- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Ryan Howard struck out twice tonight in 4 at bats
Posted on 7/13/08 at 8:35 pm to TigerPhan27
Posted on 7/13/08 at 8:35 pm to TigerPhan27
quote:
so you are disagreeing with the obvious?
No, i never did.
There's just more to it than hitting well in the clutch as "being random".
which is where you the contradictions come in.
you say all of it is random, then in the next breath say good hitters hit well in the clutch...i dont see what is random about that
2
Posted on 7/13/08 at 8:39 pm to someoldhussy
quote:
Now you're changing from batting with runners on to bottom of the 9th stuff.
Someone changed the subject bub. Try and follow.
quote:
David Ortiz hit .306 from 2005-2007. In close and late situations? .308. No difference.
and in his career, his career AVG goes up 16 points from .287 to .303, with RISP.
And he hits .282 with 2 outs and RISP. Again, someone find the league average.
That is pretty fricking clutch. Nothing random about it.
Posted on 7/13/08 at 8:41 pm to TigerPhan27
quote:
actually.... naw maybe another day we'll debate "closers"
this would be a good one. I feel like we'll agree.
Posted on 7/13/08 at 8:47 pm to Lester Earl
Arguing clutchiness is like arguing about God. You can't prove it, but you're never going to change anyone's mind.
Look, lots and lots of people have tried to statistically prove or disprove the existence of some clutch ability. The general consensus is that if clutch ability does exist, it does not show up in any statistical measure. There just aren't any players who showed an ability to perform better in the clutch. Not even David Ortiz.
However, this does not disprove the existence of the clutch hitter. You can't prove a negative. In fact, Bill James has written a now famous article entitled "Underestimating the Fog" on this topic in which he insists that our inability to prove clutch hitting is a failure of our tools not proof there is no clutch hitting. [link=(Read it here.)]https://www.sabr.org/cmsfiles/underestimating.pdf[/link] (warning: pdf)
It actually talks about a whole host of sabermetric issues, but since the godfather of baseball stats was renouncing his earlier statement that clutch hitters don't exist, it was like a nuclear bomb among analysts and stat geeks. and that's why anyone reads it.
Circling back ot RBI's, it is an almost completely worthless stat. It tells us primarily how a player was used, not his real quality. Put a mediocre hitter in the middle of the Red Sox order, and he'll drive in 100 runs. Just ask Joe Carter. RBI's aren't saves in the land of worthless stats, but they are close. It just doesn't tell us much. Now obviously, on the extremes it does tell us something. If a guy drives in 150 runs, he's probably pretty good. And if he's a full time player and drives in 20, he's probably Niefi Perez. But in the middle, it tells us nothing. If Player A has 110 RBI and Player B has 90 RBI, there is simply no way to tell who is the better hitter without more info.
Look, lots and lots of people have tried to statistically prove or disprove the existence of some clutch ability. The general consensus is that if clutch ability does exist, it does not show up in any statistical measure. There just aren't any players who showed an ability to perform better in the clutch. Not even David Ortiz.
However, this does not disprove the existence of the clutch hitter. You can't prove a negative. In fact, Bill James has written a now famous article entitled "Underestimating the Fog" on this topic in which he insists that our inability to prove clutch hitting is a failure of our tools not proof there is no clutch hitting. [link=(Read it here.)]https://www.sabr.org/cmsfiles/underestimating.pdf[/link] (warning: pdf)
It actually talks about a whole host of sabermetric issues, but since the godfather of baseball stats was renouncing his earlier statement that clutch hitters don't exist, it was like a nuclear bomb among analysts and stat geeks. and that's why anyone reads it.
Circling back ot RBI's, it is an almost completely worthless stat. It tells us primarily how a player was used, not his real quality. Put a mediocre hitter in the middle of the Red Sox order, and he'll drive in 100 runs. Just ask Joe Carter. RBI's aren't saves in the land of worthless stats, but they are close. It just doesn't tell us much. Now obviously, on the extremes it does tell us something. If a guy drives in 150 runs, he's probably pretty good. And if he's a full time player and drives in 20, he's probably Niefi Perez. But in the middle, it tells us nothing. If Player A has 110 RBI and Player B has 90 RBI, there is simply no way to tell who is the better hitter without more info.
