Eminor3rd

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 8, 2014 -> 08:41 AM) I don't have to prove Brett was clutch. I never brought him up. Someone just posted his stats with RISP and without. You were the one that said that proved your point. It doesn't. It proved the point that simply claiming that something is true doesn't make it true.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 8, 2014 -> 08:41 AM) I think any reasonable person would conclude that it is crazy to think players who are normally good hitters don't ever choke They do choke. QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 8, 2014 -> 08:41 AM) and guys who are normally average hitters, seem to bear down and step up in certain situations. They do step up and bear down sometimes. But neither group does it with enough consistency to make it predictive. Marcus Semien has been clutch so far, but there isn't reason to believe he'll continue to be clutch going forward. Swisher has been s*** in the playoffs, but there isn't reason to believe he'll be s*** going forward. It's like A Rod, right? World famous playoff choker with the Yankees in the mid-2000's, assuming you ignore his excellent 2004 postseason, of course. 2005? .133/.435/.200 Boo! 2006? .071/.133/.071 BOO! 2007? .267/.353/.467 Ok maybe not super bad but not worth $30m/yr! BOO! He's a bum! He can't cut it when the pressure's on! Three years of suck in the postseason. He'll never... wait... 2009: .365/.500/.808 HERO! What changed? Nothing. His postseason appearances from 2005-2007 combined sum 13 games. The 2009 postseason alone was 15 games, which means that over the course of that whole CHOKE PERIOD, he actually had more games as awesome than he did as bad. If you include the 11 games in 2004, he had exactly TWICE as many games as awesome than as bad. He earned those s*** games. He choked for sure. But it didn't mean he wasn't capable of stepping up, just that he hadn't -- until he did. I mean think about it: Flowers can be a monster for a whole MONTH. Why do we think we can judge a guy's true talent/disposition/whatever over 13 select games through 3 seasons? You don't make the MLB if you can't play in front of thousands of people when the game is on the line. Sometimes you fail, sometimes you win, but if an average hitter steps up to the plate, there's an average chance he's going to come through for you. Historical data confirms this. The whole point is this: If the game is on the line, I want Jose Abreu up, not Marcus Semien.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 8, 2014 -> 08:24 AM) No. BA with RISP vs. BA vs. runners not is scoring position does not show clutch vs. non clutch. For a guy who needs these advanced stats to show who is better than who, it does seem odd you will take an old school random stat, which really doesn't jive with the argument, and say that shows George Brett really wasn't as clutch as some think. If I use an advanced stat, you say it's a bulls*** stat. If I use and "old school" stat, you ignore the argument and make fun of me for not using an advanced stat. lol Since when was career triple slash an "old school advanced stat" anyway? It seems we've reached the part of the argument where you start making s*** up and dodging the actual topic. How about this: show me that George Brett has been a better clutch hitter than a non-clutch hitter. QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 8, 2014 -> 08:24 AM) How do you explain Nick Swisher's failure in the playoffs? The guy has almost 200 postseason plate appearances and has been brutal. He's been a pretty good offensive player during his career. You said it: That's the problem with postseason data, very few guys ever get enough PA to have predictive performances. The few that have had enough don't show significant difference from their career lines. It's true that Swisher has been brutal in the postseason, but if he gets there again, his track record doesn't make it more likely he'll continue to be brutal.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 8, 2014 -> 08:09 AM) What does that prove? He gets on base .056 more with runners in scoring postion, yet has a lower batting average and slugging percentage. Seems when there are RISP, George wasn't pitched to very much. And not all AB with RISP are really clutch, and there are some clutch hits when runners are not in scoring position. Like a runner at 1b, when they really can't or won't pitch around him. It proves he hit worse, but got walked more. If that's your definition of an ultimate clutch hitter, then I guess that's what he was. The George Brett example doesn't prove anything league-wide, but the reams of large-scale studies I referenced and/or linked do, and that wasn't convincing anyone. The George Brett example does prove that just because 15 random people are quoted as saying George Brett was clutch doesn't mean it was actually the case.

