What will be the 2017 greatest weakness for the Sox?

[a700hitter]

You know I'm right. Hence, the resorting to name calling.

I am not calling you a name. You are acting paranoid, where if people don't agree with you, you have to label them as something. In this case, it is "anti-stat."

[a700hitter]

And to your grandchildren, who are experiencing the tooth fairy, the tooth fairy is very real.

 

But alas, it's all a mirage.

Specious argument if you are trying to bolster you argument on clutch.

[cp176]

Kimmi - this is a legit question for you. You might know the answer and if you don't you probably know someone who does. What if anything to do the people that you call "stat geeks" think of the study of pscho cybernetics? do they respect it as having value? It is a practice that is and has been used for a quite some time.

[a700hitter]

Well, that would be like half the league.

Has anyone claimed that it was a small group? But I would disagree that half the league doesn't get affected by pressure in big spots. Major leaguers are not robots.

[cp176]

And to your grandchildren, who are experiencing the tooth fairy, the tooth fairy is very real.

 

But alas, it's all a mirage.

 

 

It does kind of sound like you think it is a mirage. Not to me. It is very real.

[Kimmi]

I surely do think that you would see more tendencies toward these types of things at the lower levels but I don't think that a player's skill level necessarily tells me whether they will come up big or not at any level all the time. I just believe that we can't provide data to determine everything. You might not agree with me and that is ok. It also doesn't mean that I don't appreciate and understand the value of using every piece of information that we can get our hands on to help us. I do. I also think that it is very true that many of the greatest games are won and lost because of what someone has between their ears and I think that it is pretty tough to measure that.

 

I agree with that statement. One of the things that makes Papi so good is that he is a smart hitter. My contention is that those types of players are great and smart players all the time though, not just in clutch moments.

[notin]

No one has ever experienced the tooth fairy. People who have played the game and coached have experienced clutch/choking can describe what it is. Maybe they can define it. I have never asked them for a definition.

 

Maybe they have. But then maybe it's just a redundant label. When a great hitter comes through in a big situation, is he bring "clutch" or being a great hitter?

[Kimmi]

Kimmi - this is a legit question for you. You might know the answer and if you don't you probably know someone who does. What if anything to do the people that you call "stat geeks" think of the study of pscho cybernetics? do they respect it as having value? It is a practice that is and has been used for a quite some time.

 

I don't know what they think of psycho cybernetics specifically, but from everything I've read, the stat geeks have a great deal of respect for the mental and emotional side of the game. They do not dismiss the human element, contrary to what many people believe.

 

I will have to look into it a little more, but for now, it's bedtime.

[a700hitter]

Maybe they have. But then maybe it's just a redundant label. When a great hitter comes through in a big situation, is he bring "clutch" or being a great hitter?

It could be a redundant label. A great player can be clutch, but a lesser player can be clutch too. And both types of players can choke too.

[cp176]

I don't know what they think of psycho cybernetics specifically, but from everything I've read, the stat geeks have a great deal of respect for the mental and emotional side of the game. They do not dismiss the human element, contrary to what many people believe.

 

I will have to look into it a little more, but for now, it's bedtime.

 

for me too but I have o leave you with this. I made a birdie putt today on 17 that saved me a great deal of $. I should not necessarily have made the putt but I willed it in!

[a700hitter]

for me too but I have o leave you with this. I made a birdie putt today on 17 that saved me a great deal of $. I should not necessarily have made the putt but I willed it in!

You had it the whole way. You felt it. I know what you mean. Edited February 9, 2017 by a700hitter

[Bellhorn04]

But is it choking if a pitcher's ineffective outing in the post-season is because the long season simply wore him out?

 

That would be a more satisfactory explanation for David Price's postseason issues than RASSS. (Randomness and Small Sample Size)

[Bellhorn04]

Speaking of Price, I just read that he joked on Twitter that he's the guy who stole Brady's jersey and he's going to sleep with it every night so Brady's greatness rubs off on him. Full marks for sense of humor.

[Bellhorn04]

Speaking again of Price, the Blue Jays tried some controversial and perhaps downright weird things with him for the 2015 postseason. Because they skipped his last start, he was off between September 26 and October 8. Because they used him in relief on October 12, his second postseason start didn't come until October 17. So he only started once between September 26 and October 17.

[S5Dewey]

Against stats in general? No.

 

Against what the stat geeks are doing in terms of research on topics like clutch and against some of the advanced stats? Absolutely.

 

You know what I'm talking about. Don't play semantics with me just to argue.

 

And my point still stands, here and elsewhere.

