(Un)Clutch Cubs

[Transmogrified Tiger]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-opposite-of-the-angels/

 

That, folks, is a total of -35 wins. The Angels have become spectacles of clutch hitting perfection. If you take their Clutch scores since 2000 and add them all up, you won’t reach 20 wins and if you only add up the positive values you fall four shy of 30. The Cubs are essentially the anti-Angels but to a higher degree. If someone were to ink a holy book of unclutch named The Book of A-Rod (ironically, of course), the 2000-2010 Cubs would be all up in that.

 

There does not seem to be a common thread either. They’ve had four different managers over this span, numerous hitting coaches – including the highly praised Rudy Jaramillo – and even a couple of general managers. Maybe everything, from teaching to evaluation and preparation methods remained the same, but that seems unlikely. This phenomenon drains on players homegrown and free agents signed alike. It appears to hold no discrimination for age or position. The only thing constant is that it has zapped the Cubs for the last decade plus and the answer as to why is mystifying.

 

Only the Cubs.

[Soul]

It's been a real party living through it, too, as everyone around here can attest. :|

[Sammy Sofa]

The Cubs need to stop welcoming their new players with a big basket of clutch cancer. Edited August 16, 2010 by Sammy Sofa

[Bull]

at what point does the amount of day games theory gain some credence? (worn out, unable to find the "next gear"?

[MidoreX]

at what point does the amount of day games theory gain some credence? (worn out, unable to find the "next gear"?

 

I've never been a big believer in the day games being a disadvantage, and I've never really been big on a player being "clutch". Having said that, I would be curious to see the day/night, home/road, and indoor/outdoor splits of that analysis. I doubt you'd find any kind of discernible pattern league-wide across the splits.

[Guest]

at what point does the amount of day games theory gain some credence? (worn out, unable to find the "next gear"?

Never. It's an excuse. "Clutch" is a useless distinction.

[third eye]

at what point does the amount of day games theory gain some credence? (worn out, unable to find the "next gear"?

Never. It's an excuse. "Clutch" is a useless distinction.

 

It is useless as a predictive tool, but this article was backwards looking. It just highlights the fact that the results have been unclutch. No one here would suggest clutch performance is a good metric to use when evaluating an individual player's expected future performance, but that doesn't mean you have to turn a completely blind eye to macro results that seem pretty consistent over the course of a decade. It is at least worth considering whether there are outside identifiable factors. I will agree that it is too easy to make excuses for repeated failures, though, so seeing something like this can be kind of irksome.

 

Wow, 6.5 wins in 2004. And this only counts high-leverage plate appearances, right? It doesn't include the high leverage innings blown by the bullpen? Yeesh, that hurts.

[J.R.]

Advance scouting. We have none.

[Soul]

If it's as simple as advance scouting, then that's pathetic for an organization to not engage in a basic activity that could make a huge difference like that.

[Sammy Sofa]

If it's as simple as advance scouting

 

It's not.

[Guest]

at what point does the amount of day games theory gain some credence? (worn out, unable to find the "next gear"?

Never. It's an excuse. "Clutch" is a useless distinction.

 

It is useless as a predictive tool, but this article was backwards looking. It just highlights the fact that the results have been unclutch. No one here would suggest clutch performance is a good metric to use when evaluating an individual player's expected future performance, but that doesn't mean you have to turn a completely blind eye to macro results that seem pretty consistent over the course of a decade. It is at least worth considering whether there are outside identifiable factors. I will agree that it is too easy to make excuses for repeated failures, though, so seeing something like this can be kind of irksome.

 

Wow, 6.5 wins in 2004. And this only counts high-leverage plate appearances, right? It doesn't include the high leverage innings blown by the bullpen? Yeesh, that hurts.

If it's useless a predictive tool, it is useless as retrospective tool too. It's a mental masturbation tool, if anything.

 

The main reason why it's useless in this instance is that "clutch" isn't a team statistic any more than wins are a starting pitcher statistic. Their are other reasons too but I'm not wasting any more time with the nonsense.

[Magnetic Curses]

so we've finally got a metric that identifies my team as unlucky.

[Sammy Sofa]

so we've finally got a metric that identifies my team as unlucky.

 

sulley, I will punch you.

[third eye]

at what point does the amount of day games theory gain some credence? (worn out, unable to find the "next gear"?

Never. It's an excuse. "Clutch" is a useless distinction.

 

It is useless as a predictive tool, but this article was backwards looking. It just highlights the fact that the results have been unclutch. No one here would suggest clutch performance is a good metric to use when evaluating an individual player's expected future performance, but that doesn't mean you have to turn a completely blind eye to macro results that seem pretty consistent over the course of a decade. It is at least worth considering whether there are outside identifiable factors. I will agree that it is too easy to make excuses for repeated failures, though, so seeing something like this can be kind of irksome.

 

Wow, 6.5 wins in 2004. And this only counts high-leverage plate appearances, right? It doesn't include the high leverage innings blown by the bullpen? Yeesh, that hurts.

If it's useless a predictive tool, it is useless as retrospective tool too. It's a mental masturbation tool, if anything.

 

The main reason why it's useless in this instance is that "clutch" isn't a team statistic any more than wins are a starting pitcher statistic. Their are other reasons too but I'm not wasting any more time with the nonsense.

