up being correct for the situation. Whether that means looking for a particular pitch, trying to drive the ball to a particular place, swinging early, or whatever. They are called clutch because the action based on that approach was favorable to their team. The players who are going to be best in the "clutch" are those who have the best approach and mindframe when going to the plate, and those who have the best approach when going to the plate tend to USUALLY have the best approach when going to the plate. I can hit a 300 yard drive sometimes, and Doug Mirabelli can get a "clutch" single. I'm less shocked when Tiger Woods does it in the Masters because he also did it last week, and the week before and the week before that. It's not "clutch" that he scores a 62 at Augusta; he shoots that well regularly. Like Papi said the other day, essentially, "people know Manny and I are good hitters, we have an approach and we are professionals". He wasn't saying "the situation really got me going" he was saying "I do what I do, whether in the clutch or not".

 

Ultimately, though, the big hits come on a pitcher's mistake or a correct guess. If a hitter gets 10 pitches per at bat and takes balls 1/2 inch off the plate, then he increases his chances of hitting the ball well relative to the guy who swings at the first pitch 40% of the time. If he does that each and every at bat his numbers are better and he conditions himself for playoff and clutch type situations. They don't turn it on and off, they have a solid approach. At times that approach meets with a particular mental state, a lack of a perfect pitcher, and the "zone", and players do absurd things. Kobe scores 81 points, Manny hits bombs and battles back from 0-2 to drive in walk-runs, Ortiz looks for a cutter on the hands and fists it over the outstretch glove of the barely-ill-placed 2nd baseman, and the season continues... etc.,.

 

 

67: .417/.504/.760/1.264 !!

72: .300/.381/.558/.939

74: .232/.422/.366/.788

77: .306/.348/.529/.877

78: .207/.303/.414/.717

79: .269/.329/.313/.642

 

Let's pretend those are all weighted equally (i.e., same number of PA) each year. Here's his avg during the important stretch drives you listed (NOT counting his injury plagued 75 season).

 

67, 72, 74, 77, 78, 79 overall: .289/.381/.490/.871

career: .285/.379/.462/.841

 

Unsurprisingly, Carl Yastrzemski's career numbers and his numbers leading down the stretch are very similar. Some years, Yaz was fantastic, particularly the two years where he made the playoffs. Some years, Yaz was less than fantastic. Overall, the numbers work out to about his career average. Clutch? Not necessarily. Un-Clutch? Definitely not. Able to have a game plan most of the times he approaches the plate and able to make it happen at a high level? Certainly, indicated by his ability to get on base one way or the other. Perhaps more likely to execute his gameplan than the pitcher was to execute his? Possibly; maybe he intimidated pitchers into losing their minds. That wouldn't shock me at all.

 

 

 

14 Career All-Star Games: .294/.368/.441/.809

(again) Career: .285/.379/.462/.841

 

Nice numbers, but worse in all categories than his career numbers.

 

 

 

There are leverage situations, for instance, when the winner of a game hangs in the balance which SHOULD get many people excited. Most of those are what are accounted for by the traditional clutch stats, but you can get as creative as you want with it--and people have--the conclusion is that "clutch" does not exist.

 

What matters, in this discussion, is that the front office is most likely to look at performance in high leverage situations throughout one's career if they are looking for a clutch factor at all. Their reasoning is likely that an AB against Papelbon as the winning run in August is perhaps only SLIGHTLY less stressful than that same AB in October. Both of them are high leverage situations where the fate of the game is in the balance. Players don't put heightened importance on random events--they watch the game like we do. If Yaz were up as the winning run he will want to win the game. Every player is that way.

 

I don't think being clutch matters. I don't need to tell my kids that Manny Ramirez was a great player because he came through in the clutch. He would have been a great player had he signed with Texas and not gone back to the playoffs after his first 250 playoff ABs, and I would have wanted him to get another AB as soon as the opportunity affords it. Good hitters are good hitters for the most part. Some get more leeway than others, and the guy who is likely to hold the all-time HR record and who has won multiple MVPs should get more leeway rather than less instead of jumping into the unfounded clutch argument.

A couple of points:

 

1.I agree that a player's compensation should not be based on a reputation of being clutch or not clutch. It's too hard to define and too imprecise for it too be fairly and accurately reflected in the marketplace.

 

2. Despite the difficulty in defining and valuing intangibles like "clutch", leadership, and attitude, the discerning GM will consider those qualities when putting together a team. Based solely on stats the Yankees should win every year. Oddly enough, when they were winning championships, they had no batting champions, or HR or RBI leaders. They had no Cy Young pitchers. They had clutch pitchers, a great pen, and very good players with great winning attitudes like O'Neil.

 

3. Is Papi more talented or valuable than ARod? Absolutely not. Is Papi a better leader? From what I hear and read, players not only look up to him, but he'll let you know, without being confrontational, if you need to pick up your game. He's probably the only guy alive who Manny would listen to. Is ARod a leader? He probably has very little value in the clubhouse. Should Ortiz be paid more than ARod? No, but for the price of ARod, I can get Ortiz, Lowell and a bullpen guy. I'll take my chances without ARod.

 

4. You have assumed equal weighting for the stats in the clutch situations. I don't think that is a fair valuation. In those situations, the pitching is generally much tougher than the league average, especially in the post season and All Star games. Putting up numbers in those situations that are comparable to career averages is an accomplishment. That in an of itself is clutch. Most guys do worse than their averages against good pitching. I don't think you are being fair in the weighting of the pressure ABs. Willie Mays once told a young player that you just try to hold your own against the top pitchers, but you feast on everyone else. If a player can perform at the same level against top level pitchers as he does against everyone else, that is a guy that I want on my team. I'd call him a clutch player. Theo and the FO look carefully at acquisitions for indications that the player can perform against the Yankees. Not everyone can. Some players with good stats, play very poorly against the Yankees. Playing well against the Yankees is clutch, because it is harder to do than playing well against KC.

 

5. I enjoyed your post. It was a very good post.