 

Why would stat geeks spend time doing research on topics like clutch? Could anyone believe the conclusions they reach when it's known that they're going into it with the belief it doesn't exist?

In addition, haven't we already decided that if it does exist then it's not measurable?

[moonslav59]

Why would stat geeks spend time doing research on topics like clutch? Could anyone believe the conclusions they reach when it's known that they're going into it with the belief it doesn't exist?

In addition, haven't we already decided that if it does exist then it's not measurable?

 

Why do stat deniers worry about the motives of stat geeks?

[S5Dewey]

Why do stat deniers worry about the motives of stat geeks?

 

Because it's human nature that if a person goes into a situation "knowing" what the outcome will be they won't have much trouble proving what they already "know".

[cp176]

Why do stat deniers worry about the motives of stat geeks?

 

Do they really Moon? Who are the stat deniers? It does kind of look to me like if you question anything that has been even suggested by someone who fashions themselves to be a "stat geek", then you obviously must disagree with everything related to stat compilation in general. That is not true . I really don't know anyone who questions the importance of the work done by the people who are immersed in stat analytics. Not accepting everything that gets thrown at you does not necessarily mean that you belong in a group labelled - the opposition. What actually is a "stat geek"?

[a700hitter]

Why do stat deniers worry about the motives of stat geeks?

Stat deniers. How absurd.

[a700hitter]

Do they really Moon? Who are the stat deniers? It does kind of look to me like if you question anything that has been even suggested by someone who fashions themselves to be a "stat geek", then you obviously must disagree with everything related to stat compilation in general. That is not true . I really don't know anyone who questions the importance of the work done by the people who are immersed in stat analytics. Not accepting everything that gets thrown at you does not necessarily mean that you belong in a group labelled - the opposition. What actually is a "stat geek"?

I think "stat geek" is a label they bestow upon themselves and they like to give derogatory labels to everyone with whom they disagree.

[moonslav59]

Because it's human nature that if a person goes into a situation "knowing" what the outcome will be they won't have much trouble proving what they already "know".

 

You didn't answer my question.

[moonslav59]

Who are the stat deniers?

 

It was tongue and cheek.

 

As was maybe the "stathead" comment.

[a700hitter]

You didn't answer my question.

And you didn't answer his question. He asked his first.

[a700hitter]

Who are the stat deniers?

 

It was tongue and cheek.

 

As was maybe the "stathead" comment.

Stathead is not derogatory. if you prefer "geek", we can go with that. I would have thought that calling someone a geek might be derogatory.

[S5Dewey]

You didn't answer my question.

 

The question was... Why do stat deniers worry about the motives of stat geeks?

 

I thought I'd answered the question but I'll expound on it a bit.

 

If a person who knows the outcome of a research before he starts it his "motive" will be to prove himself right - much like a poster who can do research to find you an orange elephant if it "proves" his point.

 

Every so-called "stat-geek" I've seen here has already questioned even the possibility that "clutch" could exist - although some have back-peddled away from that position a bit - so I have to question their objectivity and therefore their results.

 

I strongly question the stance that since something can't be proven mathematically the conclusion is that it doesn't exist.

[moonslav59]

And you didn't answer his question. He asked his first.

 

Because the question does not pertain to me.

[moonslav59]

The question was... Why do stat deniers worry about the motives of stat geeks?

 

I thought I'd answered the question but I'll expound on it a bit.

 

If a person who knows the outcome of a research before he starts it his "motive" will be to prove himself right - much like a poster who can do research to find you an orange elephant if it "proves" his point.

 

Every so-called "stat-geek" I've seen here has already questioned even the possibility that "clutch" could exist - although some have back-peddled away from that position a bit - so I have to question their objectivity and therefore their results.

 

I strongly question the stance that since something can't be proven mathematically the conclusion is that it doesn't exist.

 

For one thing, it's always hard to prove something doesn't exist.

 

Secondly, I think assuming "stat geeks" or "statheads" go into data to prove what they already know is not true for me. I have been turned around on some of my belief because the data shows I was wrong (like Nomar being a plus fielder for one).

 

Another assumption implied by some posters is that statheads never played the game or can't understand the intricacies of psychological or emotional factors involved in the game.

 

I consider myself a person that uses stats a lot. I've been called a stathead and other names. I believe in God, even though his existence can't be proven.

 

I'm not going to try and speak for others, but I think I explained my position very clearly in both difficult and simplistic forms, but often these types of debates get bogged down over semantics: What is "Clutch"? What is "proof" What is a "valid sample size"?

