Clutch hitting

by flyball on Apr 19, 2006 1:46 PM CDT Comment 51 comments

I think this may be my favorite stat so far this year:

with runners on base, hitting a National League-best .320 (55-172).

And...
Cubs pinch-hitters have started off the season 7-for-17 heading into Tuesday, a .412 average that ranks second in the Majors behind only the Reds, who were hitting .429.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.

0 recs | Comment 51 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

my least favorite stat

those numbers worry me. Because while it might mean that the Cubs are more focused in "pressure" situations, it's more likely these numbers will regress closer to the mean than continue at that rate-- which could mean the difference in more than a few close games.

I mean, do we really expect the Cubs to hit .320 with runners on base all year long?

by Romero on Apr 19, 2006 2:01 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

the measure of good luck

if there's anything that's been proven about baseball statistically, it seems to me that it has been that hitters don't hit any better/worse with risp. if it ever appears that they are statistically, it is a short-run anomaly that one can reliably expect, with sufficient at-bats, to return to the overall batting average of the team.

in other words, the cubs have been lucky with men on.

by gaius marius on Apr 19, 2006 2:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

lol

So does this mean that ANYTIME a player or team hits better w/ RISP for a SEASON that they were just lucky? And if they do poorly in those situations they're UNlucky?

No room for being "clutch" or "chokers" in that theory?

"At the end of the day, don't tell me how rough the waters are... just get the ship into port." - Stoney

by BCurt10 on Apr 19, 2006 2:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

my problem

If a player could control their hitting in an "on-demand" scenario, they would be hitting .1000. I think a guy gets a hit every so many at bats, and some of those at bats have runners on base. If a player told me he hit better with risp i would ask them why he doesn't apply himself like that every at bat.

by mike bornemann on Apr 19, 2006 2:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I can agree with that.

You would assume a MLB hitter would be doing his best to get a hit no matter the situation.

I think it's more of a telling stat when a guy hits dramatically WORSE with RISP. From personal experience, I can tell you some guys can focus in a "clutch" situation and some guys can not. (Yah, yah, the "experience" is from H.S. ball and softball. But it still applies.)

It's also possible that certain guys will concentrate on a specific thing when trying to drive a run in - maybe driving the ball to the outfield, or hitting to opposite field - that can perhaps lead to a better approach to hitting. The hitter may not even realize it.

"At the end of the day, don't tell me how rough the waters are... just get the ship into port." - Stoney

by BCurt10 on Apr 19, 2006 3:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's great

just to have guys on base to hit in once in a while!! That is probably the stat that we need to examine as compared to last year. It's the opportunity that's increased, when that happens RBI's can increase.

by mrcubsfan on Apr 19, 2006 3:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

yep

on our team too there were a few guys who always seemed to just raise their game when it really mattered- clutch hitters do exsit to those who actually get out and play some

baseball prospectus may never understand it but some people do

"a sort of soft tyranny of positivity" -GM

by ksucubbie on Apr 19, 2006 3:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I want to add

that players do NOT think in terms of "I'll get a hit in every so-many at bats." It is NOT a numbers game to players. Along the same lines of your theory on RISP, a guy is trying to get a hit EVERY time.

I think that the psychological aspect of hitting is being WAY over-looked. Sometimes you can go up there to the plate and feel like there's no way you're making an out. Sometimes it seems like there are 15 fielders out there. Self confidence, being "hot", momentum - these are all very real factors in hitting.

I'm honestly not on a personal campaing against all things stats. I just think that there are many who are so caught up in the numbers they are missing the nuances of the game that are the reasons I love it.

Like Yogi said, "Half of hitting is 90% mental."

