pete the dog

You traded Sydney for Iowa?!!!! You must *really* love this woman. :)

Anyone have a link to the clutch debate? SonnyD is new here. You guys can post as many links as you'd like, I'd be more than happy to go through those debates, but there is no way I will change my mind on "clutch hitters". "Clutch" is all relative. Relative to when and how often it happens. A player can be a cluth hitter for a day. For example, 8th inning, 2 outs, down 1 run, men on 2nd and 3rd, hits a double to knock the go ahead run in. He was a "clutch hitter" that day. A player can be a "clutch hitter" for an entire season ( DLee's .304 avg/.431obp with RISP). But the most telling line, is what a player does THROUGHOUT his career. I'm sorry, but if a player hits .325/.425obp throughout his ENTIRE career with RISP, he is a "CLUTCH HITTER". Saying there is no such thing as clutch hitting, is like saying Ichiro isn't a good hitter. He just gets lucky when he gets his hits. To put it another way, every player, every time they go to the plate, is up there with the intention to get on base. For this example, let's just say to get a hit. Would you rather have a player hit .300 with runners on base, or .300 with the bases empty??? Another example, player 1 hits .400 with RISP and .200 without. player 2 hits .200 with RISP and .400 witout. Both hitters are batting .300 OVERALL. Which scenario would you rather have??? Player 1 is obviously a "clutch hitter". The point is, situatinal hitting is VERY important, and can actually be measured and truly means something. And we're back to the same old question: If it's real--if players do consistently and reliably differ in these ways--show me the stats and prove it. No one has been able to show it yet. Of course, if you're inclined to believe in it despite the lack of evidence, that's your prerogative.

One issue that comes up time after time in discussing CPatt were the efforts to change his hitting style. Was it a bad idea to try to change him into a leadoff hitter? Should they have left his swing alone, and just tried to train his eye for balls and strikes? My question is how possible are these kinds of adjustments? How easy is it to retrain a swing? To teach a good eye? In Moneyball, Beane espouses the belief that you can't change what players are: they are what they are--especially after a certain age. Is there an age at which it becomes impossible to change? My perception is that it's very hard to change these things at any age, and that it gets progressively harder as players get older. Obviously, some players adjust their game, but maybe that's within a pretty narrow range of comfort. I believe it was a mistake to try to turn Corey into something he's not. At the same time, I'm also not convinced that he could have developed the eye and discipline to make it with the swing he's got. Maybe Corey just is what he is, and he's not a great MLB player. Finally, what kind of hitter do you expect Corey to be in Baltimore? Will he try to develop a new swing or only try to develop a new eye/discipline?

Yeah, it's Dusty's fault that CPatt had 80,000 ks the last 2 years. The only reason Prior is now the #2 guy is because Zambrano has been incredible. So, does Dusty get the credit for making Zambrano so awesome? By the way, Prior's 3.2 ERA and 10K/nine innings is not too bad, ya know? And if Baker hadn't run Prior and Wood into the ground during 2003, those 3 would be potentially set for 15-20 wins/year. Just because Baker happens to be here when Prior and Z are here doesn't mean he deserves credit for it. If anything, that should be an extra strike against Hendry/Baker. You have 2 young, cheap, dominant starters, and you still underachieve. It seems we partially agree. My point was that Baker deserves neither extravagant praise nor blame for any particular player's performance. If you're going to blame him for CPatt and Prior, then you have to credit him for Z. I do none of the above. Whatever "woes" prior has had have been due to freak injuries. As for Wood, the decision to pitch him in relief last year was obviously idiotic, and everyone deserves blame for that. Maybe his year in-year out arm problems are due to overwork, maybe they're not. Heck, all the time he spent on the DL in 2004 didn't make him injury-proof in 2005 did it? Wood is just plain fragile. People assign way too much credit and blame to managers. I think the general manager almost always deserves more credit and blame.

Yeah, it's Dusty's fault that CPatt had 80,000 ks the last 2 years. The only reason Prior is now the #2 guy is because Zambrano has been incredible. So, does Dusty get the credit for making Zambrano so awesome? By the way, Prior's 3.2 ERA and 10K/nine innings is not too bad, ya know?

