2014 Offseason Thread

[Kimmi]

It makes you wonder how many GMs and managers have ulcers.

 

 

I am truly surprised that I don't have an ulcer from watching baseball games.

[Bellhorn04]

Kimmi, here's something interesting I found looking at Papi's career splits:

 

Tie Game .963 (OPS)

Score Within 1 Run .960

Within 2 Runs .955

Within 3 Runs .946

Within 4 Runs .937

More than 4 Runs .864

 

It's interesting how his OPS drops a bit as the game margin increases, and then drops a lot in one-sided games. It doesn't prove anything, but it does at least suggest that his focus is a bit sharper when the game is closer. In a lot of those one-sided games you're facing the dregs of the other team's staff, too, so you'd think that's where you could really fatten up. But if you've watched a lot of Sox games you do get the feeling in those blowout situations that Papi just wants to hack away and get the at-bat over with, to conserve himself, perhaps.

[jad]

I am truly surprised that I don't have an ulcer from watching baseball games.

 

Ha! You're right on. After the 2004 Yankees series, I swore I would never get so invested again. Now, when games in any sport get unbearably close/tense, I just turn it off, and check the results the next day. I can generally replay it if I'm that interested. (Let the Pink-Hat accusations begin.)

[cp176]

Kimmi, here's something interesting I found looking at Papi's career splits:

 

Tie Game .963 (OPS)

Score Within 1 Run .960

Within 2 Runs .955

Within 3 Runs .946

Within 4 Runs .937

More than 4 Runs .864

 

It's interesting how his OPS drops a bit as the game margin increases, and then drops a lot in one-sided games. It doesn't prove anything, but it does at least suggest that his focus is a bit sharper when the game is closer. In a lot of those one-sided games you're facing the dregs of the other team's staff, too, so you'd think that's where you could really fatten up. But if you've watched a lot of Sox games you do get the feeling in those blowout situations that Papi just wants to hack away and get the at-bat over with, to conserve himself, perhaps.

 

These are interesting observations to me. I believe that the truly great athletes ratchet things about a bit when the game is on the line. The bigger the stage, the bigger the performance. Whether it is done subconsciously or not, who knows.

[a700hitter]

I am sure that all MLB players have 'choked' in some key moments, even Papi. I have seen him look a little too anxious in a big at bat before. Having choked at one point or another does not make one a choker though.

I don't think I called anyone a choker, nor did Tom Boswell in his book. The point Boswell was making backed up by the golfers he spoke with was that they all choke, except in their opinion the remarkable Nicklaus. The key to winning golf was to choke less than the rest of the field. I think that is probably true in baseball as well. A player's abilities to perform obviously are not enhanced in key situations, but the so-called clutch player handles the pressure better than other players. Since baseball involves competition against other players, if the batter handles pressure better than most pitchers handle it, his stats might be better in those situations. His skills didn't get better in those situations. He just handled the pressure better. Player are not robots. If they were robots, they wouldn't suffer prolonged slumps and enjoy tremendous hot streaks. There is an undeniable mental part to the game and it affects performance.

[Kimmi]

Kimmi, here's something interesting I found looking at Papi's career splits:

 

Tie Game .963 (OPS)

Score Within 1 Run .960

Within 2 Runs .955

Within 3 Runs .946

Within 4 Runs .937

More than 4 Runs .864

 

It's interesting how his OPS drops a bit as the game margin increases, and then drops a lot in one-sided games. It doesn't prove anything, but it does at least suggest that his focus is a bit sharper when the game is closer. In a lot of those one-sided games you're facing the dregs of the other team's staff, too, so you'd think that's where you could really fatten up. But if you've watched a lot of Sox games you do get the feeling in those blowout situations that Papi just wants to hack away and get the at-bat over with, to conserve himself, perhaps.

 

 

Interesting Bellhorn. If you look at those numbers year by year, they kind of jump all over the place, except that his OPS in games where the margin is greater than 4 runs if consistently lower than in the other situations. Admittedly, I didn't look at ever year, but I looked at about the last 7. You may have a point about him not being as focused in blowout games.