"At the end of the day, don't tell me how rough the waters are... just get the ship into port." - Stoney

by BCurt10 on Apr 19, 2006 3:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

well aramis

has said he concentrates more when there are risp, whihcis infuriating because oif he approached every at bat that way maybe he would be a risp. As far as being on fire, momentum, etc. that adds to your confidence which makes you a better performer in all aspects of life. I just think guys try to get a hit every time, and like hititng in general, luck takes over at some point.

by mike bornemann on Apr 19, 2006 3:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Other factors are involved...

when you have runners on base, including the pitchers are pitching from the stretch instead of the wind-up, base runners can distract pitchers, fielders are focusing on holding runners on base, etc. Hitters should all hit better with men on base rather than when the bases are empty.

One day, the dream will come true.

by brianp88 on Apr 19, 2006 4:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

none, and for that matter

hot and cold streaks are also artefacts of the human ingenuity for seeing patterns where none exist, statistically speaking. such things fall out in poisson distributions of brownian motion around a mean value, and represent nothing more than a run of heads turning up in a sequence of coin flips.

i know. i had to be convinced of it as well. but the mathematics behind it is extremely compelling.

by gaius marius on Apr 19, 2006 3:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Holy Cow!

I'll be honest, you lost me around "poisson distributions." I'm no math major, but I'm not the dullest knife in the drawer either. I just don't have any back ground in that level of statistics.

Lemme ask you something, Gauis - and I am NOT trying to be a smart ass here - did you ever play baseball or softball? I am truly curious how u felt about hot and cold streaks as a player.

"At the end of the day, don't tell me how rough the waters are... just get the ship into port." - Stoney

by BCurt10 on Apr 19, 2006 3:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

yep

was a three-time letterman in high school baseball.

what's critical to understand is that one can feel hot without ever actually being hot. for example, i've also gone on a wild run of luck at the tables in vegas, making a few thousand out of a couple hundred. felt hotter than a snake's ass in a wagon wheel rut -- positively giddy with hot.

factually speaking, however, i was playing blackjack and the odds never varied. and i could even coolly tell myself that -- but it didn't change how i felt.

this is one of a million illustrations of how "feel" betrays reality. one must remember that the mind isn't engineered to perfectly assess reality but to distort reality in a way that would help an ape survive on the african savannah. we project all manner of ridiculousness onto the world toward that end.

by gaius marius on Apr 19, 2006 3:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Okay,

Well, in the manner of "feel" betraying reality, do you think it's true that self confidence, or more generally the psychology of the hitter at the time will have a tremendous affect on each at bat?

And if so, if a player feels like he's not performing well when he steps in the box w/ RISP, it could be a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy that will lead to a poor at bat. And likewise if the player steps in feeling ultra-confident?

Don't u think a "run" of bad luck or good luck could end up affecting his performance over a good amount of time?

Oversimplifying our debate, does it boil down to you saying the odds determine the performance and me saying the performance determines the odds?

Chicken or egg, Gaius? CHICKEN OR EGG!?!
:)

"At the end of the day, don't tell me how rough the waters are... just get the ship into port." - Stoney

by BCurt10 on Apr 19, 2006 3:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

i think psychology can matter

see rick ankiel.

however, in the big picture, i think confidence or insecurity or the contingency of situation matter precious little. what the statistics are telling us, imo, is that hitting or shooting a basketball has very little to do with higher brain activity.

by gaius marius on Apr 19, 2006 4:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also

I can see that blackjack, like most all gambling games, is a pure #'s game.

I contend that baseball is not b/c it's tied to physical and psychological performance.

"At the end of the day, don't tell me how rough the waters are... just get the ship into port." - Stoney

by BCurt10 on Apr 19, 2006 3:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

any proof of that?

because, i'm sad to point out -- because i certainly would like to find room for the human element -- there is a great deal of evidence that such streaks are in complete conformity in their frequency and duration with what a statistician would expect to see if there were no change in the odds at all, regardless of what the batter had done in his last at-bat or ten at-bats and regardless of whether or not there is a man at second base.

by gaius marius on Apr 19, 2006 3:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Taking out the "Clutch" hitting factor

Which I am willing to concede, as you have made good points and the numbers posted below of TEAM ba w/ RISP are compelling.