Personally, I believe that clutch exists, but that MLB hitters operate at such a high mental state that there is very little margin for improvement for most of them, and therefore virtually no possibility for clutch hitting. given that, I consider anti-clutch as proof of clutch. (in other words, it has a smaller impact on hitting in the majors than other levels) I don't follow. They seem like separate questions. Clutch: Do some players hit relatively better than other players in clutch vs. non-clutch situations? Anti-clutch: Do some players hit relatively worse than other players in clutch vs. non-clutch situations? Either, neither, or both could be true.

As I understand it, James is saying that due to the small sample size of 'clutch' at-bats per year and the high amount of luck involved in every at-bat, it is impossible to compare yearly 'clutch' numbers - there is too much luck involved. Exactly, there's way too much variation for performance in 'clutch' situations to be predictive or more than an afterthought in player evaluation. That's not what he's saying at all. He's saying that all studies to date have failed to prove "clutch" AND have failed to disprove it. James believes the methods used to determine if clutch exists were flawed. He seems open to the idea that someday there may be a study that proves clutch, but the right metric has yet to be discovered. Sorry, I was referring to noisesquared's comment below the quote, I had already read the article previously. Maybe I should have responded to noisesquared and not you. But my point is that James is not saying that study has disproved clutch, or that there's too small a sample size. He's saying it HAS NOT been disproven, and that there is not yet a metric to measure it. In essence -stretch- he's saying its an intangible. I would be curious to see, as a clutch metric, what a player's OPS over a 5 year span would be in the following condition: - the 7th inning or later of games their team is losing by 4 or less runs This would encompass a lot of scenarios not covered by 2 out RISP BA, or late inning BA. I mean, if a guy takes a wlk to lead off an inning when his team is down by 1, that's a clutch AB. If a player hits a 2 run HR with his team down by one in the bottom of the eighth with nobody out, that's still clutch. The five year span would be necessary to generate sample size, and the 4 runs would differentiate from a blowout game. I would bet the numbers would be at least slightly below career norms in most cases, with a lot more anti-clutch cases than clutch cases. I guess you'd also have to factor in that if our team is losing late in a gmes, a batter is more likely to see righty/lefty bullpen matchups and specialist setup men and closers, further decreasing the likelihood of attaining career norm type numbers. I'm sure these stats are available, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone has already done this kind of analysis. But what you still need to show is that this player's relative performance in these situations is not only better than other players in these situations, but is *more* better than in other situations. That is, if player X has an OBP that is .50 higher in these situations, but also is .50 better in "non-clutch" situations, then this batter is not a "clutch hitter." He is simply a better hitter. There may be a large main effect such that all hitters are better or worse in these situations. What I'd want to see is that this player's relative advantage over others is particularly high in these situations.

only over 1 sample, though, which is exactly the type of micromanagement that i'm talking about. with more of a sample size, your odds fluctuate. this is what you should attempt to reduce in the game of baseball. if it's a certainty that heads will come up 81 times and tails will come up 81 times over 162 flips, mixing it up could cost you. it's simple law of averages. calling heads 162 times will assure that you are correct exactly 50% of the time, while you push your luck by mixing it up. you could be more correct, or could be more incorrect, guessing is foolish if you have the talent. by calling heads, you are doing all you can to minimize chance. That's not true. There is no "law of averages." Statistically, there is no difference between picking heads every time and alternating between heads and tails. The real key in managing is figuring out which option has the greater likelihood of success across many trials, and sticking with that option. So, if you have a coin that produces heads 55% of the time, then you should always pick heads. But with a fair coin, it doesn't matter what you pick over the long haul. if you flip a coin enough times, heads and tails will ultimately gravitate towards being even. 162 times should be enough to get a fair distribution. if you take each situation by itself, out of the context of the whole, and approach it as being any different than any other situation, and act differently--there's a slight chance you could be wrong every time. while, if you're consistent with what you call, you'll be correct half the time. maybe there is someone who can explain it better than i can, but i believe that if you fluctuate between two different answers when each answer is assured to come up exactly 50% of the time, your averages will definitely fluctuate each time you perform the experiemnt. i could be wrong, though. With a 50-50 coin there's not a slight chance that you'll be wrong every time. There is exactly a 50% chance that you'll be wrong every time--no matter what has happened on any of the past 160 trials. Again, this is assuming you have a fair 50-50 coin. That 50% chance of being correct or incorrect is the same on every trial, regardless of whether you choose heads or tails and regardless of how many times in the past you chose heads or tails. The coin does not keep track of what you guessed on previous tosses. There is no difference between picking heads every time, picking it 2/3 of the time or picking it half the time. Each trial is an independent 50/50 event.

