2014 Offseason Thread

[Bellhorn04]

John Henry did give Ortiz a plaque calling him the greatest clutch hitter in Red Sox history, and isn't his baseball judgment above the questioning of us internet geeks?

 

There you go. Henry signs Bill James's cheques and yet he gives a plaque for clutch hitting. Case closed, I'd say.

[a700hitter]

There you go. Henry signs Bill James's cheques and yet he gives a plaque for clutch hitting. Case closed, I'd say.

I think you have something there. The logic is impeccable and the conclusion is inescapable.

[Kimmi]

I think a lot of David Ortiz's numbers do bear out that he's been a clutch hitter over his career. Starting with his career postseason OPS of .962, which is higher than his regular season OPS of .926. That's not a big difference, obviously. But when you take into account the higher leverage of the games, and the higher overall caliber of the opposing pitching, I think I could come up with a formula that makes the difference a lot bigger.

 

Then you have his absurd World Series line of 455/576/795 = 1.372 OPS.

 

 

I'm not trying to hate on Ortiz, but take a look at his postseason numbers by year. Yes, he has had some monster postseasons. He has also had postseasons with the following slash lines:

 

.276/.276/.379

.191/.283/.362

.186/.327/.349

.083/.083/.083

 

So what is happening in those postseasons? Where is the clutch?

[Kimmi]

There you go. Henry signs Bill James's cheques and yet he gives a plaque for clutch hitting. Case closed, I'd say.

 

 

OK, you got me there. But you Canadians really do need to learn how to spell.

[dupree]

I'm glad to see Victorino is back to switch hitting. I'd say he will start in RF and until he gets hurt then Nava and Craig will be the lefty/righty matchups until mid season when Castillo is ready and takes over. Then one of Vic, Craig, or Nava gets traded. Vic has more value as a switch hitter instead of just hitting right handed. I see all these reports about one of the outfielders being traded fade away as soon as someone on the team gets hurt. That way Cafardo won't have to speculate trades to get a story out there.

[User Name]

I'm glad to see Victorino is back to switch hitting. I'd say he will start in RF and until he gets hurt then Nava and Craig will be the lefty/righty matchups until mid season when Castillo is ready and takes over. Then one of Vic, Craig, or Nava gets traded. Vic has more value as a switch hitter instead of just hitting right handed. I see all these reports about one of the outfielders being traded fade away as soon as someone on the team gets hurt. That way Cafardo won't have to speculate trades to get a story out there.

 

I think whoever gets traded does so before the season starts

[sk7326]

John Henry did give Ortiz a plaque calling him the greatest clutch hitter in Red Sox history, and isn't his baseball judgment above the questioning of us internet geeks?

 

He has a lot of hits in big moments - now does that mean you can make a meaningful evaluation of hitters in just those circumstances? No. After all, Ortiz is the best recent Red Sox hitter in non-clutch situations too.

[Kimmi]

I understand. All I'm saying is, if a guy's game can be that damaged by being uncomfortable where he's playing -obviously a mental issue- I don't think it's a great stretch to also believe that some guys will be more affected than others by pressure situations. Just my opinion.

 

 

Mental issues absolutely affect performance. No one is debating that.

[sk7326]

I'm glad to see Victorino is back to switch hitting. I'd say he will start in RF and until he gets hurt then Nava and Craig will be the lefty/righty matchups until mid season when Castillo is ready and takes over. Then one of Vic, Craig, or Nava gets traded. Vic has more value as a switch hitter instead of just hitting right handed. I see all these reports about one of the outfielders being traded fade away as soon as someone on the team gets hurt. That way Cafardo won't have to speculate trades to get a story out there.

 

Disagree here - you look at his last seasons pre Boston, he was a terrible hitter from the left side. Mozel tov to him, but taking at bats from his stronger side is alarming.

[Bellhorn04]

I'm not trying to hate on Ortiz, but take a look at his postseason numbers by year. Yes, he has had some monster postseasons. He has also had postseasons with the following slash lines:

 

.276/.276/.379

.191/.283/.362

.186/.327/.349

.083/.083/.083

 

So what is happening in those postseasons? Where is the clutch?

 

Hey, now some of those really were small samples.

 

Here's what I think: it's impossible to be a clutch hitter all the time. Pitchers have the advantage and major league pitchers are really really good.

 

All I'm contending is that Ortiz is more clutch than average. And Bagwell and Swisher were less clutch than average.

[cp176]

There you go. Henry signs Bill James's cheques and yet he gives a plaque for clutch hitting. Case closed, I'd say.

 

I am reinvented. Imagine the big boss using everything he can to improve and still recognizing that the proverbial coin has two sides. I bet he is very happy to have a guy like Bill James around. Keeps him from having to obsess over the data.

[User Name]

Hey, now some of those really were small samples.

 

Here's what I think: it's impossible to be a clutch hitter all the time. Pitchers have the advantage and major league pitchers are really really good.

 

All I'm contending is that Ortiz is more clutch than average. And Bagwell and Swisher were less clutch than average.

 

"Clutch" does not exist. That is the point, that it's not a repeatable skill. Even more so, if you want to prove it exists, find me a statistically significant sample of below-average hitters who hit like All-stars in pressure situations.