But I'm still very much hung up on the lack of psychological/physical element you believe is involved in baseball. By your reasoning would it not be incredibly easy to pick the World Series teams at the beginning of the year? I mean, aside from penciling in the Yankees and Braves for the plyayoffs every year, there is ALWAYS some surprise teams that have surprisingly great years, and often they make the Fall Classic. This does not happen by way of gradual improvement by 25 players at the same time.

Dealing w/ hitting specifically, as a guy who has played a TON of games involving hitting a round ball w/ a round bat squarly, I can tell you w/out a doubt in my mind, that self-confidence has a tremendous amount to do with hitting. It is a factor in other areas of baseball (Ankiel, Sax, Knobloch come to mind) but those cases are fewer and far between b/c, well, it's much easier to field or throw a ball than to hit it.

I would be willing to wager a frosty beverage that if you asked 100 major league players about hot and cold streaks, self confidence, and the mental aspect of hitting, that 95 of them would agree w/ me. And I'm not talking about the Kruks and Manny's of the world, I mean the guys who have put some serious thought into it.

I think it'd be a extremely interesting poll, if anything. I will have some access to a couple AAA teams next weekend, and I will do my best to pick some of their brains on the matter.

I feel like I showed up to a gun-fight w/ a pocket knife here. What I'm arguing for can not likely be proven by stats and numbers. Evidence is the very thing you have based your whole argument on. I am depending solely on thousands of games played and watched, along w/ talking hitting w/ countless other players of ALL levels. Of course there's also the matter of me not being quite as bright as you fellas, but I make up for that with good looks and spunk.

"At the end of the day, don't tell me how rough the waters are... just get the ship into port." - Stoney

by BCurt10 on Apr 19, 2006 7:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

probability isn't determinism

every team has a probability of winning it all. that some are very long doesn't keep them from being realized, once in a while.

moreover, the fortunes of any team are the result of many interacting probabilities behaving in complexity. forecast will never be a a simple thing.

yeah, i agree. but there has to be room to consider that confidence may be the product of mere good luck, and depression or insecurity of as much bad luck -- rather than presuming the causality to work the other way round. we perceive that confidence and good performance are coincident; they often occur together. but that doesn't sort out their causal relationship, if any.

we as people tend to want to believe that we control by force of mind what becomes of us -- and sometimes that clearly is true, imo, for whihc there is a much longer and deeper philosophical argument to be made. but statistics seems to indicate that, as far as hitting a baseball goes, that's a very small factor indeed, if any at all -- and we presume a relationship between our emotional state of mind and our performance that isn't really there.

by gaius marius on Apr 19, 2006 9:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

hey gaius

since you decided to switch your problems with Cedeno from his bat to his glove and STILL think Furcal was worth 13 mill how do you feel about Furcal commiting more errors than Cedeno?

"a sort of soft tyranny of positivity" -GM

by ksucubbie on Apr 19, 2006 9:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

yep

and when six months are up instead of two weeks, you'll know why -- though i daresay you could tell for yourself now, if you were interested in something besides shouting me down. :)

the kid still has 2 walks in 49 pa, ksu. nice month he's having, but it can't last and you know it. he'll eventually settle down to a >.300 ba and a >.310 obp -- and he'll still have that crazy arm to contend with.

by gaius marius on Apr 20, 2006 11:04 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well

"...and we presume a relationship between our emotional state of mind and our performance that isn't really there."

This is where I most strongly disagree w/ you. I believe very strongly that a hitters emotional state has a profound affect on his ability to perform. Again, this is not something I can prove by way of #'s. It'd have to be by testamony by ballplayers and psychologists. I will indeed be talking about this w/ some ballplayers... but my discussions w/ shrinks will be solely about my DLee-induced depression.