only over 1 sample, though, which is exactly the type of micromanagement that i'm talking about. with more of a sample size, your odds fluctuate. this is what you should attempt to reduce in the game of baseball. if it's a certainty that heads will come up 81 times and tails will come up 81 times over 162 flips, mixing it up could cost you. it's simple law of averages. calling heads 162 times will assure that you are correct exactly 50% of the time, while you push your luck by mixing it up. you could be more correct, or could be more incorrect, guessing is foolish if you have the talent. by calling heads, you are doing all you can to minimize chance. That's not true. There is no "law of averages." Statistically, there is no difference between picking heads every time and alternating between heads and tails. The real key in managing is figuring out which option has the greater likelihood of success across many trials, and sticking with that option. So, if you have a coin that produces heads 55% of the time, then you should always pick heads. But with a fair coin, it doesn't matter what you pick over the long haul.

i would agree that hitters most definitely get hot (see the ball extremely well) over short and long stretches. the playoffs are agreat example of the hottest team winning, not necessarily the best. the marlins, red sox, and white sox are great examples of very hot hitting (and pitching) teams winning it all. sometimes, it all comes together at once, and generally those teams are able to win the series. But those "hot streaks" likely fall within the range of their average performance. They don't all of a sudden become better hitters, per se. If you flip a coin a thousand times, the chances of hitting some long streaks of all heads or tails is pretty high. Someone observing 8 heads in a row might say the coin is fixed. But those streaks happen with regularity--even in a random string of events. So, "getting hot" (at least in basketball and probably in baseball) is within the range of a player's average expected performance over many trials. This really shows the critical role of luck in small samples--like the playoffs. The teams that have a hot streak could be experiencing momentum, or they could be experiencing random fluctuation in their favor (i.e., luck).

Do you mean individual momentum? Like a player getting "hot?" Not sure about hitting, but in basketball, the "hot hand" has turned out to be a unicorn. Statistically, it does not exist. I would assume "hot hitting" would fall out the same way, but I don't know of any analyses of the question.

Maybe, but I think the point is that there is no good evidence that any players generally perform any better or worse in "clutch" situations from year to year. I'm certainly no expert on the topic, but that is my understanding of the available data. In any science, the null (assumed) hypothesis is that there is no real effect in your study. You seek evidence that forces you to abandon the null hypothesis, and accept that something real is happening. A failure to disconfirm the null hypothesis does not mean that there is no effect: It simply means that your study found no evidence that such an effect exists. James' description of this as a "failed" study is not quite right. There is no basis to call the study "failed" in any way. The study may accurately show that no real effect exists. Or not. Such an outcome simply means that if there is an effect to be found, you'd better look somewhere else (e.g., at a different set of statistics). As Tim rightly points out, the onus is on the proponents of an effect to statistically demonstrate its existence. The suggestion that "it's real but can't be measured" is a cop-out to the extreme, and is as good as admitting it's not real. Try publishing that in a scientific journal! :shock:

Exactly.

I love this site, and want to thank you for providing this for Cubs fans. One thing I've noticed, though, is the very stern approach to overlapping threads. Sometimes it seems like the biggest crime one could commit on these forums would be to start a new thread unnecessarily. I've never seen such strict enforcement of this principle. Of course, I agree that having loads of threads that cover the same material is undesirable. At the same time, it can be a real drag to read through 30 pages of a thread to find an item of information. In the end, I think the strict policy of non-redundancy probably acts to inhibit participation as threads grow in length. I guess what I'm suggesting is maybe just slightly less eager redundancy enforcement. My related question has to do with viewing format. I partipate in other forums in which one is able to see the titles of all responses to a thread on the main page. This format also allows separate trees on side issues to split from the initial topic in a thread. So, you can glance at all the responses and side topics within a thread and find the ones that interest you without having to read through 30 pages of posts. This would definitely help to relieve the redundancy issue raised above. I'm sure you're familiar with that format. Is there any way to achieve that format on this site? On my preferences page I've tried to find a way to change how I view the forum, but can't seem to change it. Is this possible? Thanks for listening and thanks again for the site.

