Gomes Vs. Nava

[User Name]

What you have noted "Certain players perform above their skill levels" is describing a talent, a skill, a knack. A season's worth of "clutch ABs", whatever that means, is very small - far less than what you would want to make an evaluation on. Yes, there are players who will outperform or underperform their averages a little bit in higher leverage spots - but it's not very significant, and could just as easily be coincidence as anything else. The players who go down as clutch players are all great players. Ortiz (for one) doesn't need the artificial definitions when his actual talent level justifies it plenty.

 

A-Rod (for lack of "clutch") and Marco Scutaro (too much "clutch") are just a couple of the examples that reinforce the rule. Other examples are few and far between. It is not a repeatable skill and there's no notifiable trend in "clutchness". Again, it's not a repeatable skill, and a handful of AB's over a season do nothing to change this notion.

[Thunder]

To answer the original question, I prefer Gomes. The energy he brings to the team is nothing but positive. Over the last few months, I haven't been all that impressed with Nava. Besides the hit in game 1, he's done virtually nothing at the plate in the ALCS, or even the playoffs tbh. Yes, I know the whole offense is struggling, but I feel much better about our chances with Gomes in the lineup. He's dangerous as a power hitter, and that aspect alone is enough for me.

[Spitball]

The Sox are made up of lots of nice parts. There is not an Adrian Gonzalez superstar, but lots of guys who get on base, pull beards, and appear to be enjoying the ride. It is not a Nava or Gomes question because it is the package of the whole that has been working out so well. Btw, Gomes was a great part in Cincinnati when he was a platoon player, but he fell out of favor when they tried to make him full time.

[mvp 78]

Pedroia and Ortiz are superstars.

[Spitball]

Pedroia and Ortiz are superstars.

 

Probably they are. They certainly are great players. My point is that the Sox are winning despite lacking a Gonzalez, a Cabrera, a Fielder, a Verlander, or any big dollar, big name superstar. They are not a small market team, but they are winning with pieces that are getting on base, driving up pitch counts, and clicking well.

[mvp 78]

Ortiz is a bigger name than AGon.

[Bellhorn04]

Ortiz is a bigger name than AGon.

 

I get what you're saying, but I think I get what Spitball is saying too. I think he is factoring in the size of the player's contract. Ortiz and Pedroia make $15 million or less. AGon makes $22 million and has one of the biggest contracts in history.

[Emmz]

What you have noted "Certain players perform above their skill levels" is describing a talent, a skill, a knack. A season's worth of "clutch ABs", whatever that means, is very small - far less than what you would want to make an evaluation on. Yes, there are players who will outperform or underperform their averages a little bit in higher leverage spots - but it's not very significant, and could just as easily be coincidence as anything else. The players who go down as clutch players are all great players. Ortiz (for one) doesn't need the artificial definitions when his actual talent level justifies it plenty.

 

Except that some players actually do perform significantly better, and Gomes is one of them.

 

These are actual people with nerves and personalities, not robots that all do things the same way. Your argument is based entirely on the fact that you can't quantify clutch, so therefore it could easily just be coincidental. It could be, but just the same it could easily it might not be the case. Why does Jason Kubel hit .400 with the bases loaded? Why is Carlos Beltran's postseason OPS 300 points higher than his lifetime regular season OPS? I don't know, but I miss having Jason Kubel in the middle of my teams lineup, and I'd love to have Carlos Beltran come October.

[Emmz]

A-Rod (for lack of "clutch") and Marco Scutaro (too much "clutch") are just a couple of the examples that reinforce the rule. Other examples are few and far between. It is not a repeatable skill and there's no notifiable trend in "clutchness". Again, it's not a repeatable skill, and a handful of AB's over a season do nothing to change this notion.

 

They don't reinforce the rule, they challenge the rule. If it reinforced the rule, there would have to be actual proof that clutch doesn't exist.

 

Feel free to come up with this proof.

[Emmz]

Anyways, if we use OPS to determine how good a hitter is, then using OPS with RISP should determine how good they are in situations with runners in scoring position. Literally, that's what it means. I don't get how this is becoming some big technicality argument where everything has to be a "repeatable skill". It's just hitting under a different circumstance, and there's really no need to overanalyze it with some ******** you read on FanGraphs.

[Bellhorn04]

Anyways, if we use OPS to determine how good a hitter is, then using OPS with RISP should determine how good they are in situations with runners in scoring position. Literally, that's what it means. I don't get how this is becoming some big technicality argument where everything has to be a "repeatable skill". It's just hitting under a different circumstance, and there's really no need to overanalyze it with some ******** you read on FanGraphs.

 

Hitting in the clutch is certainly something that can be evaluated by statistics. But are there any hitters who consistently perform better in those situations? I haven't even checked out the numbers on Beltran, but he seems like he might be a good test case.