 

What you have are guys who underperform or overperform in pressure situations, but not by a significant enough sample to make the myth of "clutch" a reality, specially in baseball, where the only constant for hitters is that they will fail most of the time.

 

Also, where's the "clutch" for pitchers then?

[Bellhorn04]

"Clutch" does not exist. That is the point, that it's not a repeatable skill. Even more so, if you want to prove it exists, find me a statistically significant sample of below-average hitters who hit like All-stars in pressure situations.

 

What you have are guys who underperform or overperform in pressure situations, but not by a significant enough sample to make the myth of "clutch" a reality, specially in baseball, where the only constant for hitters is that they will fail most of the time.

 

Also, where's the "clutch" for pitchers then?

 

Clutch for pitchers = Curt Schilling.

 

My methodology is admittedly very primitive. All I do is compare postseason to regular season.

 

I'd like to know more about how regular season 'clutch situations' are determined. Is there any weight given to the importance of the game?

 

If clutch/not clutch is a myth, how do we explain Ortiz's postseason numbers vs. Bagwell's? Small sample for Bagwell, I suppose.

[User Name]

Clutch for pitchers = Curt Schilling.

 

My methodology is admittedly very primitive. All I do is compare postseason to regular season.

 

I'd like to know more about how regular season 'clutch situations' are determined. Is there any weight given to the importance of the game?

 

If clutch/not clutch is a myth, how do we explain Ortiz's postseason numbers vs. Bagwell's? Small sample for Bagwell, I suppose.

 

Again, as I posted above, you get people who perform above or below their career averages in pressure situations. But "clutch" would imply not only a repeatable skill, but a statistically significant sample to prove. It's not possible to present either.

 

Again, where are the crappy hitters performing like All-Stars in pressure situations? You're only presenting HOF caliber hitters. One who has succeeded, and one who hasn't in a SSS and with failing health.

[mvp 78]

Luck is a ******** excuse for losers like Billy Beane. Clutch exists. Some players rise to the occasion (Ortiz), while sone shrink from it (Nomar). Just because it's hard to quantify doesn't mean it's imaginary.

[iortiz]

Clutch for pitchers = Curt Schilling.

 

My methodology is admittedly very primitive. All I do is compare postseason to regular season.

 

I'd like to know more about how regular season 'clutch situations' are determined. Is there any weight given to the importance of the game?

 

If clutch/not clutch is a myth, how do we explain Ortiz's postseason numbers vs. Bagwell's? Small sample for Bagwell, I suppose.

How many clutch situations will a player face in a regular season? Very few, I would say. So... Your approach is ok to me since the environment most of the times in a PO game is always under pressure and could recreate a clutch situation every time when a player is AB. The clutch situations happen time to time and while you need skills to perform well at those situations, I think that some players can handle better those kind of situations. As for pitchers, closers are always in that kind of environments and only one of two in a BP staff can handle those levels of pressure regardless they are good or not.... Look at 2013 Red Sox, asaide Koji, who else could close among those good arms? No one. They even gave him the ball a couple of times in the 8th in PO since the "clutch" situations and pressure involved was too much.

Edited March 4, 2015 by iortiz

[User Name]

Luck is a ******** excuse for losers like Billy Beane. Clutch exists. Some players rise to the occasion (Ortiz), while sone shrink from it (Nomar). Just because it's hard to quantify doesn't mean it's imaginary.

 

Rising to the occasion or shrinking on it is exactly what it is. The problem is with the "clutch" terminology. You can quantify a guy who exceeds expectations, or one who shrinks under them, but not the mythical creature known as "clutch". Also, denying the luck factor in baseball is like trying to deny the existence of dinosaurs. See, that's the beautiful thing about facts, they are true whether we want to believe in it or not, and the fact is that luck plays a significant factor in performance within limited samples.

 

Let me ask you a question: Do you think Xander Bogaerts is "unclutch"?

[seabeachfred]

He has a lot of hits in big moments - now does that mean you can make a meaningful evaluation of hitters in just those circumstances? No. After all, Ortiz is the best recent Red Sox hitter in non-clutch situations too.

 

Hell sk, even great hitters fail in the clutch a good deal of the time. The key in my opinion is the player(s) who keep failing to get that big hit time after time until the record shows a consistent one of failure. Papi doesn't always get that big it----he gets a decent amount of the time, while others don't seem to be able to. Scouts and coaches notice that.

[User Name]

How many clutch situations will a player face in a regular season? Very few, I would say. So... Your approach is ok to me since the environment most of the times in a PO game is always under pressure and could recreate a clutch situation every time when a player is AB. The clutch situations happen time to time and while you need skills to perform well at those situations, I think that some players can handle better those kind of situations. As for pitchers, closers are always in that kind of environments and only one of two in a BP staff can handle those levels of pressure regardless they are good or not.... Look at 2013 Red Sox, asaide Koji, who else could close among those good arms? No one. They even gave him the ball a couple of times in the 8th in PO since the "clutch" situations and pressure involved was too much.