 

That said, Ortiz' career OPS in 'late and close' situations is .874. Is he not focusing in these situations? Also, his OPS when the team is ahead in games is .951 versus an OPS of .872 when they are behind in games. Doesn't that mean he can only perform in situations when the team is already winning?

 

You know I don't actually believe either of the last two statements that I wrote, but I think they are fair questions.

[Kimmi]

Ha! You're right on. After the 2004 Yankees series, I swore I would never get so invested again. Now, when games in any sport get unbearably close/tense, I just turn it off, and check the results the next day. I can generally replay it if I'm that interested. (Let the Pink-Hat accusations begin.)

 

 

I know exactly what you mean. I have been known to leave the room during some unbearingly tense moments. I will come back 5 minutes later and if the outcome was favorably, I'll rewind and watch it. It doesn't seem like anyone should or could be so invested in a sports team, but I'm guessing most of the people who are rabid enough to post on forums live and die with the Sox.

[Kimmi]

These are interesting observations to me. I believe that the truly great athletes ratchet things about a bit when the game is on the line. The bigger the stage, the bigger the performance. Whether it is done subconsciously or not, who knows.

 

 

Saying that a player can ratchet it up when the game is on the line is indirectly implying that he is not trying that hard or is lazy in other situations. It's almost an insult to a great hitter like Papi. He is not just good in clutch situations, he is good in all situations. If a player can raise his level at will, why wouldn't he do it in every situation?

[Kimmi]

I don't think I called anyone a choker, nor did Tom Boswell in his book. The point Boswell was making backed up by the golfers he spoke with was that they all choke, except in their opinion the remarkable Nicklaus. The key to winning golf was to choke less than the rest of the field. I think that is probably true in baseball as well. A player's abilities to perform obviously are not enhanced in key situations, but the so-called clutch player handles the pressure better than other players. Since baseball involves competition against other players, if the batter handles pressure better than most pitchers handle it, his stats might be better in those situations. His skills didn't get better in those situations. He just handled the pressure better. Player are not robots. If they were robots, they wouldn't suffer prolonged slumps and enjoy tremendous hot streaks. There is an undeniable mental part to the game and it affects performance.

 

I don't agree with the bolded statement. As I've said before, by the time the players reach the majors, they have all shown that they can handle the pressure. The players are performing in the clutch by and large the same way they perform in the non-clutch.

 

I agree completely that mental aspects play a big part in the game and that they affect performance. This is often what separates those that make it to the show versus those that don't.

[Bellhorn04]

That said, Ortiz' career OPS in 'late and close' situations is .874. Is he not focusing in these situations? Also, his OPS when the team is ahead in games is .951 versus an OPS of .872 when they are behind in games. Doesn't that mean he can only perform in situations when the team is already winning?

 

You know I don't actually believe either of the last two statements that I wrote, but I think they are fair questions.

 

I have a possible answer for the 'late and close' number. It may have a lot to do with the pitchers he is facing in those situations. Many times in a late close game, the opposing manager gets his toughest lefty reliever specifically ready for Ortiz.

 

That is one problem with some of these numbers is that they don't factor in 'strength of opposition', IMO.

[Bellhorn04]

I don't agree with the bolded statement. As I've said before, by the time the players reach the majors, they have all shown that they can handle the pressure. The players are performing in the clutch by and large the same way they perform in the non-clutch.

 

I would agree with this as a general principle, but I think there can still be degrees of separation between major league players. We have already talked about some clear cases of certain players not being able to handle the spotlight of a big market team or a big contract as well as others do, irrespective of talent levels.

[Bellhorn04]

If a player can raise his level at will, why wouldn't he do it in every situation?

 

I have a possible answer to this too. The 'ratcheting up' may not be something entirely under the player's control. It may be something that happens at a more subliminal level, an animal level, the flow of adrenalin and all that. It's said that people in extreme situations have found their physical strength increases.

