SORIANO HAS ARRIVED!

[Sarcastic]

Well, with a refutation like that, how can I argue?

 

If you want to judge post counts instead of each post on its own merits, you can do so.

 

But what I stated is a fact. How is not? To argue against that would be to say that every player in baseball history has the same differentiation between their overall OPS, their bases empty OPS, and their runners on OPS. Which is clearly not the case.

 

No, the argument would be that the differences in player's stats with RISP, close and late, etc., are generally more influenced by other factors, and therefore not predictive from year to year. Clearly some players have batted better in "clutch" situations than others. The question is, is that predictive of their future performance in such cases? Most of the time, the answer is no.

[badnews]

Well, congratulations. You just proved post count has no bearing on intelligent, rational discussion. It's foolish to say someone is "completely wrong" without reading their post. It's foolish to say "you have no argument" without reading the post. And sorry, but chance doesn't account for the wide variations or surprisingly consistent performance in these situations. Some players do better than others, that much is clear.

 

And even if it "chance," what I stated is still a fact, so you're wrong.

[badnews]

No, the argument would be that the differences in player's stats with RISP, close and late, etc., are generally more influenced by other factors, and therefore not predictive from year to year. Clearly some players have batted better in "clutch" situations than others. The question is, is that predictive of their future performance in such cases? Most of the time, the answer is no.

 

The "other factors" have never been reasonably substantiated to my satisfaction. The answer may sometimes be no, it doesn't predict the future, but there are players that it more often does, like Casey Blake. To a lesser degree this applies to Soriano. Soriano has been playing too long to reasonably expect this to change.

 

I don't know many hitters who fit this situation, but when there's many years of this kind of situational hitting happening, I think it doesn't make sense to ignore it.

Edited June 16, 2007 by badnews

[Sarcastic]

No, the argument would be that the differences in player's stats with RISP, close and late, etc., are generally more influenced by other factors, and therefore not predictive from year to year. Clearly some players have batted better in "clutch" situations than others. The question is, is that predictive of their future performance in such cases? Most of the time, the answer is no.

 

The "other factors" have never been reasonably substantiated to my satisfaction. The answer may sometimes be no, it doesn't predict the future, but there are players that it more often does, like Casey Blake. To a lesser degree this applies to Soriano. Soriano has been playing too long to reasonably expect this to change.

 

I don't know many hitters who fit this situation, but when there's many years of this kind of situational hitting happening, I think it doesn't make sense to ignore it.

 

Let's look at a year to year breakdown of his numbers with runners on base:

 

2002: .328/.353/.543/.896

2003: .263/.320/.444/.764

2004: .300/.345/.488/.833

2005: .240/.273/.469/.742

2006: .274/.396/.566/.962

2007: .250/.344/.363/.707

 

As we can see, his numbers jump around quite a bit from year to year, and his overall numbers don't seem to be especially predictive of performance with runners on base. His numbers with runners on do seem, unsurprisingly, to be somewhat related to how well he batted overall in each particular year. Below average career numbers with runners on do not convince me that he isn't capable of handling a spot in the middle of the order.

 

I think his career numbers may be skewed slightly towards the negative by the fact that in his best years, he typically had his fewest ABs with runners on (in 2006, for example, because he was leading off).

 

The problem with the Soriano-isn't-clutch theory is that it reverses the normal causal relationships of baseball, saying that his best years came because he had fewer ABs with runners on. That doesn't hold for his career year in 2006, though, since his OPS with runners on was better than his OPS for the whole season. The argument would make sense if his runners on base numbers were consistently poor, but they sure don't look consistent to me.

Edited June 16, 2007 by Sarcastic

[Mephistopheles]

Well, congratulations. You just proved post count has no bearing on intelligent, rational discussion. It's foolish to say someone is "completely wrong" without reading their post. It's foolish to say "you have no argument" without reading the post. And sorry, but chance doesn't account for the wide variations or surprisingly consistent performance in these situations. Some players do better than others, that much is clear.

 

And even if it "chance," what I stated is still a fact, so you're wrong.

 

No, I should congratulate you. You're trying to awake a sleeping giant (me). I know what I'm talking about. Don't mistake me for an ESPN telecaster.

[imb]

I am eagerly, and I mean eagerly, anticipating this thread.

[Sarcastic]

Well, congratulations. You just proved post count has no bearing on intelligent, rational discussion. It's foolish to say someone is "completely wrong" without reading their post. It's foolish to say "you have no argument" without reading the post. And sorry, but chance doesn't account for the wide variations or surprisingly consistent performance in these situations. Some players do better than others, that much is clear.