QUOTE (Feeky Magee @ May 8, 2014 -> 05:16 AM) George Brett career without runners in scoring position: .304/.353/.490 George Brett career with runners in scoring position: .294/.410/.481 And there you have it.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 7, 2014 -> 10:56 PM) From having watched all of Tiger Woods' major championships, there's no way you're going to convince me there's no such thing as "clutch" putting or performing under pressure in a way that most athletes cannot. Well no one is trying, so you don't have to worry.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ May 7, 2014 -> 10:42 PM) Buddy Bell said today that Micah Johnson is likely to be promoted soon, to AAA. They just have to find him a spot to play. Seems like that's about to get more complicated with Keppinger/Gillaspie returning.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 7, 2014 -> 10:47 PM) I remember reading an actual scientific study years back that equated the ability to be clutch to not consciously thinking about whatever you were trying to do. The more thought process you had in an athletic situation, the more likely you were to fail. Yeah, totally. I bought this book called "The Inner Game of Music" written by some tennis instructor who was an expert on getting high level players/performers to maximize their talents. Apparently his concepts could be applied to pretty much any situation in which you were forced to execute under pressure. The motto that stuck out the most to me was "Trying fails, awareness cures." Essentially, when a hard part of music comes up in a performance, people have a tendency to try extra hard, to mentally acknowledge that the hard part is coming and to step up their game. But the problem is that doing so is a distraction -- any amount of mental resources diverted to the meta-concept of what is being done are resources not used on execution. So even though people might have the right attitude about it, spending any time having an attitude in the first place makes it harder to do it right. Instead, he tried to get performers to never think about "the challenge" or "trying hard" and instead to discipline themselves to put 100% of their mental energy simply into the mechanics of what needed to be done -- immersing themselves in the music at a syntactic level rather than a conceptual level. Sort of like focusing on keeping one's eye on the ball rather than focusing on "getting a hit."

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 7, 2014 -> 09:47 PM) There are good and bad hitters in the major leagues. To say every good hitter is a good clutch hitter IMO is coming to a conclusion clutch hitting really doesn't exist or is so small it is irrelevant because you don't have a tool to accurately measure it. In the bolded statement, it is the latter that is being argued, but it isn't saying that the difference is irrelevant conceptually, just in MLB. Regarding not having a tool to accurately measure it: The tool they use to measure it is simply all offensive statistics of all kinds. It's not some weird SABR stat, it's just numbers. You can look for examples of guys hitting better in clutch situations than not over there career, and you won't find any. My first reaction was also to look for a gap in measurement to conclude that it was just being missed in the numbers they used, but as I read more of these studies, I found there's really nothing subtle about it. You can use wOBA or Batting Average or RBI or whatever, it just doesn't show up. I agree that it seems like there should be a bigger difference, though. I really do. But there just factually isn't at the ML level. It's a mindf***, I know. Huge differences at lower levels, I'm sure. If you can't get your head around it, read up on it. I've tried to find holes in it and I can't. Maybe you can.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 7, 2014 -> 08:25 PM) Because it is something that is not unique to baseball. It isn't unique to sports. Whatever you do, you know someone you can count on when something is on the line! And people you can go to in a normal situation but you really don't trust. Good hitters can be bad clutch hitters. Normally not very good hitters can be good when the game is on the line. Some guys just really bear down during those times, and some guys fold. I agree. I have no argument against that. I see it business meetings, I felt it in baseball, I see it in interviews on TV, etc. But in MLB, it doesn't show up in the results. You just don't make the majors unless you can bear down in clutch situations to a certain degree. It turns out that the difference is negligible at that level. If it wasn't, we'd be able to look back at performances historically and identify guys that were better. But they just aren't there. It surprises me too, but it's true.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 7, 2014 -> 09:05 PM) I'm calling bulls*** on that. Ok, well read the studies, tell me why they're bulls***, and I'll take your opinion seriously. It's a fact that past clutch performance does not predict future clutch performance, therefore refuting that some ML players are better than others at clutch performance. http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2656

