Pearly Gates is...Quick ReferenceRecent postsLinksRichard's other blog:Hall Of Fame:
The "Real" Media:
Halosphere:
Minor League Affiliates:
Other Baseball Blogs:
Other Random Crap (in a good way):
Soccer:Archive
Blog*Spot ArchivesContactRichard Ceccarelli Josh Mandir |
Wednesday, July 27, 2005Age-old debate settledThe effect of "clutch hitting" is so slight as to be nearly indistinguishable from random samples. Via Rob. To tell you the truth, in my mind it was never an unsettled matter. JOSH'S TAKE: This is probably the major thing that Richard and I disagree on (well, that and chicks that are as skinny as Calista Flockhart are attractive), but I still fully believe in "clutch hitting." This guy ran some great analyses and made sure not to over analyze his data. He kept his stated facts down to what was actually shown in the data (rather than trying to make unsupported in the data), but this article was largely about batting with runners in scoring position vs. not, and that, sir, is just a loose approximation of the mythical (legendary?) clutch hitting. A clutch hit can simply be a double, a triple, or a home run with a man on first or no one on (even for the 2B and the 3B, here, as they can start rallies...which brings to mind how the Cards won the other night with a triple and then a squeeze bunt by Eckstein). Also, the idea that all of the really good clutch hitters will be major stars is poor, at best. Who is to say that Joe Blow on the Tampa Bay Suck Rays wouldn't be recognized as the best clutch hitter in the history of baseball (maybe he had 38 game winning hits in a season they had 62 wins) if only he had played for a team that the media recognizes? The fact is that clutch hitting is supposed to have nothing to do with individual talent (although the person has to be good enough to be at least mildly successful...and being a great talent might appear to be clutchiness when it isn't) or team talent (although, better teams will be in more "clutch" scenarios where winning games in a pennant race or in the playoffs matter). My main problem trying to say this has anything to do with actual (or mythical) clutch hitting is that it doesn't look at things I particularly associate with "clutch." Where are the statistics that tell us how people did in close and late situations, or in games that truly mattered for a team (such as the playoffs or with a playoff berth on the line)? Not to mention that the whole point of the idea of the "Fog" is that we can't necessarily quantify everything. There are a lot of things not currently very quantifiable, such as in depth situational stats: what type of hit each was, where it went, what defender fielded it, what pitcher was pitching, etc. It may certainly be that clutch hitting is just a blip on the radar of 40 years worth of stats, but blips may be all that are needed for clutchiness: trees can be significantly different within the same forest, but if you look at the forest from too far away, they all look the same (the opposite problem of missing the forest for the trees). Baseball is a sport with a human element, and unless you are Hari Seldon it is impossible to predict what people will be doing from what has been done, and it took him 40 quadrillion people to be able to do it! RICHARD: Ok Josh - I have, in my possession, incontrovertible evidence which proves that you are wrong and I am right:  It's a scientific fact! You can't argue with science! (related discussion here) Comments:I found it amusing when "clutch hitter" Bengie Molina grounded out to Batista with the bases loaded tonight. Small sample size, I know. I'm just sayin'... Richard, you are so wrong. Research clearly shows the graph is a parabola. Oh, and you aren't hot if Rachel Dratch portrays you. I reject your new-fangled pseudoscience as the work of the Devil! Parabola? Stop making up words, heretic! |
