Clutch vs non-clutch

[sk7326]

I will have to look more into the topic of clutch pitching.

 

Clutch pitching is a bit twofold to me - and it really depends on definition and such

 

- For starting pitchers, I tend to believe in a version of clutch pitching. The numbers "with runners on" is meaningful - not so much for the clutch thing - but because the pitcher is working out of the stretch, a meaningful mechanical difference. Working from the stretch is a separate skill.

 

- For closers, largely no. We've been over this a lot. It is why the marginal utlity of a "9th inning guy" is for the most part, pretty low.

 

There is also a ton of noise when dealing with bullpen guys. There is strong statistical evidence that pitchers have a meaningful edge the first time a hitter sees him in a game compared to subsequent looks. That edge creates a lot of value inherently. (and it's why failed starters - who largely cannot turn lineups over - can often become great relievers) There is no doubt that keeping your nerves in a tough situation is a big deal - but for the most part with bullpen guys the numbers won't help that much. Very few relievers sustain performance - it's why a kitchen sink approach to bullpen construction is sensible.

[Kimmi]

I haven't read the comments yet but I will. As for the article itself, frankly I think that to the average fan it comes across as a bunch of unintelligible statistical mumbo-jumbo.

 

Really? I thought it was one of the more simplistic and straightforward articles on the topic. If nothing else, the scatter plots by themselves pretty much tell you everything you need to know.

 

Mumbo jumbo aside, it's still a pretty convincing article.

[Kimmi]

Clutch pitching is a bit twofold to me - and it really depends on definition and such

 

- For starting pitchers, I tend to believe in a version of clutch pitching. The numbers "with runners on" is meaningful - not so much for the clutch thing - but because the pitcher is working out of the stretch, a meaningful mechanical difference. Working from the stretch is a separate skill.

 

- For closers, largely no. We've been over this a lot. It is why the marginal utlity of a "9th inning guy" is for the most part, pretty low.

 

There is also a ton of noise when dealing with bullpen guys. There is strong statistical evidence that pitchers have a meaningful edge the first time a hitter sees him in a game compared to subsequent looks. That edge creates a lot of value inherently. (and it's why failed starters - who largely cannot turn lineups over - can often become great relievers) There is no doubt that keeping your nerves in a tough situation is a big deal - but for the most part with bullpen guys the numbers won't help that much. Very few relievers sustain performance - it's why a kitchen sink approach to bullpen construction is sensible.

 

Always a pleasure to read your posts sk.

 

Good point about pitchers working from the stretch using a separate skill.

 

I agree with everything you posted about the bullpen guys.

 

There is strong evidence that most pitchers, even the best ones, should not face a lineup the 3rd time through.

[Bellhorn04]

Really? I thought it was one of the more simplistic and straightforward articles on the topic. If nothing else, the scatter plots by themselves pretty much tell you everything you need to know.

 

Mumbo jumbo aside, it's still a pretty convincing article.

 

'Scatter plots', exactly: that's statistical mumbo-jumbo to the average fan. Statistics can be a fairly esoteric discipline. I'm not criticizing it, I'm just trying to explain why the average fan doesn't accept certain points of the baseball research articles. It's too much for them like reading scientific journals.

[Bellhorn04]

I'm an accountant, and I have this one particular client who's kind of old-school. When I get to a certain point in our tax discussions he always says something to the effect of 'the mumbo-jumbo part'. I just laugh and agree with him, because some of the tax rules really are just mumbo-jumbo that most people should not be expected to understand.

[Slasher9]

Stats can be used/tweaked/extrapolated to prove or disprove whatever you want them to.

we all know Clutch exists in baseball. even if you dont want to admit it. you know it is true.

you know it is a trait for certain players. you know it is not a trait in certain players.

Clutch exists.

[User Name]

Do you know what a fact actually is?

 

I don't think you do.

[sk7326]

Stats can be used/tweaked/extrapolated to prove or disprove whatever you want them to.

we all know Clutch exists in baseball. even if you dont want to admit it. you know it is true.

you know it is a trait for certain players. you know it is not a trait in certain players.

