fromthestretch

If you were to take a season-long sample of every hitter with 500 plate appearances or more, it is certainly within the realm of possibility that every single one of them could hit worse in clutch or high-leverage situations than their overall numbers. Then every pitcher would be clutch. Not necessarily. In that situation, most pitchers probably would be, but certain pitchers could struggle (most likely a few relievers) and still have that happen.

You are wrong. No, I'm right. Assume that leaguewide median expected performance is a .750 OPS. Assume that there are 20 hitters and pitchers that are anti-clutch performers who are worse in high-leverage spots -- the 10 pitchers in this group collectively have a .900 OPS against in high-leverage spots (but would otherwise expect to be at .750) and the 10 hitters in the group have a .600 OPS in high leverage spots (but would otherwise expect to be at .750). As a matter of mathematical certainty, the remaining hitters will have a collective OPS in high leverage spots of greater than .750 and the remaining pitchers will have a collective OPS in high leverage spots of less than .750. How does a median OPS come into play here when discussing clutch? Based on your example above, would Albert Pujols be considered a clutch hitter if he posted an .800 OPS in high-leverage situations? I would think that would make him decidedly un-clutch, considering his career OPS is 1.047. Your performance in pressure situations shouldn't be measured against the league but rather against your normal level of performance. Take Derek Jeter for example. Career OPS of .845. In high-leverage situations, he has a career OPS of .854, a whopping .009 difference. Does that make him clutch if the league averages a .750 OPS in those situations? No. It makes him everyday Derek Jeter since it's practically the same as his normal production.

If you were to take a season-long sample of every hitter with 500 plate appearances or more, it is certainly within the realm of possibility that every single one of them could hit worse in clutch or high-leverage situations than their overall numbers.

Why do people have to be better or worse than their normal performance in clutch situations? Can't they be at or near it? I mean, if a guy is normally an .800 OPS guy and in clutch situations he's at .802, can you really classify him as a clutch hitter? On the flip side, if he's at .792, is he a choker?

He didnt dog it on the play, he misplayed a ball. Did he give it max effort? Exactly. There is NO excuse for that to happen multiple times in a season. NONE. He should have been pulled if Lou had any balls. He missed a catch. That's not dogging it. And Soriano shouldn't be pulled because that would be a stupid thing to do. When a major leaguer drops severals routine balls over the course of a season, it's pretty clear that he's half-assing it. It's really not hard to catch fly balls. When you drop one you kind of overlook it, but when it happens all the time something has to be done. That simply cannot happen in the playoffs. orrrrr he's just kinda bad at it.... Don't you realize how easy it is to catch popups? That's like saying someone is bad at blinking. There's no skill involved, you just do it. That's why no one else ever drops them, right? I mean, Soriano is the only outfielder to ever drop multiple fly balls in a single season. Check that, he's the only one to ever drop a fly ball in the history of the game. C'mon, man. No ones making excuses here. He dropped a fly ball that he should have caught, but pulling him from this game when you're down a run accomplishes nothing.

He didnt dog it on the play, he misplayed a ball. Did he give it max effort? Exactly. There is NO excuse for that to happen multiple times in a season. NONE. He should have been pulled if Lou had any balls. He missed a catch. That's not dogging it. And Soriano shouldn't be pulled because that would be a stupid thing to do. When a major leaguer drops severals routine balls over the course of a season, it's pretty clear that he's half-assing it. It's really not hard to catch fly balls. When you drop one you kind of overlook it, but when it happens all the time something has to be done. That simply cannot happen in the playoffs. Pulling him from this game accomplishes one thing and one thing only...it makes it more difficult to come back and win this game. Win this game first, then Lou can have a word with him after the game, maybe even not start him tomorrow, if he truly thinks that Soriano was half-assing it.

:shock: What are you using to project that number? Edmonds/Johnson aren't one player. They have played at the same time. Combined, Cubs CF have 87 RBI this season, which is on pace for 108 RBI for the season. just going by ESPN.com's projection that Edmonds will have 65 and Johnson will have 62. I realized they've had overlap You shouldn't then say that Cubs CF are on pace for 127 RBI. If you want to break it down by position, the Cubs are on pace for the following RBI production per position over 162 games this season: C - 94 1B - 93 2B - 94 3B - 130 SS - 59 LF - 115 CF - 108 RF - 72 P - 28

I agree... but I don't believe WBC or Olympic Baseball should even exist... it's a pointless risk for injuries. It doesn't mean anything at all, either. 10 years from now any Latin American team would wipe the floor with any American team. Just play MLB.... stop trying to make more money, that's all the WBC was. It's also a great way to promote baseball around the world. More countries get interested in it, become better at developing players, and a greater talent pool becomes available.

I could be wrong, but I believe that Marquis is making closer to 10 million next season. I think his contract was backloaded.

