Performance with RISP (Discussion from Game Thread)

[oldcubsfan]

So in other words, you can't dispel the fact the some people are more capable than others in driving in runs?

[David]

So in other words, you can't dispel the fact the some people are more capable than others in driving in runs?

 

Not really... Some people are more capable of being productive hitters than others. Those people are more capable than others at driving in runs.

[Ender]

So in other words, you can't dispel the fact the some people are more capable than others in driving in runs?

 

Well there is more to driving in runs than just OPS. A guy like Carlos Lee always gets a lot of RBI because he doesn't K that much and ends up with a lot of sac flies etc. He also hits lefties and righties well so you can't play the splits against him very well in important situations. That doesn't change the fact that RBI is a weak stat though, it doesn't really tell you anything about a hitter by itself.

 

Francoeur is not a great hitter but he has over 100 RBI this season because he had a ton of guys on when he came up to bat. his low OBP has cost the team enough runs to more or less offset his RBI totals and his overall value is certainly not as high as some other guys with fewer RBI.

[imb]

So in other words, you can't dispel the fact the some people are more capable than others in driving in runs?

 

Yes, some players are definitely better at baseball than other players

[erik316wttn]

If you want to look at this properly you really need guys who have at least 2000 PA's with RISP not just 3000 PA's total. It takes a lot of data for the data to be meaningful. You also need to compare it to league average or it has no meaning.

 

In 2007 baseball as a whole has put up the following stats...

 

 

.268/.336/.422/.758

 

With runners on it has the stats...

 

.276/.350/.429/.779

 

With RISP...

 

.271/.356/.423/.779

 

Close and late...

 

.253/.331/.390/.721

 

When you compare Ramirez's stats to league average his career numbers are just about exactly in line with expectations. Yeah his RISP is slightly better than expected but its only 1361 PA's which isn't close to a large enough sample to draw solid conclusions from and at least part of it is from the IBB's that pump up power guys OBP more than other players with men on.

 

A lot of studies have been done on clutch and they pretty much have all been inconclusive. If there are players who are clutch over a large sample they are very rare and they are only barely more clutch than anyone else.

 

There does seem to be some anti clutch guys though, especially guys with nasty platoon splits.

 

I don't see how a player can be "anti-clutch", but then you just spent all that time arguing how a player can't be clutch.

 

So it's not possible to be clutch, but one can be anti-clutch? Doesn't make sense to me.

[oldcubsfan]

Francoeur is not a great hitter but he has over 100 RBI this season because he had a ton of guys on when he came up to bat. his low OBP has cost the team enough runs to more or less offset his RBI totals and his overall value is certainly not as high as some other guys with fewer RBI.

Truly funny, silly stuff.

[imb]

Francoeur is not a great hitter but he has over 100 RBI this season because he had a ton of guys on when he came up to bat. his low OBP has cost the team enough runs to more or less offset his RBI totals and his overall value is certainly not as high as some other guys with fewer RBI.

Truly funny, silly stuff.

 

I notice you haven't really refuted any of this.

[CUBZ99]

If you want to look at this properly you really need guys who have at least 2000 PA's with RISP not just 3000 PA's total. It takes a lot of data for the data to be meaningful. You also need to compare it to league average or it has no meaning.

 

In 2007 baseball as a whole has put up the following stats...

 

 

.268/.336/.422/.758

 

With runners on it has the stats...

 

.276/.350/.429/.779

 

With RISP...

 

.271/.356/.423/.779

 

Close and late...

 

.253/.331/.390/.721

 

When you compare Ramirez's stats to league average his career numbers are just about exactly in line with expectations. Yeah his RISP is slightly better than expected but its only 1361 PA's which isn't close to a large enough sample to draw solid conclusions from and at least part of it is from the IBB's that pump up power guys OBP more than other players with men on.