Clutch exists.

 

Clutch exists for baseball fans - and obviously for some players ... but what is it and how do you describe in a way that is meaningful (and thus something which you can scout for or measure). Those answers have largely been elusive.

[Emp9]

I usually stay out of these Clutch threads. I've never found the topic THAT compelling. I think Clutch CAN exist. Whether it's repeatable or not seems like a whole 'nother topic though. Maybe there should be some kind of Clutch Rating system? One that focuses on players with a history of big hits in important situations in big games that have more consequences than others? Maybe the term "Clutch" rubs people the wrong way? I'm not particularly fond of the term 'Save', so I guess I can relate.

[Slasher9]

Do you know what a fact actually is?

 

I don't think you do.

 

it depends. do you mean a fact? or an alternative fact believed by 37%?

actually, I know what both are so I will have to say yes. Yes I know what a fact actually is.

it's a word. just like clutch.

[User Name]

No, a fact is something definable and demonstrable.

 

You can't just show up and say "This is what it is because I said so". At least make a compelling point, like Kimmi.

[mvp 78]

David Ortiz has a plaque that declares him to be the greatest clutch hitter in Red Sox history. That is a fact. Whether it was done that way as a magical invocation is up for debate.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_(paranormal)#Magical_language

[sk7326]

David Ortiz has a plaque that declares him to be the greatest clutch hitter in Red Sox history. That is a fact. Whether it was done that way as a magical invocation is up for debate.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_(paranormal)#Magical_language

 

(plaque tactfully avoids 2009-2010)

[User Name]

David Ortiz has a plaque that declares him to be the greatest clutch hitter in Red Sox history. That is a fact. Whether it was done that way as a magical invocation is up for debate.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_(paranormal)#Magical_language

 

That has literally nothing to do with the whether the magical skill known as clutch actually exists. Trump is claiming Obama wiretapped him in his tower. Without proof, can you claim without a shadow of a doubt that it's true?

 

By your logic, we should re-sign Matsuzaka so we can see some more gyroballs! Another mythical construct of the Sox PR team no one can prove.

[Bellhorn04]

(plaque tactfully avoids 2009-2010)

 

Even if you're clutch, you're human, and baseball is hard.

[a700hitter]

Even if you're clutch, you're human, and baseball is hard.

Yep, and translating the "hard" portion of your statement, the margin for error is very very small. Even the slightest effect from nerves can make the most steely nerved professional fail.

[mvp 78]

That has literally nothing to do with the whether the magical skill known as clutch actually exists. Trump is claiming Obama wiretapped him in his tower. Without proof, can you claim without a shadow of a doubt that it's true?

 

By your logic, we should re-sign Matsuzaka so we can see some more gyroballs! Another mythical construct of the Sox PR team no one can prove.

 

You have literally no idea how magical language works.

[User Name]

I got your point, ginger David Blaine.

[mvp 78]

I got your point, ginger David Blaine.

 

It appears my magicks are working!

[User Name]

It's the magnificent ginger beard.

[Bellhorn04]

Does mvp have the Craig Kimbrel look?

[a700hitter]

Does mvp have the Craig Kimbrel look?

Does he belly up to the dinner table with his utensil arm hanging like Kimbrel's right arm. That is what I would want to know.

[mvp 78]

My beard is fuller and less pointy than Kimbrel's.

[Bellhorn04]

My beard is fuller and less pointy than Kimbrel's.

 

Excellent, excellent.

[Spudboy]

Does mvp have the Craig Kimbrel look?

 

No. Kimbrel's ginger beard is wild and incomplete.

 

Not so with MVP. He is more Smith Brothers than Kimbrel.

[mvp 78]

No. Kimbrel's ginger beard is wild and incomplete.

 

Not so with MVP. He is more Smith Brothers than Kimbrel.

 

Yes, that's because I use beard butter and a sandalwood beard comb.