 

And even if it "chance," what I stated is still a fact, so you're wrong.

 

No, I should congratulate you. You're trying to awake a sleeping giant (me). I know what I'm talking about. Don't mistake me for an ESPN telecaster.

 

Everyone here knows that you know what you are talking about. No need to get in the face of a new poster for not respecting your might. Can we talk about Soriano, here?

[Mephistopheles]

Well, congratulations. You just proved post count has no bearing on intelligent, rational discussion. It's foolish to say someone is "completely wrong" without reading their post. It's foolish to say "you have no argument" without reading the post. And sorry, but chance doesn't account for the wide variations or surprisingly consistent performance in these situations. Some players do better than others, that much is clear.

 

And even if it "chance," what I stated is still a fact, so you're wrong.

 

No, I should congratulate you. You're trying to awake a sleeping giant (me). I know what I'm talking about. Don't mistake me for an ESPN telecaster.

 

Everyone here knows that you know what you are talking about. No need to get in the face of a new poster for not respecting your might. Can we talk about Soriano, here?

 

I am eagerly, and I mean eagerly, anticipating this thread.

[Sarcastic]

Well, congratulations. You just proved post count has no bearing on intelligent, rational discussion. It's foolish to say someone is "completely wrong" without reading their post. It's foolish to say "you have no argument" without reading the post. And sorry, but chance doesn't account for the wide variations or surprisingly consistent performance in these situations. Some players do better than others, that much is clear.

 

And even if it "chance," what I stated is still a fact, so you're wrong.

 

No, I should congratulate you. You're trying to awake a sleeping giant (me). I know what I'm talking about. Don't mistake me for an ESPN telecaster.

 

Everyone here knows that you know what you are talking about. No need to get in the face of a new poster for not respecting your might. Can we talk about Soriano, here?

 

I am eagerly, and I mean eagerly, anticipating this thread.

 

Alright, then, but no punching below the belt. :lol:

[badnews]

Let's look at a year to year breakdown of his numbers with runners on base:

 

2002: .328/.353/.543/.896

2003: .263/.320/.444/.764

2004: .300/.345/.488/.833

2005: .240/.273/.469/.742

2006: .274/.396/.566/.962

2007: .250/.344/.363/.707

 

As we can see, his numbers jump around quite a bit from year to year, and his overall numbers don't seem to be especially predictive of performance with runners on base. His numbers with runners on do seem, unsurprisingly, to be somewhat related to how well he batted overall in each particular year. Below average career numbers with runners on do not convince me that he isn't capable of handling a spot in the middle of the order.

 

I think his career numbers may be skewed slightly towards the negative by the fact that in his best years, he typically had his fewest ABs with runners on (in 2006, for example, because he was leading off).

 

The problem with the Soriano-isn't-clutch theory is that it reverses the normal causal relationships of baseball, saying that his best years came because he had fewer ABs with runners on. That doesn't hold for his career year in 2006, though, since his OPS with runners on was better than his OPS for the whole season. The argument would make sense if his runners on base numbers were consistently poor, but they sure don't look consistent to me.

 

Let's forget about Soriano for a moment. Some of the statements in this topic that there is no such thing as clutch bother me. I'll have to re-post ten minutes worth of stuff because of the board logged me off, but what the heck.

 

If clutch doesn't exist, than it doesn't exist in any degree, and nobody would be more likely to produce at least their Bases Empty OPS with Runners On and RISP then. But that is not the case.

 

OPS with Bases Empty - OPS with Runners On - OPS with RISP

 

Casey Blake

 

2007: .941 - .763 - .576

2006: .942 - .708 - .811

2005: .886 - 558 - .491

2004: .908 - .769 - .723

2003: .743 - .695 - .718

 

It's clear. Every single year of his career his OPS with the bases empty has been better than his OPS with runners on or with RISP, often *hundreds* of points better/worse. There is no equivocating. Casey Blake is a poor hitter with men on base vs. with the bases empty, this is almost legendary. Ignoring it because "clutch doesn't exist" would be foolish. It seems patently clear - put this guy somewhere in the lineup where few men are on base. Batting him right in the meat of the order would be foolish.

 

So, if clutch doesn't exist, then nobody can be more likely to reproduce their Bases Empty OPS with Runners On or RISP? Wrong.