[sk7326]

Except that some players actually do perform significantly better, and Gomes is one of them.

 

These are actual people with nerves and personalities, not robots that all do things the same way. Your argument is based entirely on the fact that you can't quantify clutch, so therefore it could easily just be coincidental. It could be, but just the same it could easily it might not be the case. Why does Jason Kubel hit .400 with the bases loaded? Why is Carlos Beltran's postseason OPS 300 points higher than his lifetime regular season OPS? I don't know, but I miss having Jason Kubel in the middle of my teams lineup, and I'd love to have Carlos Beltran come October.

 

Nick Punto hit .297 with bases loaded, 50 points higher than his career. Gomes is .231 (so basically put that runner on first and he suddenly poops himself). Most of the AB samples are too small to make any conclusion out. Also, what is clutch - is there a unified definition. Ortiz hit the Slam, but he has been pretty unclutch in the postseason since the last title. Does that mean the superpowers have gone awry? Beltran I am with you - I'd love to have him in October. But I'd like to have him in the other months too - he is a terrific baseball player.

[sk7326]

Anyways, if we use OPS to determine how good a hitter is, then using OPS with RISP should determine how good they are in situations with runners in scoring position. Literally, that's what it means. I don't get how this is becoming some big technicality argument where everything has to be a "repeatable skill". It's just hitting under a different circumstance, and there's really no need to overanalyze it with some ******** you read on FanGraphs.

 

It's not really a technicality. You are using situational stats as an indicator that you should play one player over another (possibly over a better one) and make player signing difference. That means that the player has something to do with the situational stats aside from just not having enough cracks at it. Repeatable skill is one way to phrase it, some knack which you can count on is another. The RISP OPS says EXACTLY how a player has performed in these spots - nobody disagrees there. But it's predictive value - your ability to use it to say what WILL happen. I think the numbers are interesting, but say very little (if anything) about the player.

 

This is an industry with 750 jobs nationwide - you don't make the Show without showing a ton of "character, moxie" or whatever. In a way to call anybody who made the big leagues unclutch is demeaning to just how enormous a challenge it is to engage in the gig.

[sk7326]

Hitting in the clutch is certainly something that can be evaluated by statistics. But are there any hitters who consistently perform better in those situations? I haven't even checked out the numbers on Beltran, but he seems like he might be a good test case.

 

Beltran has a 1.160 OPS in 194 career plate appearances. There is no doubt that he has been amazing in the postseason, but his career OPS is .854, so he has been a good ballplayer the whole time. And 194 PAs is barely 25% of a season. So that is a very small number to make any conclusions about him. A lot of these sorts of things (like RBI numbers) are largely a function of opportunity. Give good players chances to make magic, and they will.

[Bellhorn04]

Beltran has a 1.160 OPS in 194 career plate appearances. There is no doubt that he has been amazing in the postseason, but his career OPS is .854, so he has been a good ballplayer the whole time. And 194 PAs is barely 25% of a season. So that is a very small number to make any conclusions about him. A lot of these sorts of things (like RBI numbers) are largely a function of opportunity. Give good players chances to make magic, and they will.

 

Jeff Bagwell, OTOH, had horrible postseason numbers. Only 129 PA's, but still.

[marklmw]

By using stats from the 2013 regular season Nava against right handed pitchers had an OPS of .895. Gomes against RHP OPS was .745. Nava +20% over Gomes for OPS. Just saying. Nava cannot seem to get a break. Don't get me wrong I also like Gomes but I like him much better over Nava against a lefty.

[marklmw]

This is not true. He's a platoon player. His numbers reflect that. However, hitting lefty is his strong side, so he should be starting against all of these righties.

 

True that UN true that.

[marklmw]

And Gomes is way better defensively. If Nava is in the game, he doesn't make the catch at the wall. He probably still throws out Cabrera though.

 

MVP ... I respectfully disagree with your premise that Nava does not catch that ball against the wall. You do realize that Gomes broke in on that ball before he went back for it and that's what made it a more difficult play to begin with.

[mvp 78]

Nava is not good in LF. Gomes is better.

[marklmw]

Nava is not good in LF. Gomes is better.

 

I have yet to see either one of them do anything special and that is why they are in left to begin with

[mvp 78]

In the playoffs, Nava is 1-3. Gomes is 5-0.

 

No, I didn't call in to radio shows this AM and don't ever.

 

6 - 0

[Emmz]

It's not really a technicality. You are using situational stats as an indicator that you should play one player over another (possibly over a better one) and make player signing difference. That means that the player has something to do with the situational stats aside from just not having enough cracks at it. Repeatable skill is one way to phrase it, some knack which you can count on is another. The RISP OPS says EXACTLY how a player has performed in these spots - nobody disagrees there. But it's predictive value - your ability to use it to say what WILL happen. I think the numbers are interesting, but say very little (if anything) about the player.