Posted on 7/13/08 at 8:49 pm to Baloo
Baloo, can you just state which side you're on 
Posted on 7/13/08 at 8:52 pm to Baloo
quote:
Baloo
probably the best possible post for this thread.
Posted on 7/13/08 at 8:53 pm to LSUsmartass
I'm on my side.
I think clutch hitting obviously exists. Any time someone comes through with a basehit to win the game, that was clutch.
But I don't believe there are clutch hitters. Maybe Ortiz. Maybe Eddie Murray. But they were both already awesome in the non-clutch. And I think people whose reputations are built on being clutch *COUGH* derekjeter *COUGH* are overrated.
I think clutch hitting obviously exists. Any time someone comes through with a basehit to win the game, that was clutch.
But I don't believe there are clutch hitters. Maybe Ortiz. Maybe Eddie Murray. But they were both already awesome in the non-clutch. And I think people whose reputations are built on being clutch *COUGH* derekjeter *COUGH* are overrated.
Posted on 7/13/08 at 8:55 pm to Baloo
Thanks Baloo, you've given a clear and concise argument for why RBIs aren't important.
Posted on 7/13/08 at 9:05 pm to Baloo
quote:
I think clutch hitting obviously exists. Any time someone comes through with a basehit to win the game, that was clutch.
oh my
Posted on 7/13/08 at 9:06 pm to Baloo
quote:
*COUGH* derekjeter *COUGH* are overrated
How can people honestly believe Jeter is overrated?
Posted on 7/13/08 at 9:07 pm to D011ahbi11
quote:
How can people honestly believe Jeter is overrated?
Pretty fricking easily
Posted on 7/13/08 at 9:08 pm to D011ahbi11
Just winning a gold glove was enough.
Posted on 7/13/08 at 9:11 pm to LSUsmartass
.316 lifetime BA and over 2400 hits is that not good or how high do you guys think he's rated?
Posted on 7/13/08 at 9:12 pm to Lester Earl
quote:
That is pretty fricking clutch. Nothing random about it.
If everything was truly random, you would EXPECT some hitters to do better than others, vs league average, in clutch situations. Totally due to randomness. Look at a normal distribution curve. An example of one player being better in the clutch than in the non-clutch vs league average is meaningless if you are trying to say that "clutchiness" is non-random. If you can show that this occurs outside the normal distribution curve, then that would be some damn good evidence that it exists; something that I have not seen.
If there are some true clutch hitters, they are not so much more clutch than everyone else to make a significant difference. If it's not measurable, does it really have an impact?
Posted on 7/13/08 at 9:16 pm to D011ahbi11
Without making this a Jeter argument, I will sum up how Jeter is overrated: there is actually a debate over who is more important to the Yankees, Jeter or A-Rod. and there shouldn't be, as A-rod is clearly better.
And Jeter's Gold Gloves are humiliating to those who hand out the awards.
And Jeter's Gold Gloves are humiliating to those who hand out the awards.
Posted on 7/13/08 at 9:17 pm to Baloo
quote:
And Jeter's Gold Gloves are humiliating to those who hand out the awards.
David Wright disagrees
Posted on 7/13/08 at 9:24 pm to Baloo
Since A-rod has gone to New York Jeter has had the better average every year except '05 and also has had a better fielding percentage every year.
Posted on 7/13/08 at 9:25 pm to D011ahbi11
quote:
Since A-rod has gone to New York Jeter has had the better average every year except '05 and also has had a better fielding percentage every year.
So A-Rod makes Jeter better?
Posted on 7/13/08 at 9:25 pm to D011ahbi11
quote:
Since A-rod has gone to New York Jeter has had the better average every year except '05 and also has had a better fielding percentage every year.
Avg will not win you any arguments in this thread
Posted on 7/13/08 at 9:29 pm to D011ahbi11
quote:
Since A-rod has gone to New York Jeter has had the better average every year except '05 and also has had a better fielding percentage every year
both of these stats are completely inconsequential to this argument
Page 12 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News