I realize that even testamonies would not, in your mind, prove my point b/c of your claim (if I understand this correctly) that our minds trick us into seeing a connection when there isn't really one.

I think we'll have to just agree to disagree, for now at least. I tend to think most of this is a big steaming pile o' poo. But I haven't the energy or time to continue the debate, what w/ all the sacrifices I have to make to the baseball gods to heal DLee's wrist.

"At the end of the day, don't tell me how rough the waters are... just get the ship into port." - Stoney

by BCurt10 on Apr 20, 2006 9:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

then i'm simply left to say

that what you believe is controverted by measured reality, curt, not to put too fine a point on it. i'm sympathetic to your point more generally, however.

by gaius marius on Apr 20, 2006 11:09 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

blackjack players do make bad decisions...

My take on this is that there are, in fact, cases where players don't perform well under pressure and that psychology does impact the way that players perform on the field.

However, once you get to the Major League level, the vast majority of guys who would be affected by such things have washed out. Every player on an ML roster (except maybe Freddie Bynum) has performed well at all previous levels to get the call-up; while pressure situations only comprise a small portion of all game situations, it's tough for me to imagine that any player could sacrifice that many ABs and still make it to The Show.

All of these guys have to operate at the absolute highest level of performance to get where they are, and part of that is being able to take the pressure of the big game, the big at-bat. You and I presumably don't have that part of the Major League skillset (amongst other things); they do. Since they all pretty much have that going for them, we can expect that the variation between performance in 'regular' situations and 'clutch' situations is pretty much going to level out over time. There may be exceptions, but I think it's dangerous to rely on a small number of plays when evaluating 'clutch' performance.

by dustyisdonnie on Apr 19, 2006 4:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm confused

Are you saying you do believe in "clutch":

My take on this is that there are, in fact, cases where players don't perform well under pressure and that psychology does impact the way that players perform on the field.

Or don't?:

we can expect that the variation between performance in 'regular' situations and 'clutch' situations is pretty much going to level out over time.

(I really need to learn me some html so I can format this stuff...)

by IowaCityFan on Apr 19, 2006 4:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

okay...

I'm saying that I do when the two people being compared are 'Derrek Lee' and 'Average Cubs Fan #1' and that I don't when the two people being compared are 'Derrek Lee' and 'Albert Pujols.' In other words, I'd wet myself trying to hit in front of 38,000 screaming fans, which is one of the (many) reasons I'm sitting here instead of trying to hit in front of 38,000 screaming fans; on the other hand, your average major leaguer won't have that reaction -- if he did, he wouldn't have made his way through 15-plus years of progressively more difficult organized baseball to get to the bigs.

Aside from some notable but isolated cases (Rick Ankiel, as mentioned by others), I don't think clutch performance is really all that different from player to player on the major league level. It doesn't mean that psychology doesn't matter; what it does mean is that big leaguers necessarily have the ability to play under those conditions -- if they didn't, they wouldn't be able to perform and would wash out. It's no different than having superior hand-eye coordination...just another thing that you need to make it.

by dustyisdonnie on Apr 19, 2006 4:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

OK

Now I understand where you made the jump from comparing "people" to comparing "MLB players." And I'm glad for the clarification because I fully agree with you. I like this Darwinian view of the MLB population--if you get nervous and it affects your skill level, you're not going to last long on the big stage. In a way, you could say all of the players are "clutch" because they don't wet their pants every game. :)

by IowaCityFan on Apr 19, 2006 5:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Valid point

The guys who have reached the Major League level have certainly been tested and passed on the biggest of stages. I would still argue that there are certain guys, who have had brilliant careers, but do not (or did not) have the wherewhithall to perform under the biggest pressure situations on that stage. I'm not gonna bother looking for stats on that, b/c that's not what this post is about.

Do you think that studying a group of guys at a far lower level (say a group of 'B' softball players that play at a level good enough to make national tournaments) would prove the same results? Would it be a worth while study?