 

You are just wrong on pretty much everything here except for two things: Pressure matters, and it's true that some pitchers/hitters can't handle it. But your continued incorrect assessment that closers are the only BP pitchers who can handle pressure is so wrong it makes me want to punch a kitten. It's wrong, you're wrong. Setup men face as much pressure as closers do, and are a lot of the time better pitchers than the closer itself. The only reason the closer myth persists is because of archaic thinking like this.

 

Number two, aren't you a stats guy who claims to have invented a model for accurate predictions? If so, how can you accept a statistically insignificant sample as the basis for anything? Stop.

[iortiz]

Luck is a ******** excuse for losers like Billy Beane. Clutch exists. Some players rise to the occasion (Ortiz), while sone shrink from it (Nomar). Just because it's hard to quantify doesn't mean it's imaginary.

Yup, and is like saying that regular pressure faced in the 9th is just as the 4th, every single game.

[User Name]

To summarize:

 

You get guys who rise up to occasions and guys who soil their pants in pressure situations. These are quantifiable through data, or appraisable through observation.

 

But "clutch" entails, by definition, a skill. But "clutch" can't be a measurable skill because it's not repeatable.

 

This is mostly an argument about semantics, but the point is, that "clutch" by its standard definition, does not exist. It just doesn't.

[Bellhorn04]

Again, as I posted above, you get people who perform above or below their career averages in pressure situations. But "clutch" would imply not only a repeatable skill, but a statistically significant sample to prove. It's not possible to present either.

 

Again, where are the crappy hitters performing like All-Stars in pressure situations? You're only presenting HOF caliber hitters. One who has succeeded, and one who hasn't in a SSS and with failing health.

 

Hendu Henderson?

 

Reg season OPS .756

Postseason OPS .946

[sk7326]

Luck is a ******** excuse for losers like Billy Beane. Clutch exists. Some players rise to the occasion (Ortiz), while sone shrink from it (Nomar). Just because it's hard to quantify doesn't mean it's imaginary.

 

Nomar was a bleepin' monster in 1998 and 1999 postseasons - 2003 ordinary. So I'm not sure that's a conclusive statement either.

 

Luck and health are facts of any postseason - it's not fun to chock up things to it, but there you go. And besides, big occasions are a function of good teams (usually) as much as anything. I don't think the argument is even that clutch exists/doesn't exist. I'm a fan - it sure as hell exists to me when I watch.

 

But there has not been a definition of those situation which meaningfully separate hitters or pitchers in a way that is siginificantly different from those players rank in general. The extreme cases largely do not exist ... the guy who is Nicky Punto 90% of the time but magically turns into 2004 Barry Bonds in the 8th inning with the tying run on base (and if he did, you'd ask whether he was asleep during the Nicky Punto times).

[User Name]

Hendu Henderson?

 

Reg season OPS .756

Postseason OPS .946

 

121 AB's.

[Spudboy]

Clutch is just one word used to describe something good happening in a key moment.

[Bellhorn04]

You are just wrong on pretty much everything here except for two things: Pressure matters, and it's true that some pitchers/hitters can't handle it. But your continued incorrect assessment that closers are the only BP pitchers who can handle pressure is so wrong it makes me want to punch a kitten. It's wrong, you're wrong. Setup men face as much pressure as closers do, and are a lot of the time better pitchers than the closer itself. The only reason the closer myth persists is because of archaic thinking like this.

 

I mostly agree. As you pointed out earlier, the 8th inning guy will often be the one who has to get through the heart of the order, so in those cases he has the tougher assignment.

 

The only thing I would point out is that all other things being equal, the leverage in the 9th inning is a bit highet than the leverage in the 8th.

[sk7326]

On this note, the ability to have a good season is built almost entirely on un-clutch moments, boring Tuesdays in front of fans looking at their smartphones and trying to get on the Dance-Cam. I'd be worried if a dude is dialed in only during TV friendly times (that'd be a frontrunner).

[Bellhorn04]

121 AB's.

 

Again I perish on the rocks of small samples.

[User Name]

Hendu Henderson?

 

Reg season OPS .756

Postseason OPS .946

 

Baseball reference has a "leverage" calculator for regular season situations:

 

If you want an actual example of a guy whose mid/high leverage stats trump his low leverage situation stats, well, David Ortiz:

 

Low 900 OPS

Mid 945 OPS

High 946 OPS

 

But what exactly does this prove? It proves that he's a guy who doesn't wilt under the spotlight, but you still can't present the argument that he's "clutch", because it's not a repeteable skill.

 

For the sake of argument, let's look at Bagwell, who you've made out to be "un-clutch" because of his failures in the postseason:

 

Low .938

Med .943

High .981

 

This is a guy who consistently played "up" to big moments and contribute to wins for the Astros, but all of it is dismissed because of the arbitrary idea of "clutch" assignment.

[User Name]

I mostly agree. As you pointed out earlier, the 8th inning guy will often be the one who has to get through the heart of the order, so in those cases he has the tougher assignment.

 

The only thing I would point out is that all other things being equal, the leverage in the 9th inning is a bit highet than the leverage in the 8th.

 

But the closer doesn't pitch every 9th inning of every close game.