That's possible, I suppose. But man, I hope we've got ten guys more promising than Veal. If he's one of our top ten, that would speak more to the weakness of the farm than to the quality of Veal. Hard to be very interested in a prospect with bad numbers across the board. His WHIP is awful (1.51), his HR's allowed are awful (15 HR in the anti-HR Southern League), his K's are mediocre and continue to decline, his ERA is high, and his FIP-ERA is worse. He'll turn 24 in a couple of weeks, so age is not in his favor. And there is nothing to indicate that he's really getting any better. He's had the same problems that he's always had (high walks, high HR), with no sign of anything getting better. (He does get more groundouts than he used to, but his one signature, the ability to K guys, has vanished.) I think he's still got a shot to eventually blossom into a Felix-Heredia type lefty reliever, though. Is it really a good thing to "blossom" into Felix Heredia?

There are some errors in that article. It states he has 161 homers and 541 RBI in 441 career games. I read that and thought that that was a lot of homers for that amount of games. He actually has 43 homers, 161 RBI, and 541 total bases.

Not a fan of that 171-to-5 strikeout to walk ratio?

Santo seems less than pleased with the strikezone.

He struck out against the Marlins over the weekend. He also had a hit in that game. If these Reds were patient Z would be walking them all. nope, z pinch hit on saturday and i think he struck out or flied out to center. He struck out. He has, however, now hit safely in his last 12 starts, going 14-for-31 with 2 doubles, one triple, 3 homers, and 9 RBI.

.366/.366/.620 in 71 at-bats

The Cubs have played 73 games with Soriano starting in LF, and 51 games without him. So, any stats that don't equal out to 73 with him and 51 without him are basically made up. According to Baseball Reference: When Soriano plays: 51-24 When he doesn't: 25-24 Yes, that's when he starts. I'm not sure how many games there were when he came in late in the game. Nope. That's when he plays. They're 50-23 when he starts.

The Cubs have played 73 games with Soriano starting in LF, and 51 games without him. So, any stats that don't equal out to 73 with him and 51 without him are basically made up. According to Baseball Reference: When Soriano plays: 51-24 When he doesn't: 25-24

I guess that means Jason Bartlett gets the AL MVP then. Tampa Bay's record when Jason Bartlett plays: 61-34 (.642) Tampa Bay's record when Jason Bartlett doesn't play: 15-14 (.517)

One player learning from another certainly isn't unheard of. However, I would imagine that happens moreso during the course of a long season rather than a short postseason series.

you're not accounting for (a) the number of times that he doesn't reach base via the error, and (b) the number of times that any other baserunner is able to move up because the ball is put into play. Times reached base via error was discussed earlier in the thread. It's roughly less than two times per hundred at-bats. What has to be weighed here is to what degree a more contact-minded approach would negatively impact Dunn's power and walks.

If that happened, he'd be the first in a very long time but not the first ever.

I'm listening to the Braves' broadcast on XM, and I keep hearing some little kid in the background constantly yelling "Come on, Cubbies!" in a very annoying high-pitched voice. I'm happy there's a young Cubs fan there that's enthusiastic about the game, but I'd hate to be sitting next to him.

If he got tossed for arguing the timing of Joe West ordering the lights turned on, it sounds like he has a legitimate case here. From the way it was described on the radio, it sounds like the pitcher had just finished up his warm-up tosses and was ready to go when the ump came out and ordered the lights to be turned on. He should have had them turned on immediately after the previous inning ended. Except for the fact that Atlanta screwed with Marquis the inning before. It was makeup call more or less. That was the part I wasn't clear about. I knew there was an issue with the lights that inning, but I had no idea what it was. Makes more sense now. Joe West is still a d-bag though.

If he got tossed for arguing the timing of Joe West ordering the lights turned on, it sounds like he has a legitimate case here. From the way it was described on the radio, it sounds like the pitcher had just finished up his warm-up tosses and was ready to go when the ump came out and ordered the lights to be turned on. He should have had them turned on immediately after the previous inning ended.

So you think broadcasters and writers overinflate a stat that is simple but inaccurate so that casual fans will watch the game? Not buying it. And if that is what they are doing, shame on them for being lazy. So it is your assumption that the broadcasters, many of whom actually played the game, know less than you do ? Not buying it. They are simply keeping the broadcast somewhat generic so as not to alienate the millions of fans who really don't care about WHIP,or whatever, or want to listen to it being explained. Like I stated, I do not particularly agree with this approach, but I certainly do not think that they all know less than I do about the game. I guess to flat out answer your question, yes I do think they over inflate simple stats so the broadcast appeals to a wider group. Surprising as it may seem, many, probably most, of the people watching a ball game would find many of the things discussed on this board about as exciting as watching the grass grow. You really believe a lot of former players are put in the broadcast booth due to their knowledge of the game? Many are put in there because they're a name fans recognize and in some case are charismatic. The ones that are brought in for knowledge of the game due to playing experience can talk about how to properly throw a curveball or the challenges a hitter faces against a guy with a great changeup or a problem they might see with someone's swing. They can talk in detail about what it's like to get swept in a big series in September, how it can wear on some guys to be on the road for two weeks at a time, how a manager has to keep peace in a clubhouse with 25 different personalities. That's the valuable knowledge they bring to the table and that they can communicate to the fans at home. And there's nothing wrong with that, as long as they stick to what they know. The problem is when they start talking about how this guy is a great hitter because he's hitting .310, ignoring the fact that his OBP is .330 and he doesn't hit for power. Then they make fun of more advanced stats because they themselves can't grasp them.