brfahey

Is there anything new regarding Ofman's original report?

I think Rogers is just upset that the Cubs didn't trade Zambrano and now he doesn't know what to write about. On Patterson, maybe he was rushed. And maybe he just wasn't that good. Mediocre numbers in the minors could be a product of being rushed or a product of not being good.

Do you think this is a better move than non-tendering him? Trading him is indeed a better move than non-tendering but he would have been good as a backup OFer especially now that we all know Grissom will be our guy. Oh I agree with that. I think he would have been a good speed option off the bench as well, a la the Red Sox use of Roberts. I believe that late in the year patterson was brought into a game to pinch run and was promptly picked off first. That said it all about him last year.

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. Now you are talking and realizing that not all at-bats are created equal. I would expand the sample to encompass when a team is ahead by only a run or two as well as behind. And maybe, if expanded like that, the category need not be limited to late innings. Games can turn early sometimes.

Who is mocking whom? I see you and plenty of others ridiculing people who put a lot of emphasis on objective analysis. Please point it out. I have said on here more than once that stats are important and useful but are not everything. If we can all agree on that there is no dispute.

he WATCHES the games That's right, you ought to try it sometime. Of course he watches the games. Do you think that stat oriented people hate watching baseball? That everyone who doesn't subscribe to clutch is a mathmetician that's never seen baseball before? No. I think people who mock those who watch baseball to get a feeling for a player are narrow-minded and have little respect for viewpoints other than their own.

If you don't believe there's such a thing as a clutch player, you must not watch much sports, and you clearly didn't play many either. I watch a lot of sports and have played plenty in my time and I don't believe there is a "clutch player." The numbers don't bear that out. If being "clutch" is an ability, then "clutch players" would have good numbers in "clutch" situations from year to year or at least numbers that are consistent with their career numbers. They do not. It's all in how you define clutch. Bases loaded in a 8-0 blowout is not the same as bases loaded with your team down by a run or two in the late innings. You can't lump the two at-bats into the same category. I think on this one, actual viewing of the game is required. It doesn't matter what situations you narrow it down to, situational performance varies wildly from year to year. he WATCHES the games That's right, you ought to try it sometime.

The improved morale really helped results form 2004 to 2005. If Walker hurt the team's morale, and thus hurt their chances, a less stupid GM would have chosen to stay with that gutty team guy Grudz when he had the chance instead of resigning Walker. Yep, should have kept Grudz. Too bad Hendry went the Moneyball route. :( yep, grudz really eclipsed walker with his offensive prowess. Well Grudz had 156 hits & 26 walks last year compared to Walker's 121 & 31, and superior defense should count for something. Grudz also played in 27 more games. Walker was far superior offensively last season. how?

If you don't believe there's such a thing as a clutch player, you must not watch much sports, and you clearly didn't play many either. I watch a lot of sports and have played plenty in my time and I don't believe there is a "clutch player." The numbers don't bear that out. If being "clutch" is an ability, then "clutch players" would have good numbers in "clutch" situations from year to year or at least numbers that are consistent with their career numbers. They do not. It's all in how you define clutch. Bases loaded in a 8-0 blowout is not the same as bases loaded with your team down by a run or two in the late innings. You can't lump the two at-bats into the same category. I think on this one, actual viewing of the game is required.

The improved morale really helped results form 2004 to 2005. If Walker hurt the team's morale, and thus hurt their chances, a less stupid GM would have chosen to stay with that gutty team guy Grudz when he had the chance instead of resigning Walker. Yep, should have kept Grudz. Too bad Hendry went the Moneyball route. :( That's a good one.

Amen.

can we have a poll on this topic? we don't even have to include player b's road splits. I didn't say by most on this board. I know what most on this board think without a poll to show me. There's a world outside this board. yes, a frightening world full of casual fans that thought neifi was our savior last year. i'll take the opinions of pretty much anyone that i respect on this board over conventional wisdom. the people that i talk to about baseball outside of this board have no idea what they are talking about, it's often painful to listen to them and have to hold my tongue or not roll my eyes. "So, Juan Pierre's the best leadoff man in the game, eh? Ya don't say?" Arrogance alert, arrogance alert. Go get a job in baseball and educate people about how smart you are and about how dumb everyone is who doesn't agree with you. Or instead you can stay in front of your computer monitor and pontificate for the rest of your life. arrogance-schmarrogance, i just find it hard to listen to people who have no idea what they're talking about. I think that if you are absolutely certain you are not one of those people it's not schmarrogance. if by "one of those people" you mean an edward k-type, then i'm certain. Pardon my ignorance by I don't know what an edward-k type is. Sorry.

can we have a poll on this topic? we don't even have to include player b's road splits. I didn't say by most on this board. I know what most on this board think without a poll to show me. There's a world outside this board. yes, a frightening world full of casual fans that thought neifi was our savior last year. i'll take the opinions of pretty much anyone that i respect on this board over conventional wisdom. the people that i talk to about baseball outside of this board have no idea what they are talking about, it's often painful to listen to them and have to hold my tongue or not roll my eyes. "So, Juan Pierre's the best leadoff man in the game, eh? Ya don't say?" Arrogance alert, arrogance alert. Go get a job in baseball and educate people about how smart you are and about how dumb everyone is who doesn't agree with you. Or instead you can stay in front of your computer monitor and pontificate for the rest of your life. arrogance-schmarrogance, i just find it hard to listen to people who have no idea what they're talking about. I think that if you are absolutely certain you are not one of those people it's not schmarrogance.

can we have a poll on this topic? we don't even have to include player b's road splits. I didn't say by most on this board. I know what most on this board think without a poll to show me. There's a world outside this board. yes, a frightening world full of casual fans that thought neifi was our savior last year. i'll take the opinions of pretty much anyone that i respect on this board over conventional wisdom. the people that i talk to about baseball outside of this board have no idea what they are talking about, it's often painful to listen to them and have to hold my tongue or not roll my eyes. "So, Juan Pierre's the best leadoff man in the game, eh? Ya don't say?" Arrogance alert, arrogance alert. Go get a job in baseball and educate people about how smart you are and about how dumb everyone is who doesn't agree with you. Or instead you can stay in front of your computer monitor and pontificate for the rest of your life.

can we have a poll on this topic? we don't even have to include player b's road splits. I didn't say by most on this board. I know what most on this board think without a poll to show me. There's a world outside this board.