Cubs 2nd to last in the NL in OPS aftrer 7th inning

[17 Seconds]

aramis has good risp numbers every year. in the regular season, at least.

[rocket]

aramis also has good numbers overall. his close and late, 2 outs w/ risp, and other clutch splits aren't that far off from his overall career numbers.

[ScrubMD]

aramis has good risp numbers every year. in the regular season, at least.

 

If he hits a single with a runner on second in a 9-1 game in the 4th inning...is that clutch?

[ScrubMD]

It only makes sense that some good hitters would do slightly better with runners on because the pitcher is more distracted than if the bases were empty. However, as I already pointed out, hitting with runners on is not always "clutch".

[17 Seconds]

aramis has good risp numbers every year. in the regular season, at least.

 

If he hits a single with a runner on second in a 9-1 game in the 4th inning...is that clutch?

 

hell yeah it is. then we're only 3 runs from slam range

[ScrubMD]

I'd venture to say the Cubs are ranked pretty low when it comes to OPS before the 7th inning, too.

 

.741 OPS overall, .682 in the last three innings of a game.

 

Only Colorado falls off more: .775 OPS overall, .710 in the last three innings of a game.

 

Are you acting like this is a big problem? Because the Cubs and Rockies are both good teams. Would you feel better if we had worse numbers for the first 7 innings? This is a pretty ignorable stat.

[ScrubMD]

aramis has good risp numbers every year. in the regular season, at least.

 

If he hits a single with a runner on second in a 9-1 game in the 4th inning...is that clutch?

 

hell yeah it is. then we're only 3 runs from slam range

 

HA! I never said the Cubs were losing in this situation. You've fallen right into my trap!

[17 Seconds]

aramis has good risp numbers every year. in the regular season, at least.

 

If he hits a single with a runner on second in a 9-1 game in the 4th inning...is that clutch?

 

hell yeah it is. then we're only 3 runs from slam range

 

HA! I never said the Cubs were losing in this situation. You've fallen right into my trap!

 

well if they're winning, that run puts the other team 5 runs away from slam range instead of 4. clutch man, clutch

[Vanilla Ice]

This is one of the dumbest arguments Erik has ever come up with

[ScrubMD]

well if they're winning, that run puts the other team 5 runs away from slam range instead of 4. clutch man, clutch

 

In my scenario, I also failed to mention whether the run scored or not. I'm just like a predator toying with his prey at this point. More mind games forthcoming.

[17 Seconds]

well if they're winning, that run puts the other team 5 runs away from slam range instead of 4. clutch man, clutch

 

In my scenario, I also failed to mention whether the run scored or not. I'm just like a predator toying with his prey at this point. More mind games forthcoming.

 

okay, if the run didn't score... that still means the run that takes the other team from 5 runs away from slam range to 4 runs away from slam range just got moved 90 feet closer to home, thanks to the clutchness of aramis! he basically is insuring victory all by himself

[erik316wttn]

what player does that consistently year in and year out?

 

You're missing the point.

 

I didn't ask which players do that . I asked that IF there were a player that did that, would he quailify as "clutch?"

 

The answer, btw, is yes.

 

So if there were a creature that looked like a horse, except it had a horn on its head and could fly, would that be a unicorn? The answer is yes. Ergo, despite the fact that no one has ever seen one or any evidence of one, unicorns exist.

 

Wow, way to disprove my argument with a logical, accurate hypothetical there.

 

You sure showed me!

[erik316wttn]

However, logic simply dictates that if anti-clutch exists, then clutch exists as well.

 

this is so far from accurate, it actually makes me a little mad.

 

Care to enlighten me?

 

It's like saying hot can exist, but cold cant. Or wet can exist, but dry can't.

 

Let me try to clarify my stance here:

 

I don't have the definition of "clutch." However, I know that it's not hitting a 3-run homer down by 8 in the 4th inning. I don't know the definition, but with all the "new" stats coming out in the last several years from baseball people much smarter than anyone else here (defensive metrics, even baserunning stats), I'm sure we'll see a "clutch" metric from some respected baseball sabremetition in a few years.

