Clutch

[Number5]

Dusty "walks clog up the bases" Baker?

Even if it is true that Cutch was worse after a HBP, he'd have to suck a hell of a lot to be worse in 4 PA with the fifth a guaranteed free base than in 5 PA without being plunked.

So yeah, I'm feeling pretty safe that I am going to ignore this idea on a scientific basis.

[Hoiles]

The concept that sabermetrics is against clutch ability is a pretty big exaggeration. Even Bill James has admitted it -could- exist (just google it). You have to distinguish between clutch stats (the measurable) and the underlying (and non-measurable) but true clutch ability.

Also, the last line of the second Baseball Prospectus article says that:
"We therefore echo Cramer’s conclusion from 41 years ago that while clutch hitting may exist as a feature, it does not exist as a repeatable skill."

The use of the word "repeatable" is very important. The sentence is not the same as saying there's no difference in "clutchness" between players, otherwise he would have said it wasn't a skill at all. It's just that this skill does not manifest itself year-to-year in terms of measurable performance (i.e. stats), probably because it is so small. A "true" clutch player might have a poor performance down the stretch, not due to choking, but just to the random coin-flips of hitting and fielding a baseball. Case in point, Rivera (let's assume he is clutch) blowing the 2001 World Series.

Just from a statistical point of view, when looking at all players in the league, even if they did have a true clutch ability, its influence on their performance in any situation would be dwarfed by their ability, and other short-term more important factors such as health. Combined with the fact that "clutch" situations are generally rare (aka small sample sizes), it leads to the conclusion that clutch stats are generally pretty useless, especially from one year. In a statistical model, adding a clutch ability based on their "clutch stats" would just be the same as adding random noise.

If we somehow had a way of measuring true clutch ability, it could be much more practical than small-sample stats and could help in predicting performance in specific situations. Maybe there's a genetic component, or it can be measured using biometrics such as heart rate or a BP monitor under the jersey (not that any player would ever wear an electronic device, right?). But we're not there yet, and the effort to find true "clutch" ability might not be worth it anyways.

In terms of OOTP, whether or not it has a hidden clutch rating is fine. If it's there, it's small enough that we don't notice it. There are enough personality ratings in OOTP to give players some variety that isn't completely determined by their baseball ratings anyways.

[Syd Thrift]

Ugh. This "debate" was interesting in like 1999. In 2020, there actually *is* some evidence that it exists, but the effects are very small, so small that managers really should not be accounting for it. Tom Tango's study on this (didn't he play OOTP at one point?) is referenced in this article, which itself is 8 years old now.

https://www.crawfishboxes.com/2012/4...tch-is-it-real

There's an argument that what "clutch" is in these situations is better defined as "how well a guy gets around on a 98 mph heater" or "how well a pitcher hits his spots against the best batters in the game" because late-inning pressure situations are heavily weighted towards that, and playoff/World Series matchups even moreso. I don't think Tom Tango or anyone else who discovered the existence of clutch is saying that there's like some kind of magical mind bullets that great clutch players shoot at bad ones, so we need to drop that from the vocabulary. What they are saying is that those situations are different in type than "normal" situations for all sorts of other reasons we can quantify to some degree or other, and the data bear out that in fact, there is a (small) difference in ability for these players.

In some ways it's similar, if a much, much smaller effect, to what we know about basketball, where clutch players are all over the place. There is zero question that with the game on the line, there are players you want to give the ball to and players that you do not. Many of them are just the people you'd always expect, but others, like Reggie Miller or Robert Horry, have a very specific set of skills that are super-great when there's 5 seconds on the clock and you need to shoot the game-winner (in both of their cases, here, it's their ability to shoot accurately while releasing quickly). Other players pick up points by collecting garbage or through stuff like backdoor lobs that dry up when the game or the season is on the line.

I hate to sound like an enlightened centrist here, but both the "clutch exists and it's MASSIVE" and the "lol dumbasses there is no such thing as clutch" need to quiet the F down. It's there in baseball and the effect is small. OOTP implements it, but the effect is small in the game as well.

[ablobj]

Originally Posted by Number5

Dusty "walks clog up the bases" Baker?

Even if it is true that Cutch was worse after a HBP, he'd have to suck a hell of a lot to be worse in 4 PA with the fifth a guaranteed free base than in 5 PA without being plunked.

So yeah, I'm feeling pretty safe that I am going to ignore this idea on a scientific basis.