 

I can come up with answers to almost all these questions. My answers may be total BS, of course.

[cp176]

Saying that a player can ratchet it up when the game is on the line is indirectly implying that he is not trying that hard or is lazy in other situations. It's almost an insult to a great hitter like Papi. He is not just good in clutch situations, he is good in all situations. If a player can raise his level at will, why wouldn't he do it in every situation?

 

I will stand by what I said and know that it is true. Never at all did I even imply that anyone wasn't trying or that they were lazy. A lot of wordsmithing and twisting of what has been said I am afraid. The great players have something special about them that allows them to do things in pressure filled situations that others cannot do. Once again I know this is true. Provable - probably not. Give my some math now to show how ridiculous my statement is. I won't be arguing with you. the point I am making is not one that you will give credibility to. That is ok. I wouldn't express mine if i hadn't seen it and lived it.

[a700hitter]

I don't agree with the bolded statement. As I've said before, by the time the players reach the majors, they have all shown that they can handle the pressure. The players are performing in the clutch by and large the same way they perform in the non-clutch.

 

I agree completely that mental aspects play a big part in the game and that they affect performance. This is often what separates those that make it to the show versus those that don't.

And I disagree with your bolded statement. I'll go with what the professional golfers told Boswell. These were some golf pros from the local golf club. These were the top PGA players. Even at the highest level of professional sports, athletes feel the pressure and it affects performance. It doesn't take much to give the other guy an edge. It is a game of inches.

[a700hitter]

I will stand by what I said and know that it is true. Never at all did I even imply that anyone wasn't trying or that they were lazy. A lot of wordsmithing and twisting of what has been said I am afraid. The great players have something special about them that allows them to do things in pressure filled situations that others cannot do. Once again I know this is true. Provable - probably not. Give my some math now to show how ridiculous my statement is. I won't be arguing with you. the point I am making is not one that you will give credibility to. That is ok. I wouldn't express mine if i hadn't seen it and lived it.

The misconception by some people is that the clutch player steps up his game in high pressure situations. I know that I am repeating this from my earlier posts. The clutch player doesn't get better in big spots. His abilities are what they are regardless of the situation. The clutch player is less affected by and handles the pressure better than the other guy. BSN talked about jelly legs on the mound, and that hits the professionals too. If a pitcher is feeling the jelly legs, he is more likely to miss his spot and the clutch hitter will do what he would in the 1st inning or any other non-pressure situation with a fat pitch. He will hit it hard.

 

I have heard Goose Gossage interviewed about facing Yaz in the 1978 one game playoff. He said that his legs were shaking so badly that he thought it was noticeable. Not everyone had Gossage's stuff, even when he had jelly-legs. Yaz said that Gossage had two fast balls -- up and in and down and away. He guessed up and in, but the pitch was down and away and Gossage beat him.

[Kimmi]

I have a possible answer for the 'late and close' number. It may have a lot to do with the pitchers he is facing in those situations. Many times in a late close game, the opposing manager gets his toughest lefty reliever specifically ready for Ortiz.

 

That is one problem with some of these numbers is that they don't factor in 'strength of opposition', IMO.

 

 

That's a fair enough point about strength of opposition. However, all hitters face the same thing. Even a hitter who is not as good as Papi is likely going to face the opposing team's best relievers in late and close situations. Their numbers in those situations do not necessarily drop significantly. The point is, there has been no correlation found that suggests that 'clutch' is a repeatable skill.

 

A lot of the perception that Papi (or any player) is clutch comes from selective memory. When Papi hits a huge walk off HR, we are likely going to remember that. When he pops up with bases loaded, down by 1 run, to end the game, we tend to forget.

[Kimmi]

I have a possible answer to this too. The 'ratcheting up' may not be something entirely under the player's control. It may be something that happens at a more subliminal level, an animal level, the flow of adrenalin and all that. It's said that people in extreme situations have found their physical strength increases.