 

Ibanez

 

2007 - .642 - .895 - .920

2006- .825 - .921 - 1.050

2005- .767 - .822 - .858

2004- .837 - .811 - .736

2003- .818- .780 - .858

2002- .807 - .975 - .981

 

Ibanez - better with Runners On and/or RISP than Bases Empty most of the time, even when he wasn't, it stayed close, there was no huge drop-off like Blake.

 

Maggs

 

2007- 1.118 - 1.079 - 1.055

2006- .825 - .829 - .833

2005- .673- .931 - .982

2004- .672- .1.021 - 1.068

2003- .935 - .915 - .923

2002- .975 - .981 - 1.008

 

Remarkable. He's either better with Runners On or RISP or he's really close to his Bases Empty OPS. There is virtually no drop-off whatsoever.

 

So, to even things out for players of differing ability, we talk about their ability to reproduce their bases empty OPS, or, let's say, within 10% of it, in Runners On or RISP situations. Who is more likely to do so? Ordonez or Blake? If there is no "clutch" there should be no difference.

 

There is. There's a huge difference. Magglio Ordonez can stay consistent in situational hitting, Casey Blake folds faster than Superman on laundry day.

[badnews]

No, I should congratulate you. You're trying to awake a sleeping giant (me). I know what I'm talking about. Don't mistake me for an ESPN telecaster .

 

It seems to me you're picking a fight where there wasn't one. I mean, calling yourself a sleeping giant? And that kind of tough guy message board talk? That's pretty corny. Making threats like that out of nowhere is just odd and in my experience online the posters who do so are not worth talking a whole lot with.

 

You may know what you're talking about, but you didn't in the first post you made to me that I read of yours. Saying someone is completely wrong without reading their post makes no sense. I think you disliked the way I phrased it and overreacted. When I said what I stated was a fact, I meant it. It was a fact. It wasn't "I'm bragging that my opinion was a fact" I was really stating a fact.

 

"Chance" seems clearly to be a cop out. It doesn't explain why every single year Casey Blake is so much better with the bases empty than with runners on and/or scoring position, or why other players can much more consistently keep it on an even keel and not tank in those situations.

 

Anyway, I'll congratulate you. You're going to win this argument. Because I'm getting a feeling you're one of those types who always has to have the last word and does a lot of mudslinging so I think I'll be bowing out early because I don't have the patience or desire for flame wars. I hope I'm wrong.

[Mephistopheles]

Well, congratulations. You just proved post count has no bearing on intelligent, rational discussion. It's foolish to say someone is "completely wrong" without reading their post. It's foolish to say "you have no argument" without reading the post. And sorry, but chance doesn't account for the wide variations or surprisingly consistent performance in these situations. Some players do better than others, that much is clear.

 

And even if it "chance," what I stated is still a fact, so you're wrong.

 

No, I should congratulate you. You're trying to awake a sleeping giant (me). I know what I'm talking about. Don't mistake me for an ESPN telecaster.

 

Everyone here knows that you know what you are talking about. No need to get in the face of a new poster for not respecting your might. Can we talk about Soriano, here?

 

I am eagerly, and I mean eagerly, anticipating this thread.

 

Alright, then, but no punching below the belt. :lol:

 

none needed. he conceded before the argument.

[Sarcastic]

You have found here 3 examples of players who have been bad or good over their careers in terms of "clutch" hitting. Their numbers with runners on aren't exactly consistent. You can't really predict their numbers next year with runners on, just that those numbers will be better (or worse) than the batter's numbers with the bases empty. But yes, Casey has been bad in clutch situations for several years in a row, and the others have been good for several years in a row. Is it possible that a rare few hitters really are better or worse in these ABs? Maybe. But this is anecdotal evidence, and really doesn't prove that clutch hitting is a major factor in baseball, something that affects many players. It definitely proves nothing about Alfonso, though I know that wasn't what you were directly aiming for.

[badnews]

I conceded that you likely have more time/energy/willpower to win a contest of insults, but as for the baseball-related post you were making incendiary comments about, I don't think you're right and I'll leave it at that.

 

You have found here 3 examples of players who have been bad or good over their careers in terms of "clutch" hitting. Their numbers with runners on aren't exactly consistent. You can't really predict their numbers next year with runners on, just that those numbers will be better (or worse) than the batter's numbers with the bases empty. But yes, Casey has been bad in clutch situations for several years in a row, and the others have been good for several years in a row. Is it possible that a rare few hitters really are better or worse in these ABs? Maybe. But this is anecdotal evidence, and really doesn't prove that clutch hitting is a major factor in baseball, something that affects many players. It definitely proves nothing about Alfonso, though I know that wasn't what you were directly aiming for.

 

I could find more examples, I just don't have all that time. Most of the evidence against clutch hitting is anecdotal as well. What numbers are consistent? What numbers can you predict? Hey, I predicted Vernon Wells and Carlos Delgado would do well this year, pffft, wrong. I predicted Casey Blake would struggle as usual situationally, hey, I'm right.

 

I never said it affected a lot of players. I said I don't think it doesn't exist. Even when players aren't always clutch every year (and many guys don't put up the same overall numbers every year anyway) some of them don't drop off as much as others. A lot of these arguments say that there is *nothing* useful to be said about clutch numbers, I don't agree with that, as I've stated above.

 

So I'm not making any claims as to how widespread this is. I am saying, it does exist.

 

I don't see a compelling reason to mess with what works. For whatever reason, Soriano over his career has been better with the bases empty, and in his years with New York and Washington when he was leading off he was better, in Texas as a middle of the order guy he was worse. If the Cubs were a less, ahem, "snakebit" organization I'd be more apt to experiment. But I don't think it's a good idea to play mad scientist and experiment with the lineup any more than it's already been done.

 

We know Soriano is comfortable and can produce in the leadoff spot. We don't know about the middle of the order, but the evidence isn't encouraging. I don't want to leave Soriano struggle in the #4 or #5 spot for two months while we accumulate more data on the subject. Soriano's probably less likely to steal down in the order with this team, and it's not like there's a Ryan Freel standout leadoff candidate, I've seen enough of no power, 1-4 with a single Theriot.

[Mephistopheles]

I conceded that you likely have more time/energy/willpower to win a contest of insults, but as for the baseball-related post you were making incendiary comments about, I don't think you're right and I'll leave it at that.

 

Then what you believe is incorrect. Let's look at your quote more closely.

 

Some players improve more from their "standard" line with RISP, and some do worse. That is a fact; it is not debatable.

 

There is a new bolded word.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'm reminded of an example from a psych textbook I had in college.

 

It said to imagine 256 people in a coin-flipping contest. Everyone flipped, and only those who flipped heads moved on to the next round.

 

After five rounds, you have eight people left. The people in the crowd marveled at their coin-flipping abilities. Then four more were eliminated. Clearly, the crowd thought, the pressure must have gotten to them. They choked. Then two more were eliminated. They just weren't winners, the crowd thought. The remaining two were the true experts, the ones who knew how to do what it takes to win, the ones with that certain special something.

 

The crowd was shocked when of them was again eliminated in the next round, leaving only the true champion whose coin-flipping skills were clearly the best in the entire group.

 

 

Anecdotal? Yes. But a great way to illustrate why people believe in things like clutch.

[badnews]

No, even with improve bolded, it's clear some players are more likely to improve upon the standard than Blake, who can't do anything. Iron clad guarantee? No. More likely? Definitely.

 

Again, with the coin thing, that's luck. Luck is not the reason Casey Blake is awful in these situations. Every single year he's been in the bigs with enough ABs, it's been the same story. His career OPS Bases Empty vs. RISP is 300 points lower. 300 points. I don't think people can fully grasp what a change that is. Imagine Miguel Cabrera hitting like Adam Everett for a season. That's 300 OPS points.

 

Nothing can be done to influence a fair coin toss one way or another. The same cannot be said for hitting a baseball in certain situations. Maybe Blake absolutely can't stand the pressure, or some other psychological reason, but he's been doing it too long and there's too huge of a gap to call it luck in his case.

 

In baseball a player has more control over his success than a coin flipping contest.

 

Sabermetricians have been saying Javier Vazquez is one of the best pitchers in baseball for years now, that he's simply unlucky. They don't accept that perhaps psychologically he chokes more than other pitchers with men on base. But the result is the same - disappointment.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

So you don't think that with hundreds of major league ballplayers, there would be one that has that sort of split through bad luck?

 

I play in an online simulation baseball league, and there are people who are convinced that the programmer of the game is lying and that there really are things like "clutch" and "hot/cold streaks" programmed into the game because of splits and streaks like the ones you are talking about, no matter how many times he tells them the game isn't programmed that way.

 

What you are saying is that outliers disprove the model, when the model predicts there will be some outliers.

[Mephistopheles]

You're not getting it. Improve also says something totally wrong: They improve in these situations. Meaning they play better because of ______. Your argument for clutch has basically been an argument that certain guys aren't clutch. There's a difference in the two arguments and it's your critical mistake. You can't prove it that way. Let's look at it in more abstract terms.

 

We're saying A can't be B. B is the opposite of C.

 

 

you then say:

 

A can be C thus then A can be B.

 

It's illogical.

[badnews]

I don't agree with that. Let me put it this way - how can you tell when it's dark? The absence of light. Casey Blake is the "absence of clutchness." I think once you admit there are players that aren't clutch, you've opened the floodgates and it's difficult to say "Yeah, some players aren't clutch, but nobody is clutch."

 

What I'm saying is, with my light/dark comparison, is that clutch can be relative. If you're more likely to hit your standard OPS in those situations than Casey Blake you're *more* clutch than he is.

 

Take this proposal:

 

1. Some guys are more clutch than others.

 

Is this true? I would say so. It's difficult to say every hitter is equally as bad in situational hitting as Blake, because looking at the numbers, it hasn't been true. Therefore #1 is true.

 

2. If some guys are more clutch than others, it stands to reason some guys must be in the upper 10% of these "clutch" indicators. That doesn't mean they do it all the time. It means they do it many years, and it means their drop-off is less than other guys. That's what people are missing. For example, if Ordonez (these numbers are made up) has, one year, an .830 OPS with the bases empty and an .805 OPS with RISP, people would say "Look at that! He's worse with RISP! Not clutch!" But that's not much of a drop-off. That's less of a drop-off than many guys, and considering most years he's better, even in his "not good" year, that's a pretty mild drop-off, as opposed to Blake who sports .400-.500 OPS point drop-offs some years in some categories.

 

On another note, people have said "Clutch doesn't exist." Clutch is partly defined by what is not clutch, as many definitions are at least partially relative. If we can determine Blake is not clutch, that means clutchness exists, because it is a relative term. Success is a relative term. Freddy Garcia once won an ERA title with a bad ERA, but he was "good" that year. Relative definitions, fluxuating standards.

[Guest]

Play nice - if any of you need a reminder, check out the link my sig to look over the NSBB Guidelines.

[badnews]

But we don't know every player's splits, so we can't say that. It's much more likely psychological factors are involved than every year he's been playing he's had such incredibly drastic splits. Baseball isn't as arbitrary as a coin toss.

[Mephistopheles]

I am playing nice. I haven't insulted him or anything like that! I'm sure he's a bright guy and all that. He's just wrong.

[Mephistopheles]

I don't agree with that. Let me put it this way - how can you tell when it's dark? The absence of light. Casey Blake is the "absence of clutchness." I think once you admit there are players that aren't clutch, you've opened the floodgates and it's difficult to say "Yeah, some players aren't clutch, but nobody is clutch."

 

I didn't admit that. You tried to prove it. No one admitted that you succeeded, just pointing out a hole in your analysis. I haven't really commented on the rest of your posts, just two sentences. I'll go back and re-read them and organize my thoughts.

[Careless]

I'm reminded of an example from a psych textbook I had in college.

 

It said to imagine 256 people in a coin-flipping contest. Everyone flipped, and only those who flipped heads moved on to the next round.

 

After five rounds, you have eight people left. The people in the crowd marveled at their coin-flipping abilities. Then four more were eliminated. Clearly, the crowd thought, the pressure must have gotten to them. They choked. Then two more were eliminated. They just weren't winners, the crowd thought. The remaining two were the true experts, the ones who knew how to do what it takes to win, the ones with that certain special something.

 

The crowd was shocked when of them was again eliminated in the next round, leaving only the true champion whose coin-flipping skills were clearly the best in the entire group.

 

 

Anecdotal? Yes. But a great way to illustrate why people believe in things like clutch.

it's funny because the supporters of soriano as leadoff and "there is no clutch" group have a large intersection. People argue that he should be leadoff for essentially "clutch exists" reasons and seem not to realize what they're arguing. And still, not a single person has ever done a real clutch study. for shame!

and to expand, again: I'm sure clutch exists. It quite simply has to. Mental effects affect baseball to some degree. Players are aware of clutch situations. I make no claims as to the importance of clutch effects in baseball, or to the % of players who are clutch or unclutch. I would not be surprised if the clutch factor wound up being less than the margin of error of studies, if a real study was someday done.