 

A lot of studies have been done on clutch and they pretty much have all been inconclusive. If there are players who are clutch over a large sample they are very rare and they are only barely more clutch than anyone else.

 

There does seem to be some anti clutch guys though, especially guys with nasty platoon splits.

 

I don't see how a player can be "anti-clutch", but then you just spent all that time arguing how a player can't be clutch.

 

So it's not possible to be clutch, but one can be anti-clutch? Doesn't make sense to me.

 

Since baseball is played by human beings and not numbers, you cannot discount the human aspect of the game.

 

Today during the game they were talking about Dempster's performances in non-save situations. I'm sure that in some situations the adrenaline is not the same, and all players can't control the adrenaline in the same manner. However, when the game is on the line, Dempster's stats are pretty impressive.

 

For those that don't like RISP, do you dispute that some closers perform better in clutch situations? And how is that different from clutch hitting?

[Ender]

Francoeur is not a great hitter but he has over 100 RBI this season because he had a ton of guys on when he came up to bat. his low OBP has cost the team enough runs to more or less offset his RBI totals and his overall value is certainly not as high as some other guys with fewer RBI.

Truly funny, silly stuff.

 

Yep, all players with 101 RBI are exactly as good as each other, OBP, OPS etc doesn't matter... you caught me. We should just sort all players by RBI and then you have the best to worst players. I guess I fail to see what you found silly about the post, one liners almost always fail to convey anything useful so its not too surprising.

 

So it's not possible to be clutch, but one can be anti-clutch? Doesn't make sense to me.

 

Well the simplist case is someone like Geoff Jenkins who stinks vs lefties and has to face them a lot with RISP (or at least did before he started platooning) thus skewing their numbers.

Edited September 23, 2007 by Ender

[Hairyducked Idiot]

So it's not possible to be clutch, but one can be anti-clutch? Doesn't make sense to me.

 

It doesn't have to make sense. That's the whole point. It doesn't matter what does or does not seem to make sense. What matters is that we have clear records of exactly what happened in every single game, and these can be turned into massive databases to study what actually happened, regardless of what sense says should have happened.

 

Since baseball is played by human beings and not numbers, you cannot discount the human aspect of the game.

 

You can't just assign whatever value seems right to the human aspect.

[erik316wttn]

Francoeur is not a great hitter but he has over 100 RBI this season because he had a ton of guys on when he came up to bat. his low OBP has cost the team enough runs to more or less offset his RBI totals and his overall value is certainly not as high as some other guys with fewer RBI.

Truly funny, silly stuff.

 

Yep, all players with 101 RBI are exactly as good as each other, OBP, OPS etc doesn't matter... you caught me. We should just sort all players by RBI and then you have the best to worst players. I guess I fail to see what you found silly about the post, one liners almost always fail to convey anything useful so its not too surprising.

 

So it's not possible to be clutch, but one can be anti-clutch? Doesn't make sense to me.

 

Well the simplist case is someone like Geoff Jenkins who stinks vs lefties and has to face them a lot with RISP (or at least did before he started platooning) thus skewing their numbers.

 

But still, just by logic, if it is possible to be anti-clutch and be noticably worse in "clutch" situations, then it is possible to be "clutch" and perform better in those "clutch" situations.

[CUBZ99]

Francoeur is not a great hitter but he has over 100 RBI this season because he had a ton of guys on when he came up to bat. his low OBP has cost the team enough runs to more or less offset his RBI totals and his overall value is certainly not as high as some other guys with fewer RBI.

Truly funny, silly stuff.

 

I notice you haven't really refuted any of this.

 

I think you picked the wrong guy. Francoeur is making $427K this year. That is a hell of a value for his production. To break down his stats, exactly how many runs did he cost his team with his paltry .335 OBP?

 

And since your the one proclaiming that his low OBP offset his clutch hitting and RBI totals, please explain your rationale.