"At the end of the day, don't tell me how rough the waters are... just get the ship into port." - Stoney

by BCurt10 on Apr 19, 2006 7:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

you must know

when to double-down and when not to double down ;)

One day, the dream will come true.

by brianp88 on Apr 19, 2006 4:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

"poisson distributions"

I'm no statistics major either, far from it, but i speak a little bit of french, and i'm quite curious how a term like "fish distribution"(!?!) ever got to be in usage...

That's where they got that Picasso.

by WrigleyCat on Apr 19, 2006 4:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

poisson

was a man. well, a french man.

by mike bornemann on Apr 19, 2006 4:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Damned French

messing w/ Americas past-time like that.

"At the end of the day, don't tell me how rough the waters are... just get the ship into port." - Stoney

by BCurt10 on Apr 19, 2006 7:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

"freedom distributions"

by dustyisdonnie on Apr 19, 2006 7:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed, Gaius

Though I must note that 162 games doesn't seem to be a large enough sample size to fully shake everything out. See White Sox starting pitching last year who were 9th in the AL in K/9 but tied for first in ERA! I kept waiting for them to melt down, and waiting, and waiting... Sometimes improbability improbably continues! So let's hear it for the improbable success of Cubs hitting with risp.

by IowaCityFan on Apr 19, 2006 3:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

sox staff

are not strike out pitchers. they are location addicts like Mad Dog, which is why they pitch many innings w/o piling up pitch counts. thus they had gas in the tank last post-season and also don't rely on power to make outs the way that Wood, Prior and to a lesser extent Z do.

However, they also were a very healthy bunch and that is what i am waiting for, Mr Injury Bug to bite their hind-flesh.

by blueisthecolor on Apr 19, 2006 3:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

They also had...

...a very good defense.

by jolietconvict on Apr 19, 2006 4:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

cheers to that!

and i agree with you that the sample must sometimes be very large indeed to allow for complete regression.

in the risp example, let's compare the team baa with the team baa w/risp for 2005 for the top five hitting clubs in the majors:

red sox -- .281 -- .291 -- +10
yankees -- .276 -- .272 -- -4
devil rays -- .274 -- .285 -- +11
tigers -- .272 -- .273 -- +1
marlins -- .272 -- .276 -- +4

some differences. but if we expand the sample to the last four years, the two converge:

red sox -- .279 -- .282 -- +3
rockies -- .275 -- .270 -- -5
angels -- .274 -- .278 -- +4
cardinals -- .273 -- .274 -- +1
mariners -- .272 -- .268 -- -4

and if you expand the sample yet further, the numbers converge completely.

so here's to an insufficiently large cub sample! :)

by gaius marius on Apr 19, 2006 4:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm forced

to watch a lot of Red Sox baseball, and you don't think the multiple walk off homers Ortiz had last year contributed to that higer average with risp?

I'm just asking because for an entire season 10 points is a lot, and you can't compare a team from last season and one 3 years ago, of course the numbers are going to equal out

by flyball on Apr 20, 2006 8:30 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

but that's just it

the question is whether or not ortiz influenced those walkoff shots by the force of his state of mind -- or whether he simply hits a lot of home runs and happened to hit some of them to end games last year.

measured reality indicates the latter is true.

by gaius marius on Apr 20, 2006 11:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

On balls in play...

44% of it is luck.
28% of it is the pitcher
17% of it is the defense
11% of it is the ball park.

Luck plays the biggest factor in batted balls in play.

The bottom line is that when balls are hit in play (ones that stay in the park) luck is going to factor into the outcome of that batted ball more than anything else.

by Maddog on Apr 19, 2006 6:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

What goes down, must come up?

Why is it, that when a team or player (particularly a CUB team or player) perform ABOVE their expected level that everyone starts the oh so popular Return To The Mean chant... but when the team or players are performing BELOW expectations that theory goes the way of wind-chill in the summer time????

