MLB: Opening Day!

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Clutch hitters are a myth. They don't exist. Jeter is not the greatest 'clutch' hitter of all time. His team just makes it deep in the playoffs.

By your logic, I hear how 'clutch' Jeter is and therefore he should be getting paid $50m a year, at least.

That is if I believed something like a clutch hitter actually existed.

jeter is not clutch in any sense of the word. i mean, just look at last nite, he struck out with the tieing run on third. clutch hitting is not a myth - its not by chance that you always see great players getting key hits at key moments again and again and again. its what separates them from the good players.

[Imran Siddiqui]

jeter is not clutch in any sense of the word. i mean, just look at last nite, he struck out with the tieing run on third.

And this is why 'clutch' hitters are a big myth. It's TOTALLY based on anecdotal evidence. I'm sure most baseball fans would consider Jeter to be more 'clutch' than Ortiz, but you can't verify it. Some people try to use 'runners in scoring position' or 'close/late', but not only are those based on small sample sizes, but also depends entirely on the hitters you have around you.

It's total BS. Barry Bonds was a 'choaker' because the 2002 World Series. Now, he's a 'clutch' hitter. Such BS.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
By that logic, Ortiz isn't earning his cash because he isn't producing 12 times as much as Adam Dunn (who makes $500,000 a year).

The best thing that happened to the Sox in 2004 was not getting A-rod. Second best thing was losing Garciaparra. Both are overpaid *****es with attitudes.

Stats would be great if we were talking about an individual sport, but we're not.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Stats would be great if we were talking about an individual sport, but we're not.

Baseball is a very individual based sport. It's the pitcher vs. batter. It's the only team sport that isolates a one on one matchup. That's why stats fit baseball like a glove, where it wouldn't for other sports.

Hell, Boston relied on the stat revolution. They even hired Bill James!

[Lawrence of Arabia]

And this is why 'clutch' hitters are a big myth. It's TOTALLY based on anecdotal evidence. I'm sure most baseball fans would consider Jeter to be more 'clutch' than Ortiz, but you can't verify it. Some people try to use 'runners in scoring position' or 'close/late', but not only are those based on small sample sizes, but also depends entirely on the hitters you have around you.

It's total BS. Barry Bonds was a 'choaker' because the 2002 World Series. Now, he's a 'clutch' hitter. Such BS.

no, most baseball fans consider jeter to be a) overrated and b) not clutch. neither of those stats are based on small sample sizes. over the course of a career, you will come up against many of those situations.

bonds wasnt a choker because of the 2002 world series; F-Rod choked.

you ever see gary sheffield get many clutch hits? no, but he bats over .300 consitently, and with power. and why do you think you never see him getting clutch hits? because he is not a clutch player.

he is a steroid user tho.

[Imran Siddiqui]

most baseball fans consider jeter to be a) overrated and b) not clutch.

You need to stop talking to Red Sox fans, LoA.

neither of those stats are based on small sample sizes. over the course of a career, you will come up against many of those situations.

Neither on small sample size?! At best, a player faces close/late 100 ABs a year (at best). That'd be a small sample size. It's closer to 75 ABs a year for most. That's hardly anything.

you ever see gary sheffield get many clutch hits? no, but he bats over .300 consitently, and with power. and why do you think you never see him getting clutch hits? because he is not a clutch player.

Thank you...

Garry Sheffield has a higher OPS in close/late situations over the last 3 years than David Ortiz (1.082 compared with 1.030). If Sheffield isn't a 'clutch' player than based on the stats, neither is Ortiz.

Oh, and with runners in scoring position, Sheffield SMOKES Ortiz in the last 3 years (1.042 OPS compared to .875 OPS)

Sheff:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/splits3?statsId=4268&type=batting

Ortiz:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/splits3?statsId=5909&type=batting

[Lawrence of Arabia]

take the last two years, since thats when ortiz started to hit, and sheffield got off the juice.