I think the trilateral commision is involved... :D

Very good point.

I understand that it is based upon numbers and that numbers are color blind. But, true or false, sabermetrics favors or values certain qualities or numbers or stats over others, doesn't it? Not too big on stealing bases but big on walks, for example. My point is is there a possibility that given what it values or on which it places positive emphasis and given what it does not value sabermetrics obviously favors a "type" of player, at least to some extent. All I have been asking is whether or not that "type" is more likely than not to be a white player. Yes, sabermetrics does value certain kinds of baseball players. It favors the kinds of players that do things that predict victories in baseball games. The goal of sabermetrics is to identify those feaures of play that correspond to success. If that analysis tends to increase, on average, the value of white players compared to blacks and Latinos then that suggests that traditional analyses have wrongly underestimated the value of those same white players and overestimated the value of those black and Latino players. Personally, I'm not convinced that sabermetric analyses, on average, increase the standing of white compared to black and Latino players. I'd like to see some empirical data. But if there is any kind of racial bias, it is in the status quo analysis. The status quo relies on many subjective evaluations based on things like appearance (including skin color) to predict success. Sabermetrics relies only on numbers and cares only about predicting success. I would tend to agree that "success" is the appropriate criterion for evaluating the quality of a player.

I didn't say that you said it was racist. But you did say this: "My unscientific reading indicates that it almost all players that the sabermetric consider as quality players are white and players who are considered not so good tend to be African-American or Latin." That's not a claim of racism, but it is a claim that white, black, and Latino players are somehow valued differently by sabermetrics. That is the claim that I am not ready to concede.

Thanks. Nope, not vet school. Just a guy who had a dog named Pete!

First, it's worth pointing out that sabermetric analysis are based on objective observations that have nothing to do with race. Neither Bill James nor Billy Beane cares what a player looks like--that's obvious by looking at the A's roster of fat guys. Second, I'm not ready to concede that what you say is true. I'd want to see some good stats first on whether white guys really benefit disproportionately in sabermetric analyses. It may be the case that slow, fat white guys that nobody thought were any good but that look good in sabermetric analyses are simply more salient and get more attention because they do not *look* like athletes. But there are some reasons why Black players and Latin players may not do as well in sabermetric stats. For example, sabermetrics places very little value on speed. It's possible that more black than white players have made it to the big leagues, in part, based on speed. Slow guys are undervalued according to sabermetrics, and it may be that a higher proportion of slow guys happen to be white. Slow black and Latino guys have also been undervalued, like David Ortiz was before he exploded. But there may be fewer of them. Another factor is plate discipline. One often hears Latino players say something to the effect of "I ain't going to walk my way off this island." There is a culture in Latino baseball, that taking bases on balls will not help you in the eyes of scouts. And, for the most part, they have been correct in this assumption: scouts don't tend to care for walks. In sabermetric analyses, walks are great. So, this may be a reason why Latino players seem to be underrepresented in sabermetric analyses. There are probably lots of other reasons. But the basic point is that sabermetrics does not value speed or defense to the extent that MLB scouts usually do and it values OBP much more than scouts usually do. This may differentially benefit/harm white/black/Latino players. Finally, note that the standard old boy scout analysis that looks for a particular body shape, speed, and other characteristics that are stereotypic of what they think an "athlete" should look like may well discriminate against white guys. The purpose of sabermetric analyses is to correct for these and ALL appearance-based stereotypes and rely instead on objective facts.

Hearing all this talk about giving up all sorts of high-end talent for Tejada is reminding me all over again how stupid it was not to sign him 2 years ago. He should have been the number one priority that summer, and we didn't even get into the bidding (if I remember correctly). This has nothing to do with whether or not at this point we should part with Pie or Hill or whoever to get him. I'm just sayin'.... Maybe this is a rant. :evil:

Is there any rule about a team's fan base independently raising/contributing money to a club for use in signing players?

I also do not quite get the general obsession on this board with bradley. yeah, he's pretty good when he's not injured or suspended. but injured and suspended happen a lot with bradley. funny, how last year's offseason was all about getting rid of the clubhouse problems. then again, that didn't turn out so well...