 

I agree with IMB that there are clutch situations, and non-clutch situations. I do believe that there are people who can succumb to the pressure, press, and consistently perform poorly in these situations, making them anti-clutch. However, I'm sure that by whatever definition there is of "clutch", that there are players that perform consistently better than others in those situations. I don't know how you care to measure that stat: Perhaps a hitter getting on base in a "clutch" situation a certain percentage of the time? Or say a relief pitcher coming into a tight spot late in the game with RISP and less than 2 outs and more often than not getting out of it unscathed? I don't know if there are players who perform well in that situation the majority of the time, but there have to be ones that outperform others. There are sample sizes and there are flukes, but if a player consistently performs well in these situations, is it unfair to call him clutch?

 

I know someone is going to throw out the argument "Well, if he's clutch, why can't he do it all the time instead of just in "clutch" situations?" I don't have an answer for you there, but if it happens, it happens.

 

The bottom line is this: If a player consistently outperforms a good number of his peers in the situations defined as "clutch", than that player can be called a clutch performer.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

It's not compared to his peers, it's compared to himself in normal situations. That's why it's possible to have anti-clutch and not clutch. Aaron Miles isn't anti-clutch, he's just bad. Aramis Ramirez isn't clutch, he's just good. There are rare examples of players who really underperform in those situations over a significant timeframe, but the examples are even more rare for those who overperform in those situations over a significant timeframe.

[Tracer Bullet]

OK, well, that doesn't really clarify anything. My objection to your statement has nothing to do with all of that. You said, that if non-clutch exists, "logic simply dictates" that clutch exists. Accepting that these aren't defined terms, it's still not an accurate statement. If there are players that consistently perform worse than normal in what we call "clutch" situations (whatever they are), then you might accurately say they are non-clutch. The existence of such players, if there are any, has no bearing on whether there are players that consistently perform better in "clutch" situations.

[abuck1220]

stick to irrational game thread hissy fits, please.

[erik316wttn]

stick to irrational game thread hissy fits, please.

 

Gosh, there are so many clear, well-thought out arguments in this thread as to why my stance is wrong that it looks like I have no other choice but to concede my point and admit defeat.

[erik316wttn]

It's not compared to his peers, it's compared to himself in normal situations. That's why it's possible to have anti-clutch and not clutch. Aaron Miles isn't anti-clutch, he's just bad. Aramis Ramirez isn't clutch, he's just good. There are rare examples of players who really underperform in those situations over a significant timeframe, but the examples are even more rare for those who overperform in those situations over a significant timeframe.

 

But is it performing better in a given "clutch" situation, or performing a positive result a certain percentage of the time?

 

If you see it as performing better than his normal numbers, then yes, I agree. However, if you define it the other way, then I don't.

[imb]

The bottom line is this: If a player consistently outperforms a good number of his peers in the situations defined as "clutch", than that player can be called a clutch performer.

 

So if you've seen no proof that clutch exists, why do you keep acting like you're sure it does? Back it up with evidence or stop talking about it like you're holding onto some knowledge that everyone else is skipping over.

[Guest]

But, if a player peforms a positive result more often than most other players in clutch situations, couldn't that player be defined as "clutch?"

 

So you're saying if Albert Pujols performs better than Aaron Miles in a clutch situation, it's because he's "clutch"? It's not because Pujols is a far superior player?

 

The reason most people question "clutch" is because a player's stats rarely are meaningfully different in "clutch" situations - they are generally similar to their stats in all situations.

[Keener98]

stick to irrational game thread hissy fits, please.

 

You bring so much to this board it really is amazing. Do you contribute anything to this board other than being a smartass dick all the time?

[Fred Hornkohl]

Gentlemen, let's all take a step back and reflect on the concept of disagreeing with each other respectfully.

[abuck1220]

stick to irrational game thread hissy fits, please.

 

Gosh, there are so many clear, well-thought out arguments in this thread as to why my stance is wrong that it looks like I have no other choice but to concede my point and admit defeat.

 

finally.

[abuck1220]

stick to irrational game thread hissy fits, please.

 

You bring so much to this board it really is amazing. Do you contribute anything to this board other than being a smartass dick all the time?

 

whoa

[laurens]

stick to irrational game thread hissy fits, please.

 

You bring so much to this board it really is amazing. Do you contribute anything to this board other than being a smartass dick all the time?

 

whoa

 

Congrats, you just proved him point.