Clutch hitting
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 |
51 comments
Comments
my least favorite stat
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
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
No room for being "clutch" or "chokers" in that theory?
by BCurt10 on Apr 19, 2006 2:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
my problem
by mike bornemann on Apr 19, 2006 2:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can agree with that.
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.
by BCurt10 on Apr 19, 2006 3:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's great
by mrcubsfan on Apr 19, 2006 3:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
yep
baseball prospectus may never understand it but some people do
by ksucubbie on Apr 19, 2006 3:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I want to add
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."
by BCurt10 on Apr 19, 2006 3:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
well aramis
by mike bornemann on Apr 19, 2006 3:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Other factors are involved...
by brianp88 on Apr 19, 2006 4:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
none, and for that matter
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!
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.
by BCurt10 on Apr 19, 2006 3:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
yep
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,
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!?!
:)
by BCurt10 on Apr 19, 2006 3:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
i think psychology can matter
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 contend that baseball is not b/c it's tied to physical and psychological performance.
by BCurt10 on Apr 19, 2006 3:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
any proof of that?
by gaius marius on Apr 19, 2006 3:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Taking out the "Clutch" hitting factor
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.
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.
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.
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
by ksucubbie on Apr 19, 2006 9:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
yep
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
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.
by BCurt10 on Apr 20, 2006 9:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
then i'm simply left to say
by gaius marius on Apr 20, 2006 11:09 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
blackjack players do make bad decisions...
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
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...
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
by IowaCityFan on Apr 19, 2006 5:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Valid point
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?
by BCurt10 on Apr 19, 2006 7:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
you must know
by brianp88 on Apr 19, 2006 4:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
"poisson distributions"
by WrigleyCat on Apr 19, 2006 4:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
poisson
by mike bornemann on Apr 19, 2006 4:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Damned French
by BCurt10 on Apr 19, 2006 7:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed, Gaius
by IowaCityFan on Apr 19, 2006 3:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
sox staff
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...
by jolietconvict on Apr 19, 2006 4:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
cheers to that!
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
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
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...
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?
Is it POSSIBLE that in baseball, players don't always regress to old habits/averages/performance levels?
by BCurt10 on Apr 19, 2006 2:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
not to him
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
by ksucubbie on Apr 19, 2006 2:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well
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
by ksucubbie on Apr 19, 2006 4:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Did you even read...
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
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
by gaius marius on Apr 19, 2006 4:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
since im
Schilling is a another guy who comes to mind who turned it around and maintained for awhile-
by ksucubbie on Apr 19, 2006 4:26 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Schilling's...
by jolietconvict on Apr 19, 2006 4:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
upon
but yeah his stats have been consistantly good
by ksucubbie on Apr 19, 2006 4:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Clutch Hitting
by IowaCityFan on Apr 19, 2006 4:54 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

by 





