[S5Dewey]

The argument as to whether a player is clutch or not has been defined to be binary - either a player is clutch or he isn't. Unfortunately baseball doesn't work that way. Regardless of the situation the failure rate is much higher than the success rate. David Ortiz, "the greatest clutch hitter in Red Sox history" didn't come through every time - and yet he's being known as "clutch". The year Ted Williams hit .406 he allegedly passed on the chance to sit out the last game and assure himself of that .400+ BA. Do you think there wasn't any pressure there for him to get hits in that game? His response was clutch.

 

Using the "Pass/Fail" method to determine clutch is patently unfair in that it doesn't account for normalcy. If a player fails just once in a clutch situation statisticians will (rightfully) use that one AB as evidence that the player isn't clutch by the statisticians definition of clutch. "If he were truly clutch he would have gotten a hit that other time. Since he didn't get that hit he's not clutch". That's hogwash.

 

Even "Late and close" doesn't define clutch since many clutch situations happen when a game isn't "late and close". In fact, a clutch hit early in the game can often times be the reason a game isn't close late.

 

Some things aren't statistically quantifiable because they don't take into account unknown variables like a player's emotional/mental state at the time. Some things just ARE and should be accepted as such.

[mvp 78]

The Greatest Clutch Hitter in the History of the Boston Red Sox, David Ortiz, #34.

 

The Greatest Clutch Hitter in the History of the Boston Red Sox, David Ortiz, #34.

 

The Greatest Clutch Hitter in the History of the Boston Red Sox, David Ortiz, #34.

 

The Greatest Clutch Hitter in the History of the Boston Red Sox, David Ortiz, #34.

 

The Greatest Clutch Hitter in the History of the Boston Red Sox, David Ortiz, #34.

 

The Greatest Clutch Hitter in the History of the Boston Red Sox, David Ortiz, #34.

 

The Greatest Clutch Hitter in the History of the Boston Red Sox, David Ortiz, #34.

 

The Greatest Clutch Hitter in the History of the Boston Red Sox, David Ortiz, #34.

[User Name]

The argument as to whether a player is clutch or not has been defined to be binary - either a player is clutch or he isn't. Unfortunately baseball doesn't work that way. Regardless of the situation the failure rate is much higher than the success rate. David Ortiz, "the greatest clutch hitter in Red Sox history" didn't come through every time - and yet he's being known as "clutch". The year Ted Williams hit .406 he allegedly passed on the chance to sit out the last game and assure himself of that .400+ BA. Do you think there wasn't any pressure there for him to get hits in that game? His response was clutch.

 

Using the "Pass/Fail" method to determine clutch is patently unfair in that it doesn't account for normalcy. If a player fails just once in a clutch situation statisticians will (rightfully) use that one AB as evidence that the player isn't clutch by the statisticians definition of clutch. "If he were truly clutch he would have gotten a hit that other time. Since he didn't get that hit he's not clutch". That's hogwash.

 

Even "Late and close" doesn't define clutch since many clutch situations happen when a game isn't "late and close". In fact, a clutch hit early in the game can often times be the reason a game isn't close late.

 

Some things aren't statistically quantifiable because they don't take into account unknown variables like a player's emotional/mental state at the time. Some things just ARE and should be accepted as such.

 

An intellectual cop-out for a point that has no merit. It's not that clutch exists but is not quantifiable, it's that the concept itself is hogwash because no one can agree on a definition. You just expanded on the most accepted definition of "clutch" with the psycho mumbo-jumbo.

 

People can't even agree on a definition for it, so why should we believe it exists? It is, again, like Matsuzaka's gyroball: It doesn't actually exist. Players play to their talent level regardless of situation with some notable exceptions. The one thing you can quantify and identify is a choker. That's what it really is: A guy who doesn't consistently choke in big spots. It's not like Ortiz was a replacement level hitter who suddenly transformed into Big Papi in pressure situations. Dude was an all-around MVP caliber hitter.

[S5Dewey]

 

People can't even agree on a definition for it, so why should we believe it exists?

 

Sort of, The problem is that someone else established the definition and then used the data to support the definition.

 

If we can't agree on the definition for it why should we believe it doesn't exist under someone else's definition?