 

I can come up with answers to almost all these questions. My answers may be total BS, of course.

 

 

And this is why you are so dang annoying. ;-)

 

I don't disagree with the effects of adrenaline and all that. It actually makes sense. Except the numbers don't support that players actually perform any better when that killer animal instinct kicks in.

[Kimmi]

I will stand by what I said and know that it is true. Never at all did I even imply that anyone wasn't trying or that they were lazy. A lot of wordsmithing and twisting of what has been said I am afraid. The great players have something special about them that allows them to do things in pressure filled situations that others cannot do. Once again I know this is true. Provable - probably not. Give my some math now to show how ridiculous my statement is. I won't be arguing with you. the point I am making is not one that you will give credibility to. That is ok. I wouldn't express mine if i hadn't seen it and lived it.

 

 

I am not trying to twist your words cp, nor am I saying that you are calling anyone lazy. I am saying that this is an implication in general. The idea that a player can raise his play to a higher level at will just implies that he is unwilling to do that all the time. It's like the idea of a player having a career year during his contract year. If he can perform that great during a contract year, why not do it all the time? That said, Bellhorn has a valid point about the adrenaline kicking in.

 

I have no doubt that you know baseball and that you have experienced what you have. The majority of the people would agree with you, as you can see by the responses on this board. I know I'm not going to convince you otherwise, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to challenge your statements. I will spare you the numbers. I will only say once again that our eyes will lie to us. We're human. It's one of those human elements of being a fan. ;-)

[Bellhorn04]

A lot of the perception that Papi (or any player) is clutch comes from selective memory. When Papi hits a huge walk off HR, we are likely going to remember that. When he pops up with bases loaded, down by 1 run, to end the game, we tend to forget.

 

But I can't think of any other player since I've been watching baseball that has had more dramatic game-winning hits than Ortiz.

[jacksonianmarch]

Yanks apparently the closest to getting Hamels. Not sure if I would like the price we'd have to pay to get him, but he'd make things a whole lot more stable in our rotation. Also, I like lefties in our park better than lefties at the fens due to death valley

[Kimmi]

And I disagree with your bolded statement. I'll go with what the professional golfers told Boswell. These were some golf pros from the local golf club. These were the top PGA players. Even at the highest level of professional sports, athletes feel the pressure and it affects performance. It doesn't take much to give the other guy an edge. It is a game of inches.

 

 

I have never said that players don't feel pressure at the highest level. Of course they feel pressure. They wouldn't be human if they didn't feel the pressure. I laughed when Koji said he was so nervous he thought he was going to throw up, because I can relate to that, and I'm only a fan. LOL Pressure affects performance, and the pros have learned how to deal with it. So, while pressure might affect performance, there is no discernible difference in the overall stats between high and low pressure situations.

 

What I'm hearing is a lot of anecdotal evidence. Obviously, the anecdotal evidence is going to support your opinion. Show me some concrete evidence that suggests that clutch exists. I can show you tons of it that suggest that it doesn't.

 

That said, I am willing to concede that clutch may exist. But as of now, there is no evidence to support that it does.

[Kimmi]

Yanks apparently the closest to getting Hamels. Not sure if I would like the price we'd have to pay to get him, but he'd make things a whole lot more stable in our rotation. Also, I like lefties in our park better than lefties at the fens due to death valley

 

 

I read that this morning, and I am not happy about this. Not that I want Hamels at Amaro's asking price, but I sure don't want the Yankees having him.

[Kimmi]

But I can't think of any other player since I've been watching baseball that has had more dramatic game-winning hits than Ortiz.

 

 

Honestly, I can't either. I can definitely understand why everyone thinks of him as clutch.

[Bellhorn04]

What I'm hearing is a lot of anecdotal evidence. Obviously, the anecdotal evidence is going to support your opinion. Show me some concrete evidence that suggests that clutch exists. I can show you tons of it that suggest that it doesn't.