This is what the commentators were saying at the time.....I have no idea if the stats back this up

[Number5]

Originally Posted by Hoiles

Case in point, Rivera (let's assume he is clutch) blowing the 2001 World Series.

I postulate that Rivera is not clutch. He blew many more saves against the Red Sox than against other teams. He's just elite, so he saved a ton of games because that is what an elite closer does, but I dont feel it's pretty far fetched to assume a clutch Yankee closer would not underperform against their biggest rivals.

[Number5]

Originally Posted by ablobj

This is what the commentators were saying at the time.....I have no idea if the stats back this up

I feel he'd have to really, really, really suck hard that you could improve his OBP by .200 (give him a free base out of a assumed 5 PA) and still come out worse. The difference in OBP between Mike Trout and Chris Davis in 2019 was .162 OBP.

Short fag-packet maths say that even if Cutch would literally bat like 2019 Chris Davis after a HBP, he'd still be a way above average hitter while being on base almost 50% of the time if you give him a free base every game. This is insane.

[ablobj]

Originally Posted by Number5

I feel he'd have to really, really, really suck hard that you could improve his OBP by .200 (give him a free base out of a assumed 5 PA) and still come out worse. The difference in OBP between Mike Trout and Chris Davis in 2019 was .162 OBP.

This was the "word" around baseball at the time...I'm not saying this is a good strategy to employ in OOTP. But 7,8,9 years ago opposing teams, especially the Reds, felt that if you threw at Cutch early on, it messed up his concentration and focus for the rest of the game. Whether it actually did, I don't know. I'm just going by what I remember hearing at the time. Also, opposing managers in 2012 did not know the difference between Trout and Davis' 2019 OPB.

[Hoiles]

Originally Posted by Number5

I postulate that Rivera is not clutch. He blew many more saves against the Red Sox than against other teams. He's just elite, so he saved a ton of games because that is what an elite closer does, but I dont feel it's pretty far fetched to assume a clutch Yankee closer would not underperform against their biggest rivals.

Considering he probably played more games against the Red Sox than anyone else, and that they’re arguably the best team of the past 20 years, it’s not surprising at all he blew the most saves against them. But I agree that there’s way more evidence he’s elite (to the extent he’s the best closer of all time) than there is of him specifically being “clutch”.

[Number5]

Originally Posted by ablobj

This was the "word" around baseball at the time...I'm not saying this is a good strategy to employ in OOTP. But 7,8,9 years ago opposing teams, especially the Reds, felt that if you threw at Cutch early on, it messed up his concentration and focus for the rest of the game. Whether it actually did, I don't know. I'm just going by what I remember hearing at the time. Also, opposing managers in 2012 did not know the difference between Trout and Davis' 2019 OPB.

I am pretty sure even in 2012 they would know the difference between a MVP slashline and a not even replacement level slashline.

If they actually did this, this was insanely bad, not even peak Bonds got free bases most of the time. Maybe you are thinking of pitching inside, brushing him back without outright plunking him?

[Hoiles]

Originally Posted by ablobj

The Reds used to throw at Andrew McCutchen because the numbers showed that he didn't perform as well in games in which he was plunked in his first PA. I'm pretty sure that Dusty Baker admitted it.

If it was just based on numbers, then the strategy is idiotic. Or if Baker sees with his eyes that McCutchen tenses up after being beaned, stands farther away from the plate, etc, maybe it’s not such a silly strategy. Who knows.

[Number5]

Or just Dusty "walks clog the bases" Baker did something really ****ing idiotic from a mathematical standpoint and tried to justify it. He won't be the first or the last manager to **** up.

[ablobj]

Originally Posted by Number5

I am pretty sure even in 2012 they would know the difference between a MVP slashline and a not even replacement level slashline.

If they actually did this, this was insanely bad, not even peak Bonds got free bases most of the time. Maybe you are thinking of pitching inside, brushing him back without outright plunking him?

Obviously he didn't get plunked 162 times...My original post on the subject was in response to a post about the effectiveness of brushback pitches, and that brought to mind memories of Cutch and the Reds back in the day. By the way, what exactly is "fag math?"

[ablobj]

Originally Posted by Hoiles

If it was just based on numbers, then the strategy is idiotic. Or if Baker sees with his eyes that McCutchen tenses up after being beaned, stands farther away from the plate, etc, maybe it’s not such a silly strategy. Who knows.