 

Personally, I do not think any baseball player's sample size is large enough to definitively say, so and so "is clutch" or "a choke". There are just not enough moments in a player's career that are truly super important. Maybe, I'm too tight on my definition for clutch, but I've never criticized anyone for having a larger umbrella. That is what I meant, when I said, "There is no clutch"...meaning there is no player that can definitively be called "clutch".

 

Of course there is "clutch" in terms of an event, such as, "Papi sure had a clutch hit in that game!" In that sense, it exists, but not in the way I see some people use it (and "choke"). I know this position is not shared by many, and I'm sure many posters who deny there is such a thing as clutch view it differently than I.

 

The other main reason, I do not feel you can label a player "clutch" or "choke" comes down to the "random" argument that in itself is fraught with misinterpretations and differences in semantics. I'm not the one spouting studies on the nonexistence of "clutch", but I have read that when you take the actual results of players in clutch situations chart and compare them to a random generated results chart, they look almost identical. To me, this does not prove mental toughness has no role in being clutch or just being a better hitter overall and in general, but it does show that it is virtually impossible to prove that Papi is clutch because of some added "under pressure" skill he has that others do not. One could argue that he is just that player shown on the random generated chart that exceeded all others. It's just not something that can ever unequivocally be proven.

 

I admit, saying that this mean "Clutch does not exist" was misleading and open to misinterpretation, but I do believe it is impossible to know with certainty that Papi was clutch. The guy was amazing when not clutch. The guy hit better than just about anyone. It should be expected he'd hit about the same "in the clutch" and he did.... just about the same. The fact that others hit worse and much worse than he did "in the clutch" vs in the "non clutch still does not prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

I do agree that not being able to prove something does not mean it does not exist, but in this case, I do believe no baseball player can be definitively called "clutch". So in that sense, it does not exist.

 

Did Papi do well "in the clutch"? Hell, yeah! Manny, too. Beckett for a while.

 

 

 

You're right though, opposite sides of any argument can dig up some data that supposedly "proves" their position is correct, when we all think opposite positions cannot both be true. I try to avoid that by sticking to the same measures I feel are worthy consistently across the board when evaluating players or arguments.

 

Take the Bogey defense issue. I clearly have a bias for great SS defense. I know that. I was fooled by Nomar's flash plays in the hole. I looked at his numbers and saw something different. I then began to watch Nomar more closely, and how other SSs handled balls hit at about the same speed and in about the same place and saw that most did not need "flash" to make the play routine. My eyes had been tricked. Plus, seeing Nomar for 162 games a year and others for just 3-18 games a year made it tough to be objective.

 

I was down on Bogey's D at the start. I doubted he could ever reach average on defense. His 2015 season showed me I was wrong. He looked pretty close to average that year, and I was tickled pink and glad to be wrong. I was hopeful he'd make it to slightly plus in 2016, but he actually looked worse...maybe even worse than 2013-2014. Now, I'm not so sure. But, you know what? I purposely did not look at Bogey's UZR/150 numbers in 2016, until at least half way into the season. My eyes told me he regressed, and when I looked, the data supported my observations. That does not always happen, and I for one, don't go and try to hunt down other stats to show my initial position was right. I don't mind being wrong.

[cp176]

Who is responsible for this? Spud?

[Kimmi]

Why would stat geeks spend time doing research on topics like clutch? Could anyone believe the conclusions they reach when it's known that they're going into it with the belief it doesn't exist?

In addition, haven't we already decided that if it does exist then it's not measurable?

 

I think you have the wrong impression of what stat geeks are trying to do. Baseball stat geeks do not go into anything with the intent of proving 'their side'. They do all of their research in an attempt to answer questions and to better understand the game, not to prove that traditional thinking is wrong. They would be just as satisfied proving that clutch does exist.

 

People have talked about the notion of clutch for a long time and have accepted it as a phenomenon that exists. Stat geeks want to see whether such a phenomenon indeed does exist by seeing if it can be quantified with any statistical significance. They are simply looking for answers.

 

To date, they have not found an evidence that clutch exists. At the same time, they have fully acknowledged that they have not proven that it doesn't exist. They are not going to accept that clutch exists simply because people say that it does. At the same time, they are not going to accept that it doesn't exist when they haven't proven that it doesn't. And so, they will keep trying to find the answer.

 

If clutch exists, it will be measurable through the player's performance.

[Kimmi]

Because it's human nature that if a person goes into a situation "knowing" what the outcome will be they won't have much trouble proving what they already "know".

 

But that is not the case.