Ortiz has a higher SLUG in both 2003 and 2004. He also has a higher AVG + SLUG then sheffroid. which is what you want. you dont want your best hitters drawing walks in those situations, you want them hitting, and hitting with power.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

oh, and how many games has sheffield won on the final at bat?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
take the last two years, since thats when ortiz started to hit, and sheffield got off the juice.

Ortiz has a higher SLUG in both 2003 and 2004. He also has a higher AVG + SLUG then sheffroid. which is what you want. you dont want your best hitters drawing walks in those situations, you want them hitting, and hitting with power.

oh, and how many games has sheffield won on the final at bat?

Ah, I love the backtracking goodness.

Look at the ESPN stats, it counts 2003-2005. In 2003, Ortiz had an OPS+ of 144 (actual .961). In 2004, it was 145 (actual .983). And this year he's hitting as he was. It doesn't count 2002, as you seem to think it does.

And what does SLG and BA+SLG (which is super wierd to use.... because you are incorrect, you want to get on BASE because it allows you to score. You want to prevent getting outs) have to do with 'clutch' hitting? If you have high SLG during other situations doesn't that mean that pinning it on 'clutch' hitting is wrong?

Though, I WILL indulge you.

Slugging %:

2003:
Sheff: .604
Ortiz: .592

2004:
Sheff: .534
Ortiz: .603

Where was the higher slugging in 2003 now? Also in 2003, Sheff hit .330 to Ortiz's .288. In 2004, Ortiz was better in SLG and BA, but I'm not seeing where he was that much better.. and in 2003, Sheffield was FAR better in those stats... and what it has to do with 'clutch' batters?

Ortiz:

http://www.baseballreference.com/o/ortizda01.shtml

Sheff:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/sheffga01.shtml

Oh, and I love the won on the 'final at bat' query!! Like I said, clutch hitting is a bunch of BS based totally on anecdotal evidence. First, Sheffield, who is not a clutch hitter to you, has a better close/late and RISP numbers, and now you are saying what anecdotal evidence can you remember about Sheffield (ie, no proof for clutch hitting exists)!!

Priceless!

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Look at the ESPN stats, it counts 2003-2005. In 2003, Ortiz had an OPS+ of 144 (actual .961). In 2004, it was 145 (actual .983). And this year he's hitting as he was. It doesn't count 2002, as you seem to think it does.

yeah, didnt notice that. haha.

And what does SLG and BA+SLG (which is super wierd to use.... because you are incorrect, you want to get on BASE because it allows you to score. You want to prevent getting outs) have to do with 'clutch' hitting? If you have high SLG during other situations doesn't that mean that pinning it on 'clutch' hitting is wrong?

clutch players dont draw walks. clutch players get hits. thats why you take your average and add it to your slug, which is a perfect tool to use if you want to know how a player does when he needs a hit. its a clutch hit. and when you hit for clutchness, you also want to hit for power.

Where was the higher slugging in 2003 now? Also in 2003, Sheff hit .330 to Ortiz's .288. In 2004, Ortiz was better in SLG and BA, but I'm not seeing where he was that much better.. and in 2003, Sheffield was FAR better in those stats... and what it has to do with 'clutch' batters?

you misunderstood me. when i talked about 2003, i meant of course 2003 late/close situations.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

a high AVG, low SLUG in close/late situations means that the player is dependant on others to get on base so he can drive them in with a single.

a high AVG, high SLUG in close/late situations means that the player is not dependant on others to get on base (he hits homers, and doubles, etc.) thats what ortiz does. thats why he's clutch.

and just cuz bill james didnt come up with the stat, doesnt mean its wrong.

[Imran Siddiqui]

clutch players dont draw walks. clutch players get hits. thats why you take your average and add it to your slug, which is a perfect tool to use if you want to know how a player does when he needs a hit. its a clutch hit. and when you hit for clutchness, you also want to hit for power.

Barry Bonds had the best SLG and one of the higher averages in close/late situations. He also drew a lot of walks.

Though I think the problem is that there is no such thing as a clutch player.

when i talked about 2003, i meant of course 2003 late/close situations.