 

That said, I am willing to concede that clutch may exist. But as of now, there is no evidence to support that it does.

 

But the analytics people won't use postseason numbers because the samples aren't big enough for them. If they allowed them they'd have to concede that a guy like Ortiz has been exponentially better in the postseason than guys like Bagwell and Swisher and Teixeira, all very strong regular season performers.

[cp176]

I am not trying to twist your words cp, nor am I saying that you are calling anyone lazy. I am saying that this is an implication in general. The idea that a player can raise his play to a higher level at will just implies that he is unwilling to do that all the time. It's like the idea of a player having a career year during his contract year. If he can perform that great during a contract year, why not do it all the time? That said, Bellhorn has a valid point about the adrenaline kicking in.

 

I have no doubt that you know baseball and that you have experienced what you have. The majority of the people would agree with you, as you can see by the responses on this board. I know I'm not going to convince you otherwise, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to challenge your statements. I will spare you the numbers. I will only say once again that our eyes will lie to us. We're human. It's one of those human elements of being a fan. ;-)

 

 

First of all, I would like to say that it is nice to have a debate or arguement, call it what you like, without having it turn nasty or without some hurtful unnecessary comment added at the end of the post. Once again, I enjoy your posts and this back and forth is great. I am learning some things that I did not know which is always good. All that being said, I am not even sure I know what clutch means. Believe it or not, I am the type of person who really needs evidence, solid proof of something before I tend to believe it. In my life though I have to say there have been so many things that have happened for no apparent reason that it makes understanding what is real and what is not sometimes tough to deal with. In the realm of athletics, I have seen many players that just seem to have the ability to perform better than others in high pressure situations. I'm not sure that they outperform what the stats say they should be doing or not, they just seem to be able to get it done. If I did not believe that this happens, I would not love the games. About the lazy part - this should tell you something about me - It still drives me crazy when I watch a player hit what appears to be a routine groundball and then fail to work hard going down that first base line. You see this in every game. I do expect 100% on every play. It is these little things that I think make the big things even possible. Big fan of players like Pedroia here.

[Kimmi]

But the analytics people won't use postseason numbers because the samples aren't big enough for them. If they allowed them they'd have to concede that a guy like Ortiz has been exponentially better in the postseason than guys like Bagwell and Swisher and Teixeira, all very strong regular season performers.

 

 

I understand your frustration with the SSS argument. However, they can't make an argument that is not going to be statistically valid, just because it fits or doesn't fit their opinions. It's not that they're not using it because they would have to concede something. They're not using it because it would not be valid.

 

FTR, it takes 910 ABs for BA to stabilize.

It takes 460 PAs for OBP to stablilize.

It takes 320 ABs for SLG to stabilize.

 

So while it's nice to look at Papi's World Series slash of .455/.576/.795 and say that he is otherworldly clutch, his 44 ABs and 62 PAs are not even close to a large enough sample to be meaningful. That would be like assessing a player based on 2 weeks worth of play. Spread that out over 3 seasons that are 10 years apart, and there's even more noise in those numbers.

 

The analysts have done research on postseason clutch. They get around the small sample argument by looking at data for all players over several years, which gives validity to their findings. I know that that is not going to satisfy you as far as the Ortiz argument goes, but I have some other numbers to throw out at you, so hold on....

[Kimmi]

But the analytics people won't use postseason numbers because the samples aren't big enough for them. If they allowed them they'd have to concede that a guy like Ortiz has been exponentially better in the postseason than guys like Bagwell and Swisher and Teixeira, all very strong regular season performers.

 

 

Ortiz has played in 82 postseason games, about a half a season's worth. He has had 357 PAs and 295 ABs. Still not large enough for the numbers to be completely stabilized, but a fair-sized sample.

 

His numbers are as follows:

 

Career - .285/.379/.547/.926

Postseason - .295/.409/.553/.962

 

There's really not that significant a difference, with the largest difference coming in OBP. That difference in OBP would work out to be about 1 extra time on base each week. Most of those extra times on base come from an increase in being intentionally walked in the postseason.