[Ender]

Francoeur is not a great hitter but he has over 100 RBI this season because he had a ton of guys on when he came up to bat. his low OBP has cost the team enough runs to more or less offset his RBI totals and his overall value is certainly not as high as some other guys with fewer RBI.

Truly funny, silly stuff.

 

I notice you haven't really refuted any of this.

 

I think you picked the wrong guy. Francoeur is making $427K this year. That is a hell of a value for his production. To break down his stats, exactly how many runs did he cost his team with his paltry .335 OBP?

 

And since your the one proclaiming that his low OBP offset his clutch hitting and RBI totals, please explain your rationale.

 

Sorry I did not mean to bring money into the equation at all. An example could be Bobby Abreu. Francoeur has more RBI than Abreu but there is no way he was a better player this year, not even close. Pujols has 96 RBI, he also had a way better year than Francoeur does. Just because he has 101 RBI does not somehow define his value, its a counting stat that is largely out of the players control.

 

Low OBP sluggers are a classic example of guys whose RBI totals misrepresent their actual value to the team.

[imb]

Francoeur is not a great hitter but he has over 100 RBI this season because he had a ton of guys on when he came up to bat. his low OBP has cost the team enough runs to more or less offset his RBI totals and his overall value is certainly not as high as some other guys with fewer RBI.

Truly funny, silly stuff.

 

I notice you haven't really refuted any of this.

 

I think you picked the wrong guy. Francoeur is making $427K this year. That is a hell of a value for his production. To break down his stats, exactly how many runs did he cost his team with his paltry .335 OBP?

 

And since your the one proclaiming that his low OBP offset his clutch hitting and RBI totals, please explain your rationale.

 

Speaking of the wrong guy.

 

Anyway, I don't think anyone was talking about actual monetary value, Francouer has probably been worth 450K or whatever he's making. You're missing the point.

[CUBZ99]

Francoeur is not a great hitter but he has over 100 RBI this season because he had a ton of guys on when he came up to bat. his low OBP has cost the team enough runs to more or less offset his RBI totals and his overall value is certainly not as high as some other guys with fewer RBI.

Truly funny, silly stuff.

 

I notice you haven't really refuted any of this.

 

I think you picked the wrong guy. Francoeur is making $427K this year. That is a hell of a value for his production. To break down his stats, exactly how many runs did he cost his team with his paltry .335 OBP?

 

And since your the one proclaiming that his low OBP offset his clutch hitting and RBI totals, please explain your rationale.

 

Speaking of the wrong guy.

 

Anyway, I don't think anyone was talking about actual monetary value, Francouer has probably been worth 450K or whatever he's making. You're missing the point.

 

I thought the thread title was dealing with clutch hitting, not the importance of RBI's?

 

But since the discussion is changing, I would simply ask for proof that a guy with a .335 OBP and 100 RBI's is costing his team enough runs to offset his RBI total.

[imb]

Francoeur is not a great hitter but he has over 100 RBI this season because he had a ton of guys on when he came up to bat. his low OBP has cost the team enough runs to more or less offset his RBI totals and his overall value is certainly not as high as some other guys with fewer RBI.

Truly funny, silly stuff.

 

I notice you haven't really refuted any of this.

 

I think you picked the wrong guy. Francoeur is making $427K this year. That is a hell of a value for his production. To break down his stats, exactly how many runs did he cost his team with his paltry .335 OBP?

 

And since your the one proclaiming that his low OBP offset his clutch hitting and RBI totals, please explain your rationale.

 

Speaking of the wrong guy.

 

Anyway, I don't think anyone was talking about actual monetary value, Francouer has probably been worth 450K or whatever he's making. You're missing the point.

 

I thought the thread title was dealing with clutch hitting, not the importance of RBI's?

 

But since the discussion is changing, I would simply ask for proof that a guy with a .335 OBP and 100 RBI's is costing his team enough runs to offset his RBI total.

 

I think you're still confusing names because I never said any of that. Would I want Francouer on this team? I don't know, he has a lot of defensive value, doesn't he? He's just not that great of a hitter.

Edited September 23, 2007 by Bunts Lick Butts

[CUBZ99]

Francoeur is not a great hitter but he has over 100 RBI this season because he had a ton of guys on when he came up to bat. his low OBP has cost the team enough runs to more or less offset his RBI totals and his overall value is certainly not as high as some other guys with fewer RBI.

Truly funny, silly stuff.

 

I notice you haven't really refuted any of this.

 

I think you picked the wrong guy. Francoeur is making $427K this year. That is a hell of a value for his production. To break down his stats, exactly how many runs did he cost his team with his paltry .335 OBP?

 

And since your the one proclaiming that his low OBP offset his clutch hitting and RBI totals, please explain your rationale.

 

Speaking of the wrong guy.

 

Anyway, I don't think anyone was talking about actual monetary value, Francouer has probably been worth 450K or whatever he's making. You're missing the point.

 

I thought the thread title was dealing with clutch hitting, not the importance of RBI's?

 

But since the discussion is changing, I would simply ask for proof that a guy with a .335 OBP and 100 RBI's is costing his team enough runs to offset his RBI total.

 

I think you're still confusing names because I never said any of that.

 

:lol: Sorry, I was too lazy to go back to the original post.

[Peoriaman]

statistics are obviously telling, but worshipping those stats is a mistake. Baseball is much more than mathematics.

[weis21]

You can't compare "clutch" in basketball to "clutch" in baseball, they're two very different sports.

 

why not? They are both sports that in particular cases ask a person to perform in a high pressure situation. Where is the grey area?

 

If you can't compare the situation to other sports, then what can you compare it to? And if its incomparable, it's impossible to make an argument for either side.

 

Because of the skill sets involved. One involves repeating a simple, repetitive motion the exact same way. The other involves an amazing feat of reflexes and hand-eye coordination and virtually no conscious thought.

 

More comparable to a free-throw would be a pitcher in a 3-0 count with the bases loaded in a tie game in a walk-off situation.

 

And yes, you can still make arguments for both sides. They just have to be objectively based, not founded in "it seems like it is this way" common-sense arguments.

 

First off, I'm not saying that clutch hitting is a real stat or even that that BA with RISP is even important. I'm just simply showing that their is a real human side to the game that should be accounted for in the mix of all these stats.

 

That said, you proved my point exactly. A hitter sees a pitch exactly the same each at bat, depending on what the situation is in the game or even if there are runners to be driven in. It is what the stakes are and the importance of the AB that determines how much pressure is put on the hitter(or how much he places on himself). Surely you cannot object that some people are better in clutch situations than others in any aspect of life. It's simply human nature that some people buckle down and concentrate more when the most is on the line (Jordan for example).

 

Secondly, as hard as it is to accomplish, especially to us regular guys, hitting a baseball is a repetitive motion for MLB players. They have seen thousands of pitches ranging in speeds and motions. Sure, the success rate for free throws is much higher than getting a hit, but that isn't the question at hand. The question is how do people perform when the situation is of the most importance? The answer is that it varies from individual to individual.

 

Thirdly, your situation involving a pitcher throwing 3-0 pitch is unreasonable. The fact that he fell to 3-0 in the first place is probably due to pressure at hand. Could it just be the luck of the draw that he fell to 3-0? Sure. In my mind it has more to do with the situation at hand.

 

After all that, the most common theme in the scenario is that sometimes people come through in clutch situations and sometimes they don't. Although, there are SOME situations in which people excel (or fail) in situations such as those more times than not.

[UK1679666180]

Some hitters hit better in those situations regardless if it's a greater ability to slow the game down, luck, random variations, or weaker pitching, therefore the tag "clutch hitter" can be applied regardless of greater details need to have substantial proof.

 

The better question is why they are a clutch hitter, if they're a good hitter in any situation, they're much more likely to be better in the clutch. You have to take it with play by play data and determine each AB based on the swings and just as important as that is the pitcher's effectiveness. Which is why being a clutch hitter is a broad and often poorly researched adjective.

 

Is Pujols a clutch hitter? He's a great hitter, but his greatest clutch AB happened to be a hanging slider belt high on a 1-2 count I believe, it's a pitch I expect any ML hitter to drive maybe not 800ft like Pujols but enough to get on base.

[Jazz]

alright, I feel like there have been 20 threads just like this in the years this board has existed, and there all going to go the same way, without a clear concise opinion, so its basically split through the middle. My fault i suppose.

[haltz]

I don't see how a player can be "anti-clutch", but then you just spent all that time arguing how a player can't be clutch.

 

So it's not possible to be clutch, but one can be anti-clutch? Doesn't make sense to me.

Most studies conclude that there's not much clutch hitting ability. But I have read a couple that say anti-clutch may exist to some degree.

 

Also, wrt the whole RISP thing, I wouldn't define clutch by a garbage time at-bat with some dude on 3B. Maybe WPA for hitters will actually turn out to be good for something.

 

Anyway, it doesn't make much sense that a player can leap to a whole new ability level when the game is on the line. MLB players have a finite number of at-bats every year, and from a self-interest perspective, they are all important. When I played, I cherished every official at-bat, because you really don't get all that many of them.

 

I can buy that a pressure packed situation may effect a few players negatively, but I find it hard to fathom that there are a bunch of players that have a switch that they only flip on every once in a while. For instance, they should probably switch it on and duct tape it to the wall during their pre-FA years. I could link a ton of studies I guess, but intuitively, some amount of anti-clutch makes much more sense than clutch.

 

Like I said earlier, if there's some extra skill that a guy on my team has, but only taps into sometimes, then I don't think that's actually a good thing. It's not like basketball (or even pitching) where you are playing for an extended period of time and there probably is coasting and raising your game involved. You get five a night if you are lucky.

[Mizzou]

I can buy that a pressure packed situation may effect a few players negatively, but I find it hard to fathom that there are a bunch of players that have a switch that they only flip on every once in a while. For instance, they should probably switch it on and duct tape it to the wall during their pre-FA years. I could link a ton of studies I guess, but intuitively, some amount of anti-clutch makes much more sense than clutch.

I don't follow this line of thinking at all. How do you acknowledge that some players are negatively affected by high pressure situations, yet at the same time say that those that are affected in a positive way are just random occurrences. Seriously, this makes zero sense.

[Guest]

I can buy that a pressure packed situation may effect a few players negatively, but I find it hard to fathom that there are a bunch of players that have a switch that they only flip on every once in a while. For instance, they should probably switch it on and duct tape it to the wall during their pre-FA years. I could link a ton of studies I guess, but intuitively, some amount of anti-clutch makes much more sense than clutch.

I don't follow this line of thinking at all. How do you acknowledge that some players are negatively affected by high pressure situations, yet at the same time say that those that are affected in a positive way are just random occurrences. Seriously, this makes zero sense.

 

If that were the case, wouldn't they be good all the time? It makes complete sense.

[NewUserName]

statistics are obviously telling, but worshipping those stats is a mistake. Baseball is much more than mathematics.

 

Of course this is true. There is no actual stats in the game themselves. What stats do is give us a mathematical analysis of the outcome of games. So we can predict what will happen in the future.

 

There is no stats in driving a car. I do know its statistically better to where a seatbelt and not drink when driving though. Of course there are some occasions when wearing a seatbelt may cost me my life, it is silly to try to predict when that occasion will come when starting my car. So it would be best if I wore it everytime.

 

The more I am around the more I know there are certain "truths" in baseball that are not true at all. Clutch hitting, Last 3 outs are the toughest, Power pitchers pitch better in cold weather, Some pitchers know how to win are some of those non-truths.