 

First of all, the fact that this came from fangraphs rather than a meathead writer on ESPN makes it at least a little bit more interesting than the standard discussion of "clutch". They actually point out that the traditional regression/clean slate approach to normalizing for clutch variances from year to year dont seem to work here. It is a trend that has carried over through multiple coaching staffs, GMs and players. Maybe it is just flipping a coin and having it turn up tails 8 times in 10 years or 9 in 11. That's probably the most likely scenario. And I'm not even arguing for clutchiness as a cause here, because that would be crazy. I'm only saying that outcomes that are consistently out of the expected range, and by this magnitude, are worth examining further.

[erik316wttn]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-opposite-of-the-angels/

 

That, folks, is a total of -35 wins. The Angels have become spectacles of clutch hitting perfection. If you take their Clutch scores since 2000 and add them all up, you won’t reach 20 wins and if you only add up the positive values you fall four shy of 30. The Cubs are essentially the anti-Angels but to a higher degree. If someone were to ink a holy book of unclutch named The Book of A-Rod (ironically, of course), the 2000-2010 Cubs would be all up in that.

 

There does not seem to be a common thread either. They’ve had four different managers over this span, numerous hitting coaches – including the highly praised Rudy Jaramillo – and even a couple of general managers. Maybe everything, from teaching to evaluation and preparation methods remained the same, but that seems unlikely. This phenomenon drains on players homegrown and free agents signed alike. It appears to hold no discrimination for age or position. The only thing constant is that it has zapped the Cubs for the last decade plus and the answer as to why is mystifying.

 

Only the Cubs.

 

I know you mean that sarcastically, but if you believe in clutch, then yes, only the Cubs.

[Sammy Sofa]

Unless you're the Angels, in which case you win a WS in the same time.

 

Think about this reeeeeeeeeealllllll hard for 2 seconds.

[jyoung55]

at what point does the amount of day games theory gain some credence? (worn out, unable to find the "next gear"?

Never. It's an excuse. "Clutch" is a useless distinction.

 

It is useless as a predictive tool, but this article was backwards looking. It just highlights the fact that the results have been unclutch. No one here would suggest clutch performance is a good metric to use when evaluating an individual player's expected future performance, but that doesn't mean you have to turn a completely blind eye to macro results that seem pretty consistent over the course of a decade. It is at least worth considering whether there are outside identifiable factors. I will agree that it is too easy to make excuses for repeated failures, though, so seeing something like this can be kind of irksome.

 

Wow, 6.5 wins in 2004. And this only counts high-leverage plate appearances, right? It doesn't include the high leverage innings blown by the bullpen? Yeesh, that hurts.

If it's useless a predictive tool, it is useless as retrospective tool too. It's a mental masturbation tool, if anything.

 

The main reason why it's useless in this instance is that "clutch" isn't a team statistic any more than wins are a starting pitcher statistic. Their are other reasons too but I'm not wasting any more time with the nonsense.

 

Two non sequitors in one post. Wow.

 

Someone should look into this whole curse thing.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

If the word "clutch" was turned into "efficiency" (i.e., how efficient a team is at turning raw production into runs, or wins, or championships), then this thread would have looked entirely different.

[questionmarkgrace]

Advance scouting. We have none.

 

I read some where no less than a year ago that some of our scouts have been working for the cubs for 20 plus years! Given how bad we have been that has to be a huge part of the problem.

[J.R.]

Advance scouting. We have none.

 

I read some where no less than a year ago that some of our scouts have been working for the cubs for 20 plus years! Given how bad we have been that has to be a huge part of the problem.

 

The Cubs spend less than anyone else in the game on advance scouting. Some of this "only the Cubs" stuff has nothing to do with day games or clubhouse facilities - our guys are less prepared than the opposition, and it shows.

[Guest]

Advance scouting. We have none.

 

I read some where no less than a year ago that some of our scouts have been working for the cubs for 20 plus years! Given how bad we have been that has to be a huge part of the problem.

 

The Cubs spend less than anyone else in the game on advance scouting. Some of this "only the Cubs" stuff has nothing to do with day games or clubhouse facilities - our guys are less prepared than the opposition, and it shows.

It's probably a combination of many things. I tend to appeal to luck only after other things that are real have been ruled out. I think the fact that the Cubs have been one of the more "aggressive" teams in the last 10 years has a lot to do with it. Putting the ball in play/lack of plate discipline creates crazy things like BABIP that is "unlucky" and other sorts of things like "unclutchiness". They probably have been unlucky too though.

[soapy]

Anderson has followed up on this article each of the last few days if anyone is interested:

 

"More On the Cubs' Clutch Hitting"

 

"Even More on the Cubs"

[WilcoFan]

If it's useless a predictive tool, it is useless as retrospective tool too. It's a mental masturbation tool, if anything.

 

The main reason why it's useless in this instance is that "clutch" isn't a team statistic any more than wins are a starting pitcher statistic. Their are other reasons too but I'm not wasting any more time with the nonsense.

 

 

So there are Hawk Harrelson types on both sides of the SABR argument, apparently.

[The Logan]

Anderson has followed up on this article each of the last few days if anyone is interested:

 

"More On the Cubs' Clutch Hitting"

 

"Even More on the Cubs"

 

So what they're saying is we need to acquire David Ortiz