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 7, 2014 -> 08:16 PM) You will never get me to buy the notion there really is no such thing as clutch hitting. Even if you just played in Little League or whatever you do for a living, there is a difference doing something when something is on the line and when it is not. IMO, the problem with the stat is sample size, and I think because of that the saber guys can't accurately measure it, and when that happens, it doesn't exist.it's like saying shooting free throws when the score is 2-2 one minute in the game is the same as shooting 2 free throws down 2 with one second left in an elimination game. Sample size is important in baseball because you can have an awful AB and get a hit, or have great AB and not get the job done. Being able to perform under pressure, in clutch situations, is absolutely real. The problem is that the ones who perform substantially worse in clutch situations tend not to make the big leagues. They are naturally culled. Most everyone will agree that there are still some ML hitters that are better clutch performers than others, but that the difference is so small that it is typically negligible. Indeed, the numbers agree. Whenever you see players with substantially better than average numbers in particular situations (playoffs, specific matchups, RISP with 2 out in the 7th inning in July, etc.), they are occurring at sample sizes that are too small to achieve statistical significance. In the instances where player have received enough PA in particular situations to warrant meaningful trends, the numbers always mirror each player's career numbers very closely. Differences are rarely, if ever statistically significant. There may be some exceptions in some specific situations, but if they exist at all, they are very few and far between. It's not that clutch doesn't exist, it's that at the highest level, the best guys aren't enough better at it than the worst guys to make a meaningful difference. Historically, when a guy gets up in any given situation, the most likely outcome mirrors his career rates.

QUOTE (ptatc @ May 7, 2014 -> 03:23 PM) This is true. I don't think that any one stat should be used in all situations. I think each case is individual and no one thing can tell me everything about a player or that player's performance. This is why I advocate for the use of all of them and not not placing too much focus on any one of them. You need to use the eye ball test, advanced metrics and traditional stats together to get a true evaluation of any player. Maybe this is just from my doing research for admission to physical therapy graduate school. I think if I look at a variety of grades, tests, interviews, I get a better idea of the potential for this applicant to get through school, pass the license exam and become a quality physical therapist. 100% troof

QUOTE (greg775 @ May 7, 2014 -> 03:45 PM) Semien turns 24 in September. He's shown enough big-league skills to warrant being in the big leagues. I don't think my post is ridiculous either. Who would you rather have? Semien or DeAza? Semien or Kepp? Semien or Beckham. Yes I'd dump any one of those guys for a bag of balls to keep Semien. What do you guys think Beckham, Kepp and DeAza are worth?? Not much on the trade market, basically nothing. Saddest day ever? Greg, he isn't getting waived or anything. He'll be back up for good later this year.

QUOTE (IowaSoxFan @ May 7, 2014 -> 02:16 PM) It depends who their options are at #3. If they refuse to take a HS pitcher, I am not sure that anyone in that area is any less of a risk than an injured Hoffman. There are plenty of guys with mid-first round talent that could slide to 44, where the Sox could pay them top 10 money to skip college and could still pick a few spots to pull a Michealewski (sp?) from last season. If the HS guys are off the table and Rodon is gone, I would rather have an injured Hoffman than a healthy Beede. Why would they do that? I get they may have a "preference" for college arms, but when the talent gap is so huge, it would be insane to ignore Kolek/Aiken in favor of TJ Hoffman or Nola or whatever.

WAY too much risk at #3 guys. Tommy John is NOT an automatic 100% recovery like a lot of people think, and having it this early increases the chance of a second one in his 20's. The track record for a second TJ comeback is not good at all. Even if you signed him way underslot, you're saving money for the 44th pick. No one available at 44 is worth punting on a healthy #3.

QUOTE (ptatc @ May 7, 2014 -> 01:23 PM) Correct. But we knew that by watching each of the players, so the numbers really didn't help either way. Maybe YOU did, but the RBI total lied to you about it, and many mainstream media pundits and fans were calling for a huge contract extension for Brandon Phillips now that he had "evolved his game to become a run producer." Further, Phillips himself famously lambasted fan pressure to improve his game citing that his RBI totals spoke for themselves, as if better productivity wouldn't lead to more RBIs as a by-product. I guess what I'm saying is that if you have to ignore a stat in certain situations because you "just know better," what use does that stat have? If it's right except when it's wrong, and you already know when it's right or wrong, you really don't need the stat. It's not telling you anything in terms of player evaluation.