Is it POSSIBLE that in baseball, players don't always regress to old habits/averages/performance levels?

"At the end of the day, don't tell me how rough the waters are... just get the ship into port." - Stoney

by BCurt10 on Apr 19, 2006 2:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

not to him

and if it does is a very very big exception

athletes raising the level of their game? psssh

dont you know that all sports are determined in board rooms and stat sheets?

the field is just a place where those genetic freaks play out their finacial role

"a sort of soft tyranny of positivity" -GM

by ksucubbie on Apr 19, 2006 2:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well

Is it POSSIBLE that in baseball, players don't always regress to old habits/averages/performance levels?
Rarely do players just establish much higher levels of performance. Usually there is a trend. The trend-line may steepen. Sometime there are anomalous spikes. Look at someone like Adrian Beltre. After 2004 many were saying how he finally "figured it out". Guess what? He came right back down to his career levels last year. Look at Corey Patterson. He had two great months in '03. People expected a new higher level of production, but it never materialized. People do expect players to come back up to established levels. When DLee started off slow in '04 everyone knew he'd turn it around eventually. I don't expect Jacque Jones to hit under .100 all year. Likewise when Neifi! was hitting .375 last year you knew it wouldn't last.

by jolietconvict on Apr 19, 2006 3:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

bollocks

the learning curve for people is always differnt- do you expect chris carpenter to have a 4.24 ERA this year? no- but thats his average- and it would be much higher execpt since two years ago he changed his level of play and became what he is today

"a sort of soft tyranny of positivity" -GM

by ksucubbie on Apr 19, 2006 4:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Did you even read...

...what I wrote? Here's Carpenter's ERA+ for his career:
1997 91 1998 106 1999 112 2000 79 2001 116 2002 85 2004 121 2005 151

Except for 2000, which is an anomoly, and 2002 when he was injured there's a clear improvement trend. It's not like he went from an ERA+ of 90 to 120 overnight. Guy don't just become good players overnight and sustain that level of performance.

by jolietconvict on Apr 19, 2006 4:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

changes are possible but exceedingly rare

that's all he's saying, ksu. and it's well proven by the fact that just about everyone i've heard in teh last couple years try to make the argument you're making have had to resort to chris carpenter. :)

as such, it's silly to expect or hope for changes to be permanent when they are very likely not. the chances are extremely good that derrek lee, for example, goes back to hitting 275/365/500 this year. i hope he doesn't -- i hope he continues to mash like last year until he's 50 -- but the odds are pretty long against him.

by gaius marius on Apr 19, 2006 4:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

and carpenter

isn't a great example, as jc shows above.

by gaius marius on Apr 19, 2006 4:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

since im

trying desperatly to get this legal summary about crazy horse and malt liqour done- i wont hump around for cases-

Schilling is a another guy who comes to mind who turned it around and maintained for awhile-

"a sort of soft tyranny of positivity" -GM

by ksucubbie on Apr 19, 2006 4:26 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Schilling's...

...first season as a starter he put up an ERA+ of 150. He followed that up with strike shortened seasons of 100 and 96. Since then he's not put up an ERA+ below 121, except for last season when he put up a 77 but he was injured. Once again he didn't just "get it".

by jolietconvict on Apr 19, 2006 4:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

upon

further review of schilling- i concede that point - i seem to remember him saying something in his mid to late twenties made him go to becoming and elite starter

but yeah his stats have been consistantly good

"a sort of soft tyranny of positivity" -GM

by ksucubbie on Apr 19, 2006 4:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Clutch Hitting

The idea of clutch hitting is fun, but not real. Some people's hits happen at exciting times. How many game-winning homers did Alex Gonzalez have as a Cub? At least 6 I can find, maybe more. But I don't want him up to bat in a key situation...

by IowaCityFan on Apr 19, 2006 4:54 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs