SORIANO HAS ARRIVED!

[badnews]

You are playing nice, but I don't think I am categorically wrong. Why can't it just be two baseball fans with differing opinions? Why does it have to be winning or trying to beat up someone else's opinions?

 

In any event, this is getting quite involved so I'm not sure I'm going to have the time to devote to it. Anyone want to grab my POV and play Devil's Advocate?

[Careless]

You are playing nice, but I don't think I am categorically wrong. Why can't it just be two baseball fans with differing opinions? Why does it have to be winning or trying to beat up someone else's opinions?

 

In any event, this is getting quite involved so I'm not sure I'm going to have the time to devote to it. Anyone want to grab my POV and play Devil's Advocate?

well, you should remember that the people making the new claim have to provide the evidence, your position in this situation can be akin to creating reasonable doubt. (for scientific purposes, not public opinion))

Still, there has never ever been a real test of clutchness done. the sabre people haven't even figured out how to test it. The conventional wisdom poeple have this won by default at this point

[badnews]

It's my opinion on here people are giving baseball science a little too much credit, and baseball science cites luck heavily.

 

There has been some work in trying to flesh out "clutchness." There are some rudimentary clutch stats, though they have problems.

 

One of the big pushes for luck is in BABIP. Some people have said it's all luck. In that case, Miguel Cabrera:

 

2004 - .341

2005 - .363

2006 - .382

2007 - .388

 

Every year, well above the standardized BABIP. So by one line of thought involving Cabrera, he's not as good as he is lucky. Does anyone really believe that? If the Cubs acquired Cabrera for a song, would people say "Oh, he's not good, he's more lucky than anything!" Manny has been the high BABIP master for years. I think he's more than lucky.

 

And there's everyone's favorite projection system, PECOTA. For years PECOTA dumped on Carlos Guillen, but he's done well. Every baseball scientist has said Javier Vazquez is simply the victim of bad luck. His left on base percentage some years is quite low. Now why isn't more likely than Vazquez gets the jitters in tough situations, rather than, poor Javier Vazquez, if it weren't for his bad luck, he'd lead the league in ERA every year.

 

I think the problem is treating this like an exact science, treating players like machines, when they aren't.

 

I don't agree with the reasonable doubt explanation. I think it's extremely difficult to ignore Blake's numbers. I don't think the evidence I've seen that nobody is any more clutch than anyone else is particularly compelling either. A lot of the studies have been setting out to prove the wrong thing - that players people think are clutch aren't, like "Mark Lemke once got a clutch hit, so people think he's clutch, but the numbers say he isn't." I'd like to see them try and prove that no one is more clutch than anyone else, because I don't think it can be done. I'm also skeptical that it can be proven that wide gulfs in the numbers are more luck instead of personal player mentality.

 

I think it's odd players can have varying numbers and we still rely on statistical success and scientific measurement, yet when players have varying "clutch" numbers, it means there's no such thing.

 

Some players like certain parks, play well against certain teams (even when the roster has largely turned over), etc., why can't some players perform better in certain situations than others?

[Mephistopheles]

Why do people keep complaining to move Soriano down in the lineup? Soriano IS NOT a middle of the order hitter.

 

First of all, he's a far better hitter in the leadoff spot than anywhere else in the lineup according to his career numbers.

 

His career numbers:

 

Bases empty - .863 OPS

Runners on - .799 OPS

RISP - .770

RISP/2 outs - .740

Bases loaded - .742

 

Why would ANYONE with ANY intelligence want a guy who folds "faster than Superman on laundry day" hitting in the middle of their lineup? Oh yeah, that sounds good to me! Let's whine about Lou being too dumb to make the move, nevermind the Rangers wasted years trying to make a middle of the order hitter out of Soriano and all they got was an .807 OPS stooge. In 2005, when he had 104 RBIs, he had an .887 OPS with the bases empty, and a .733 OPS with RISP. RISP and 2 outs? .597 OPS. That's who I want coming up in that situation, a guy with Cesar Izturis numbers!

 

So supporters of moving Soriano down in the lineup, be quiet, you have no case at all, you're only exposing your ignorance.

 

As for Soriano "showing up" well, he got 3 home runs off two horrid pitchers, now he's not doing anything, I still say he's a waste of money.

 

As other users have stated, there are outliers due to chance. The fact that Soriano has performed less with runners on doesn't mean it's because he's bad at it. You freely argued that the Rangers "wasted years" trying to make him hit in the middle of the order and "all they got was an .807 OPS." You sincerely left out two critical pieces of information. First, his career OPS is only .838 and you're talking about a sample size where two home runs would raise his OPS to his career level. Not exactly a very significant argument if I said so myself. Secondly, you're also leaving out that they did try to hit him 5th, which is what a lot of the users are advocating here, and he had an .838 OPS from that spot the year they tried to move him there. That figure is familiar...

 

The situational hitting numbers aren't small sample sizes; in fact, they're quite large. What more proof do you need? Soriano is a bad clutch hitter. Putting a guy who is a bad clutch hitter in the meat of your order where he's going to see the most men on base (and he does worse with men on base) is unquestionably foolish and ignorant. What part of this is difficult to understand? It's well established - he's not clutch, he "steps it down" with men on base.

 

As other users have said, why does he step down with runners on base? Just because it's inconsistent? Maybe when there are runners on base pitchers are less likely to give hitters with power pitches to hit and thus lead to a decrease in HRs? With no one on pitchers don't want to walk the first hitter of an inning or anything so they are more willing to throw a fastball down the middle because solo home runs don't win too many games. The whole problem with saying he isn't clutch is that you're ONLY using a few situations as clutch situations. For a player to "step it down" he has to mentally know it's a clutch situation. Why, then, does Soriano hit better in tie games than he does in games where the margin is four runs?

 

If it's a skill or ability then it also has to be something consistently present, but in quite of a few seasons in his career he's been fine in those situations. DID HE MAGICALLY STOP DOING IT THEN? Probably not. Its just an occurrence. Even if it were true, then the last two seasons when hes had an ops of 873 with risp he must have improved so its a non-factor, right?

 

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.

 

If Wrigley Field was full and everyone was asked to flip a coin for as long as it kept landing on tails, statistically speaking, there should be at least one person there who flips it FIFTEEN times in a row. There are outliers, probability says there will be outliers, but when you at the data probabilistically you still won't find any shred of truth in the argument that there are clutch players. Soriano hasn't been unlucky as a hitter, he's just hasn't hit well with runners on because he hasn't hit well with runners on. It doesn't mean it's because he's unclutch. It just means hit PAs have been sliced up that way.

 

And "surprisingly consistent" isn't exactly true. 3 of the 6 full seasons he's been in the bigs his OPS with runners on base have been right at or above his career OPS. That's half. Hmm.

 

Soriano has been playing too long to reasonably expect this to change.

 

But it did change in 2006, and in 2002, and in 2004. Oh look! He's always hit very well in even numbered years with runners on. He's always sucked in the situation in odd numbered years. SO IT MUST MEAN HE ONLY CHOKES IN ODD YEARS! Lol. Yeah the argument is meaningless. Soriano is fine.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

well, you should remember that the people making the new claim have to provide the evidence, your position in this situation can be akin to creating reasonable doubt.

 

As I understand it, the people arguing the for the existence of something are the one's with the burden of proof. Non-existence arguments can never be expected to prove anything.

[cubfan1955]

It's my opinion on here people are giving baseball science a little too much credit, and baseball science cites luck heavily.

 

There has been some work in trying to flesh out "clutchness." There are some rudimentary clutch stats, though they have problems.

 

One of the big pushes for luck is in BABIP. Some people have said it's all luck. In that case, Miguel Cabrera:

 

2004 - .341

2005 - .363

2006 - .382

2007 - .388

 

Every year, well above the standardized BABIP. So by one line of thought involving Cabrera, he's not as good as he is lucky. Does anyone really believe that? If the Cubs acquired Cabrera for a song, would people say "Oh, he's not good, he's more lucky than anything!" Manny has been the high BABIP master for years. I think he's more than lucky.

 

And there's everyone's favorite projection system, PECOTA. For years PECOTA dumped on Carlos Guillen, but he's done well. Every baseball scientist has said Javier Vazquez is simply the victim of bad luck. His left on base percentage some years is quite low. Now why isn't more likely than Vazquez gets the jitters in tough situations, rather than, poor Javier Vazquez, if it weren't for his bad luck, he'd lead the league in ERA every year.

 

I think the problem is treating this like an exact science, treating players like machines, when they aren't.

 

I don't agree with the reasonable doubt explanation. I think it's extremely difficult to ignore Blake's numbers. I don't think the evidence I've seen that nobody is any more clutch than anyone else is particularly compelling either. A lot of the studies have been setting out to prove the wrong thing - that players people think are clutch aren't, like "Mark Lemke once got a clutch hit, so people think he's clutch, but the numbers say he isn't." I'd like to see them try and prove that no one is more clutch than anyone else, because I don't think it can be done. I'm also skeptical that it can be proven that wide gulfs in the numbers are more luck instead of personal player mentality.

 

I think it's odd players can have varying numbers and we still rely on statistical success and scientific measurement, yet when players have varying "clutch" numbers, it means there's no such thing.

 

Some players like certain parks, play well against certain teams (even when the roster has largely turned over), etc., why can't some players perform better in certain situations than others?

I personally don't think it's clutch of Cabrera or Manny. I think they are just great hitters and great hitters hit more...some of which comes in high pressure situations. If you want to define clutch you should find a player that is pretty mediocre most of the time but excels in high pressure situations.

 

Now as far as Soriano...he's led off a game 521 times. That's 521 AB's that he had no possible shot of coming to the plate with runners on base. That's definitely going to skew his batting with no one on base numbers more than a guy hitting 3 through 5...because that guy has a chance of having runners on in every AB. Plus the 3 through 5 hitters has better hitters hitting in front of him than a leadoff guy does (after his first AB). Naturally his numbers are going to look better with none on. It gives no indication what he will do if he's moved down in the order. I still contend Soriano would get his hits batting either 1st or 5th. If he would get them batting 5th he's going to have a lot more guys on base to drive in...leading to more runs...and more wins. Unfortunately, we'll never know for sure.

 

Barry Bonds hit primarily leadoff for about his first 4 seasons but when a person of that kind of talent matures it's time to move them into the middle of the order. Sammy Sosa took a while to become a good middle of the order hitter too. I think Soriano has the talent to be in the same class. But not if he continues to hit in the leadoff spot. He's being wasted.

Edited June 16, 2007 by cubfan1955

[Mephistopheles]

nd to expand, again: I'm sure clutch exists. It quite simply has to. Mental effects affect baseball to some degree.

 

i find it funny that most psychologists agree with the belief that clutch doesn't really exist. They've done tons of research on it. Not all of the research is done with baseball, but it doesn't have to be. The most notable one is on free throws.

[Mephistopheles]

It's my opinion on here people are giving baseball science a little too much credit, and baseball science cites luck heavily.

 

There has been some work in trying to flesh out "clutchness." There are some rudimentary clutch stats, though they have problems.

 

One of the big pushes for luck is in BABIP. Some people have said it's all luck. In that case, Miguel Cabrera:

 

2004 - .341

2005 - .363

2006 - .382

2007 - .388

 

Every year, well above the standardized BABIP. So by one line of thought involving Cabrera, he's not as good as he is lucky. Does anyone really believe that? If the Cubs acquired Cabrera for a song, would people say "Oh, he's not good, he's more lucky than anything!" Manny has been the high BABIP master for years. I think he's more than lucky.

 

And there's everyone's favorite projection system, PECOTA. For years PECOTA dumped on Carlos Guillen, but he's done well. Every baseball scientist has said Javier Vazquez is simply the victim of bad luck. His left on base percentage some years is quite low. Now why isn't more likely than Vazquez gets the jitters in tough situations, rather than, poor Javier Vazquez, if it weren't for his bad luck, he'd lead the league in ERA every year.

 

I think the problem is treating this like an exact science, treating players like machines, when they aren't.

 

I don't agree with the reasonable doubt explanation. I think it's extremely difficult to ignore Blake's numbers. I don't think the evidence I've seen that nobody is any more clutch than anyone else is particularly compelling either. A lot of the studies have been setting out to prove the wrong thing - that players people think are clutch aren't, like "Mark Lemke once got a clutch hit, so people think he's clutch, but the numbers say he isn't." I'd like to see them try and prove that no one is more clutch than anyone else, because I don't think it can be done. I'm also skeptical that it can be proven that wide gulfs in the numbers are more luck instead of personal player mentality.

 

I think it's odd players can have varying numbers and we still rely on statistical success and scientific measurement, yet when players have varying "clutch" numbers, it means there's no such thing.

 

Some players like certain parks, play well against certain teams (even when the roster has largely turned over), etc., why can't some players perform better in certain situations than others?

 

 

ummmmm youre showing that you dont know what youre talking about. when people say BABIP is essentially random, theyre talking about pitchers, not hitters.

 

people who look at it attribute to luck not because some players perform better in situations than others, but because that very very few players do it consistently and the ones who do it consistently are unlucky just because probabilities have outliers. Its not our fault that just because the chance someone is consistently poor in it is say .001 percent. That .001 percent still happens somewhere. When you look at the data and try to find out if there are more than that .001 percent, you're not going to find much -- sorry.

 

Now, there may be something to Soriano hitting less with RISP because he's a flyball hitter and outfielders are more willing to let 2Bs drop without runners on. That has nothing to do with Soriano's clutch. The thing that speaks volumes is that hes actually a better hitter when the game is tied than when his team is ahead.

Edited June 16, 2007 by Mephistopheles

[Hairyducked Idiot]

 

One of the big pushes for luck is in BABIP. Some people have said it's all luck. In that case, Miguel Cabrera ...

 

People who said it is all luck are idiots.

 

What most say is that BABIP for pitches is mostly luck. For hitters, it is usually luck is a hitter has a BABIP that is extremely different from his usual levels. So if Miguel Cabrera usually hits .340 BABIP, then suddenly hitting .400 is probably unsustainable, but if he's having a down year and hitting .280 BABIP, he's a good bet for a turnaround.

[Ender]

It's my opinion on here people are giving baseball science a little too much credit, and baseball science cites luck heavily.

 

There has been some work in trying to flesh out "clutchness." There are some rudimentary clutch stats, though they have problems.

 

One of the big pushes for luck is in BABIP. Some people have said it's all luck. In that case, Miguel Cabrera:

 

2004 - .341

2005 - .363

2006 - .382

2007 - .388

 

Every year, well above the standardized BABIP. So by one line of thought involving Cabrera, he's not as good as he is lucky. Does anyone really believe that? If the Cubs acquired Cabrera for a song, would people say "Oh, he's not good, he's more lucky than anything!" Manny has been the high BABIP master for years. I think he's more than lucky.

 

And there's everyone's favorite projection system, PECOTA. For years PECOTA dumped on Carlos Guillen, but he's done well. Every baseball scientist has said Javier Vazquez is simply the victim of bad luck. His left on base percentage some years is quite low. Now why isn't more likely than Vazquez gets the jitters in tough situations, rather than, poor Javier Vazquez, if it weren't for his bad luck, he'd lead the league in ERA every year.

 

I think the problem is treating this like an exact science, treating players like machines, when they aren't.

 

I don't agree with the reasonable doubt explanation. I think it's extremely difficult to ignore Blake's numbers. I don't think the evidence I've seen that nobody is any more clutch than anyone else is particularly compelling either. A lot of the studies have been setting out to prove the wrong thing - that players people think are clutch aren't, like "Mark Lemke once got a clutch hit, so people think he's clutch, but the numbers say he isn't." I'd like to see them try and prove that no one is more clutch than anyone else, because I don't think it can be done. I'm also skeptical that it can be proven that wide gulfs in the numbers are more luck instead of personal player mentality.

 

I think it's odd players can have varying numbers and we still rely on statistical success and scientific measurement, yet when players have varying "clutch" numbers, it means there's no such thing.

 

Some players like certain parks, play well against certain teams (even when the roster has largely turned over), etc., why can't some players perform better in certain situations than others?

 

BABIP is a skill for hitters and nobody ever said it wasn't. BABIP is a way to tell if a hitter is getting lucky or not. You compare their normal BABIP to what they have this season and if there is a huge difference they are getting lucky. If Cabrera has a .421 BABIP he's getting lucky pure and simple. Luck might not be the greatest word for it, its really just variance. If I flip a coin 50 times I'm not going to get 25 heads and 25 tails, there will be variance. The more times i flip it the less variance it is, same can be said with BABIP.

 

Pitchers have a lot less control over it, what they do control is ground ball rate and infield flies which affects BABIP as well as the competition faced, ballpark, fielders behind them etc. There is generally a range where pitchers will end up for BABIP, flyball pitchers will sit around .275-.310 while ground ball pitchers will generally sit in the .290-.325 range.

 

Javier Vazquez has been unlucky the past two years. In 2006 his strand rate was way low at 65.8%. In 2005 his strand rate was normal but his HR/9 was way high at 1.46/9. In 2002, 2003, 2004 he pretty much matched his expected ERA. The problem here is simply one of sample size, 200 IP is not really a meaningful sample of data especially for ERA. If he was always 'getting unlucky' in the same way you would see it in the stats and it would no longer be bad luck, but thats simply not what has happened with him.

 

With clutch I think the conventional wisdom is that if you could not perform in important situations you would have never made it to the majors. Most studies have reasoned that anti clutch exists but clutch doesn't though I haven't seen a really solid study on the subject yet. The problem is you need a good 1000 PA's minimum to get anything close to meaningful data and 1000 PA's of 'clutch' situations is a good 5-10 years worth of stats.

 

As for PECOTA, you aren't really using the stats properly from it. They give different percentiles for how good a player is. It may have been bullish on him but he probably hit his 90th percentile numbers. There is never going to be a system that is going to accurately predict these things but PECOTA does a pretty nice job of it overall.