QUOTE (ptatc @ May 7, 2014 -> 12:50 PM) This is true. However a few points. I'm not sure that saying someone who was better this year will be better next year. You will need a pattern of 5 years or so to determine this and I bet I could look at the "basic" stats and tell this as well. Even with those numbers did you really think that Phillips was better than Trout. I don't need any numbers to tell me that. Also if you use the runs scored +RBI -HR formula Trout winds up with 179 and Phillips 165, so even that shows Trout had a better year. Also, in the dawning age of non- (or decreased) PED usage, not all players will be able to put up great numbers across the board. So I think players will need to be separated out. It's kind of like comparing a WR to an RB in football. Players are going to sort themselves into the OBP specialists and others in the SLG groups and there will only be the select few that can do both and this will be obvious. Regarding the first sentence bolded: yes, you're right, past performance only goes so far in predicting future performance. However, the closer said performance can be tied to matters of skill rather than matters of context, the more likely that performance is to be repeatable. Regarding the second sentence bolded: I don't think that's true. In fact, one of the big reasons these stats are chosen for this purpose is because they are more stable and predictive than anything else. For example, someone didn't decide that the elements that go into FIP intuitively make sense there, rather Voros McCracken did a bunch of studies to determine which components of pitching are most consistent year-to-year and are most highly correlated with success. EDIT: I think the central theme is that it doesn't come down to "which stat is the best stat," but rather "which stat best answers the question at hand." When that question comes down to comparing players across context or quantifying degrees of contribution, linear weights are the way to go (fWAR, wOBA, et al.). When it comes down to who made the most important play in a game or game situation, traditional context-dependent stats (typically traditional ones) are the only tool for the job.

QUOTE (ptatc @ May 7, 2014 -> 11:48 AM) Correct. However, that is the game of baseball. You cannot control everything to win the game. So why make up a stat that doesn't use it. It came about so agents can get more money for their client because "he did what he could control" nothing else really matters. Linear weights-based stats exist for the purpose of trying to compare players with a common denominator. For example, Brandon Phillips had 103 RBI in 2013. Mike Trout had 97. Does that make them the same class of hitter? If not, then how can we tell who is better and, by extension, likely to produce more in the future? Well, Brandon Phillips had a wRC+ of 91 that year, and Trout had an insano-pants 176. So there you go. Anyway, that's the purpose. Obviously things like RBI are critical when the game is being played, it's how you win, after all. I'd never want a coach to tell a player not to worry about driving in runs, for example. They just aren't good for evaluating ability. Or, better put, there are many other numbers that serve as much, much better proxies for evaluating ability than RBI and other context-based metrics.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 7, 2014 -> 02:09 AM) Jeff Passan's attack on the Super 2/Gregory Polanco/low-balling players by giving them an opportunity to play right away if they'll accept a below-market deal situation http://sports.yahoo.com/news/source--pirat...-232433631.html Tanget: I watched him in spring training this year on mlb.tv a lot -- this kid is an absolute MONSTER. Like holy s***. He's huge and just oozes tools.

QUOTE (chw42 @ May 7, 2014 -> 11:35 AM) Nobody is telling you how to enjoy the game of baseball. We're just saying what he's doing wasn't sustainable. There's a huge difference. This

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ May 7, 2014 -> 11:44 AM) He actually mentioned White Sox and salary cap in an article last year when he was saying they would be doing things the new way in baseball. Having teams give up bad contracts, and giving the Sox prospects to take on the contracts. Yeah that was classic.

QUOTE (Chet Kincaid @ May 7, 2014 -> 11:37 AM) Interesting article. It's a shame that Bernstein gets off on being such a douche. Exactly. His points are spot on, but they're delivered in a package of "screw you for being happy about something, idiots." Having moved from Chicago fairly recently (February), I've been away from the local hype train. All of what he's saying has been pretty obvious through the lense of the indifferent NY media. Is everyone really freaking out in Chicago over Abreu enough to warrant this kind of article?

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ May 7, 2014 -> 10:12 AM) Very interesting especially with the elbow concern. I guess he does not take that into consideration when ranking. "I'll post something later about the decision that Houston has at #1, but it's fair to say the industry would have Rodon 2nd and Hoffman 3rd or 4th right now. Hoffman is expected to return not this weekend but next from elbow soreness and he could still make or lose millions based on how crisp he looks in those final few starts."

QUOTE (thxfrthmmrs @ May 7, 2014 -> 09:12 AM) I wonder what's causing him to suck so much the past 3 years. QUOTE (witesoxfan @ May 7, 2014 -> 09:22 AM) Velocity is way down. He averaged about 92 during his and it's below 90 this year. He's also changed from a straight over the top curve to more of a slurve, and his changeup usage is way up, which I'm guessing he leaves up too often. His HR/FB was at about 5-6% during his Cy Young seasons, and it's been 14%, 12%, and 18% the last 3 seasons. Indeed, and this looks like it's a pretty natural thing: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/pitcher-agi...s-introduction/