It was probably anecdotal...when he was managing against the Bucs, he noticed that Cutch (who was really the only consistent "threat" in the lineup...those Pirates teams back then were more about pitching depth and defense) could be somewhat neutralized if you hit him.

[ablobj]

At any rate, I feel like I've inadvertently hijacked this thread with some random reminiscence from the past. It was supposed to be a debate about clutch hitting

[dkgo]

dusty baker is an idiot. maybe he should have noticed that throwing mark prior for 130 pitches a game in september would ruin his career

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by ablobj

By the way, what exactly is "fag math?"

That's not term that was used.

It was "fag-packet maths"

Use of the word "maths" instead of "math" leads me to believe this poster is British, or speaks British English at least. That word is used for what American English speakers call cigarettes. So I'd assume the poster was referring to a pack of cigarettes. And that expression meaning something like "back-of-the-envelope calculation".

And, Google confirms that, yes, that's what it is.

[majesty95]

Originally Posted by jimmysthebestcop

I hope not as "clutch" doesn't exist in reality it is completely made up by generations of baseball media/fans.

Saber guys are completely opposed to the term clutch
"sabermetric research concludes that clutch hitting is not a perceptibly repeatable skill."

https://www.baseballprospectus.com/n...itting-part-2/

and part 1
https://www.baseballprospectus.com/n...itting-part-1/

This is complete buffoonery. I’ve read through data driven minds trying to prove its wrong because they can’t quantify the psychological impact of sport. This is like saying that Michael Jordan wasn’t clutch.

So just because some players have bad “clutch” years while also having good “clutch” years it’s disproven to exist? It’s nonsense. Have these people ever picked up a bat? I’ve had times where I was so prepared and confident I felt like I could hit Randy Johnson. Other times I felt so insecure at the plate a 10 year old probably could have struck me out. Some people can harness those things better than others. I’ve seen it in reality actually playing the game all throughout my formative years and even into adulthood. It’s just complete nonsense that data crunchers can’t prove the mental aspect because there are so many factors to consider that they just write it off. Casts a serious shadow on these pencil pushers in general.

[majesty95]

Originally Posted by ThePride87

The problem is people get opinions and facts confused...people can eyeroll and disagree all they want, opinions can be wrong. You show me clutch exists, and I'll listen...I don't have some random anti-clutch fetish. Would love to have another dynamic in the game. But we've never seen stats proving it's there, so I have to go with what we know. Adding a clutch factor would make OOTP slightly more EA Sports, less OOTP

Dude proved it was there by showing an example of how Hernandez for his career was better in high leverage situations and y’all poo poo it with every excuse you can think of. You can’t be proved wrong because you don’t want to be wrong. How can you prove clutch if not that they perform better than their career avg in those situations?

Selective effort? That’s so ridiculously laughable. Have you ever even played a 30 game high school baseball season much less a 162 game major league season? To assume that any human could be 100% of prime effectiveness in 100% of their at bats is extremely ignorant. Ever been distracted driving? Cut someone off? Swerved lanes? You life is on the line in those situations and your concentration lapses. You don’t think that happens on a ball field? Just complete absurdity.

[majesty95]

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

People used to make fun of analytics by talking about how a player hit on a Tuesday after a full moon when they had orange juice for breakfast. These are the same people, often, who proclaim "clutch!" while forgetting or not knowing that weeding out this small sample noise is one of the goals of analytics.

Probably the same reason some people still make fun of analytics. Maybe Tuesday is the day he meet with his therapist and get his head right before the game. Maybe that’s the day he has his local youth group at the game so is extra focused those days. Maybe the orange juice on Tuesdays balances a carbohydrate or electrolyte deficiency.

Look, in 100% believe in analytics that find ways to compare hitter like WAR, wRC, FIP, etc. But if you’re going to dismiss human psychology, which has been studied at least 10 times as long as analytics, just because you can’t quantify it with a metric then you’re not nearly as aware of what you’re studying as you think you are.

[majesty95]

Originally Posted by CBL-Commish

Clutch clearly exists. But if you can't perform in clutch situations, if the pressure overwhelms you, you're selected out of the population of potential major leaguers sometime between Little League and the low minors.

That’s not at all true. That’s like saying a .210 hitter would be weeded our before he got to the majors. Pressure in high school isn’t the same as pressure with 50k fans in the stands.