You have the stats for that year?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
a high AVG, low SLUG in close/late situations means that the player is dependant on others to get on base so he can drive them in with a single.

a high AVG, high SLUG in close/late situations means that the player is not dependant on others to get on base (he hits homers, and doubles, etc.) thats what ortiz does. thats why he's clutch.

and just cuz bill james didnt come up with the stat, doesnt mean its wrong.

A high OBP and high SLG is better, so when you don't get a good pitch to hit, at least you make it on base. There would be a reason that James ignored it. BA is a useless stat. OBP is far better. All BA measures is how many hits you have. OBP measures how many times you get on base. The point in close/late situations is to NOT get an out. Now whether that is through a hit, double, HR, or walk, it doesn't matter. In close/late situations outs are even more precious than they are earlier in the game.

Getting on base isn't enough, so you also look at slugging to see the power that players have.

Remember that the 9th inning of the ALCS began with Millar drawing a walk from Rivera. He was taken out for Roberts, who became the tying score. Without that walk, who knows if the Sox would have won.

It is no mistake that the Red Sox won the World Series after hire a Bill James disciple as GM who stressed OBP.

And if BA+SLG is suuuch a good stat, how come this is the first I've ever heard of it? Can you link to a site that uses it?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Barry Bonds had the best SLG and one of the higher averages in close/late situations.

Though I think the problem is that there is no such thing as a clutch player.

and barry bonds might be, i hate to say this, also on the juice.He also drew a lot of walks. in fact, he draws a lot of walks whenever there is anyone on base because he can hit a homer at will. and many of them are either intentional, or intentional unintentionals.

You have the stats for that year?

yeah, it was on those splits, the first two links that you supplied.

A high OBP and high SLG is better, so when you don't get a good pitch to hit, at least you make it on base. There would be a reason that James ignored it. BA is a useless stat. OBP is far better. All BA measures is how many hits you have. OBP measures how many times you get on base. The point in close/late situations is to NOT get an out. Now whether that is through a hit, double, HR, or walk, it doesn't matter. In close/late situations outs are even more precious than they are earlier in the game.

clutch players elevate their game. they dont simply get on base - they make this happen. thats why you dont want your clutchest players drawing walks unless the pitches are miles out of the zone. you want them to swing away and bring the runner in from first, or hit a homer.

Remember that the 9th inning of the ALCS began with Millar drawing a walk from Rivera. He was taken out for Roberts, who became the tying score. Without that walk, who knows if the Sox would have won.

thats because the guy behind millar, bill mueller has a low AVG + SLUG, so for him to be clutch, he needs someone on base. plus, it needed a steal, which bill james says isnt worth going for. apparently there are times when sabermetrics isnt the most optimal path to follow. if bill james was manager, he wouldnt have sent the runner.

neither millar or mueller have a high AVG+SLUG.

And if BA+SLG is suuuch a good stat, how come this is the first I've ever heard of it? Can you link to a site that uses it?

you've never heard of it because i just discovered. i fired off an email to bill james a few hours ago, so in his next book, dont be surprised to find AVG+SLUG in a chapter about clutchness.

[Imran Siddiqui]

you've never heard of it because i just discovered.

You mean you just made up some **** and without testing it, decided it must explain something because you can't back up any of your arguments.

plus, it needed a steal, which bill james says isnt worth going for.

Wrong. James says steals are worth less than people think they are. A successful steal creates 1/3rd greater probabillity of a run, while a caught stealing leads to 2/3rd lesser probability of a run. So the lesson is don't steal all the time for no reason.

And Francona didn't send Roberts either. He went himself, as a Red Sox fan should know .

you want them to swing away and bring the runner in from first, or hit a homer.

No, you want them to not make an out. If they get a good pitch to hit, slam it. However, if not, then take the walk. There is no point in the 'clutch' player swinging away and hitting at a bad pitch and making an easy out. After all, in baseball, if you hit safely only 3 out of 10 times, you are considered good.