 

This is an industry with 750 jobs nationwide - you don't make the Show without showing a ton of "character, moxie" or whatever. In a way to call anybody who made the big leagues unclutch is demeaning to just how enormous a challenge it is to engage in the gig.

 

It doesn't demean that accomplishment at all. It says that they step up in situations that even other great big league hitters fail to show up in.

[jad]

I believe there was a study done a couple of years ago on clutch. It's pretty simple: if a guy is a 'clutch' hitter, then the numbers should reflect that year after year. They don't. The conclusion of the study was that 'clutch' was simply chance. Also, our minds are bizarre. We will remember Papi's 'clutch' grand slam (and maybe Victorino's as well). What we will forget is that in close games like these, all AB's were clutch situations. And Papi, in his two-dozen chances or so, and Vict as well, failed miserably. As one poster above said, there is no 'clutch' hitting; there is 'hitting'. And Nava, over 162 games, has proven to be a better hitter than anyone on the team except Papi, and a significantly better hitter than the dude who has replaced him.

[User Name]

It doesn't demean that accomplishment at all. It says that they step up in situations that even other great big league hitters fail to show up in.

 

That's the whole point. Overall, it really doesn't. Other than the obligatory numbers boost from facing a pitcher from the stretch instead of the windup, hitters generally don't perform very differently in "clutch" situations than regular situations on a consistent basis. It is not a repeatable skill, and the exceptions are few and far between.

[User Name]

I believe there was a study done a couple of years ago on clutch. It's pretty simple: if a guy is a 'clutch' hitter, then the numbers should reflect that year after year. They don't. The conclusion of the study was that 'clutch' was simply chance. Also, our minds are bizarre. We will remember Papi's 'clutch' grand slam (and maybe Victorino's as well). What we will forget is that in close games like these, all AB's were clutch situations. And Papi, in his two-dozen chances or so, and Vict as well, failed miserably. As one poster above said, there is no 'clutch' hitting; there is 'hitting'. And Nava, over 162 games, has proven to be a better hitter than anyone on the team except Papi, and a significantly better hitter than the dude who has replaced him.

 

First off, yes. Confirmation bias has a lot to do with the idea of "clutch".

 

Second, are you trying to imply that Nava was a better hitter than Ellsbury or Pedroia this season? Because that is insane. He's a platoon player. Joey Votto against righties, Trot Nixon against lefties.

[sk7326]

Also - the matchups with Nava/Gomes can be more specific than strictly lefty-righty. If we are dealing with guys with excellent changeups like Scherzer - the lefty/righty thing might not be so obvious. After all, a righty-righty matchup can neutralize the righty changeup, at least a little bit. And the vs pitcher splits involve so few at-bats, that really a "scouting" based decision on who to put up there is totally reasonable.

 

The Red Sox interestingly have three switch hitters getting prominent run. Victorino, Nava, Saltalamacchia. None of them should be switch hitting, period. And Victorino next season - even if his hammy is ok, really shouldn't go back to switch hitting at all.

[jad]

First off, yes. Confirmation bias has a lot to do with the idea of "clutch".

 

Second, are you trying to imply that Nava was a better hitter than Ellsbury or Pedroia this season? Because that is insane. He's a platoon player. Joey Votto against righties, Trot Nixon against lefties.

 

Well, 'insane' is a big word. The fact is, Nava was a more successful hitter and I believe had a better OBP (to say that may or may not be rational, but that's what the facts are). Of course the difference was very small, and obviously Ellsbury and DP are better defensive players. Nava vs. Gomes? this isn't close.

[marklmw]

Well, 'insane' is a big word. The fact is, Nava was a more successful hitter and I believe had a better OBP (to say that may or may not be rational, but that's what the facts are). Of course the difference was very small, and obviously Ellsbury and DP are better defensive players. Nava vs. Gomes? this isn't close.

 

Let's take it a step further ... Nava against RHP is better than Gomes against RHP.

[User Name]

Well, 'insane' is a big word. The fact is, Nava was a more successful hitter and I believe had a better OBP (to say that may or may not be rational, but that's what the facts are). Of course the difference was very small, and obviously Ellsbury and DP are better defensive players. Nava vs. Gomes? this isn't close.

 

Yeah, that's because he was basically a platoon player. You can't compare a platoon player with a full-time player straight-up and then claim superiority from the platoon guy. I don't care about the Nava vs. Gomes argument, because Nava has clearly been better, but let's not get carried away here.

[marklmw]

6 - 0

 

And the bat boy is 7-4 ... there is no logic here.