 

In the postseason, Ortiz has been intentionally walked once every 32.5 PAs. For his career, he has been intentionally walked once every 49.7 PAs. Being intentionally walked makes up a little more than half the difference between postseason and career OBP.

 

Also, in the postseason, he has hit a HR once every 17.4 at bats. For his career, he hits a HR once every 16.3 at bats. His HR rate is lower in the postseason.

 

There is also a stat at Fangraphs called, oddly enough, "Clutch". For the postseason, his Clutch rating is 1.12 and for his career, it is 1.13. Both are very good. However, if you look at the individual seasons, he had more seasons below average in terms of clutch than he had above average. In other words, back to the original point, clutch is not a repeatable skill.

[Kimmi]

First of all, I would like to say that it is nice to have a debate or arguement, call it what you like, without having it turn nasty or without some hurtful unnecessary comment added at the end of the post. Once again, I enjoy your posts and this back and forth is great. I am learning some things that I did not know which is always good. All that being said, I am not even sure I know what clutch means. Believe it or not, I am the type of person who really needs evidence, solid proof of something before I tend to believe it. In my life though I have to say there have been so many things that have happened for no apparent reason that it makes understanding what is real and what is not sometimes tough to deal with. In the realm of athletics, I have seen many players that just seem to have the ability to perform better than others in high pressure situations. I'm not sure that they outperform what the stats say they should be doing or not, they just seem to be able to get it done. If I did not believe that this happens, I would not love the games. About the lazy part - this should tell you something about me - It still drives me crazy when I watch a player hit what appears to be a routine groundball and then fail to work hard going down that first base line. You see this in every game. I do expect 100% on every play. It is these little things that I think make the big things even possible. Big fan of players like Pedroia here.

 

 

Thank you, and I enjoy the back and forth too. My goal, after becoming the stat geek that I aspire to be, is to convert every traditional baseball fan into an analytics believer. LOL Just kidding. As I have said many times, the scouting aspect of the game has as much merit as the analytics side.

 

Part of the problem with the whole clutch debate is the exact definition of the word clutch. Clutch can mean many different things to different people.

 

As far as the 100% effort on every play, I agree. I love players like Pedroia as well.

[Bellhorn04]

Ortiz has played in 82 postseason games, about a half a season's worth. He has had 357 PAs and 295 ABs. Still not large enough for the numbers to be completely stabilized, but a fair-sized sample.

 

His numbers are as follows:

 

Career - .285/.379/.547/.926

Postseason - .295/.409/.553/.962

 

There's really not that significant a difference, with the largest difference coming in OBP. That difference in OBP would work out to be about 1 extra time on base each week. Most of those extra times on base come from an increase in being intentionally walked in the postseason.

 

In the postseason, Ortiz has been intentionally walked once every 32.5 PAs. For his career, he has been intentionally walked once every 49.7 PAs. Being intentionally walked makes up a little more than half the difference between postseason and career OBP.

 

Also, in the postseason, he has hit a HR once every 17.4 at bats. For his career, he hits a HR once every 16.3 at bats. His HR rate is lower in the postseason.

 

 

I will counter with some admittedly raw 'strength of opposition' data.

 

Ortiz has played in 17 postseason series. I tabulated where each of the 17 opposing staffs finished in their league that year in ERA+. The average standing was 4.0 out of an average of 15 teams. This confirms that the overall pitching he was facing was better than what he faced in the regular season. Secondly, the pitching faced in the postseason would be further strengthened by all the off days which allow teams to completely eliminate their #5 starter, and to use their #4 starter probably only twice if they play the maximum number of postseason games. Overall strength of relief pitching would also be increased by the additional days of rest.

 

I would really like to someone tackle some strength of opposition adjustments for the postseason. The data is all there, it wouldn't be that difficult.

[Bellhorn04]

Well, so much for Cliff Lee thoughts. He is reporting soreness in same part of elbow as last year.