Now I see what you're getting at. It's almost as if each player needs a personal RPI rating and each situation has a degree of difficulty.Originally Posted by redsbuckeye
Now I see what you're getting at. It's almost as if each player needs a personal RPI rating and each situation has a degree of difficulty.
Good point. That's why clutch is so difficult to define. Some instances are obvious: Tiger sinking a 25 foot putt to win a tournament; MJ draining a last second jumper from the top of the key to win a game. Derek Jeter getting a 2 out single with the score tied and a runner on 2nd to win a game. Some are not so obvious. Also, circumstances help define clutch. Those 3 examples I gave earlier, let's say they all did what they did but another golfer sank a 40 footer for eagle to trump Tiger's 25 footer and win that tournament. Or after MJ's jumper, the other team got the ball back and one of their guys made a shot to win the game. Or Jeter's single came in the top of the 9th and the other team won the game in their half of the 9th. It doesn't mean that what those three players did wasn't clutch but it won't be remembered as clutch because they didn't win.
Again I ask....what does a player being clutch really tell us anyway?
Either:
The player stinks so bad you won't carry them all year just in case a cluch situation erupts in front of them.
The player is so good that you carry them in spite of being iffy in tight spots because their overall production is stellar.
The player is decent and his clutchness makes him that much more valuable.
The player is decent but his clutchocity is in question.
Im thinking most players fall in the first, second and fourth catigories. Very few guys IMO fall into catigory 3. So most guys are carried/let go based on their normal tallent. Very very very few guys are kept soley because they might go to clutchville somewhere down the road.
And in all this talk, clutch defence is being ignored. If a batter smacks a shot off a pitcher the batter is clutch and pitcher choaked. But if the 3rd baseman snags it on a diving bang-bang play does that mean the batter is only clutch from the moment the ball leaves the bat until the ball hits the fielders glove?
Should we be elated that a player elevated his game to hit a "walk off" or pissed off that he doesn't give 100% the rest of the time?
"This isn’t stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner
Chips point about what people remember as clutch situations is a good one.
Too often players are tagged as being chock full of clutch goodness based on a couple memorable moments instead of some actual defined increase in production in thight spots.
Chips main man Javy became our 'pinch hitting specalist' after a couple of dramatic walkoffs depite his numbers as a pinch hitter being decideldy mediocre (with all appologies to Chip)
The more and more I think about it I tend to believe that "clutch" is being able to continue to play even kiel no matter what the situation is. What makes Tiger so special is that he is able to continue about his game no matter what the situation or how high the pressure is. If he makes 90% of 10 foot puts then he is likely to make 90% of pressure packed 10 foot puts. The same with Jordan. We remember his game winning shots but often forget his misses, but when the game was on the line you knew where the ball was going.
I think there is a difference between being a clutch hitter and a clutch pitcher. Pitchers are in the pressure packed situation much more than hitters. They also have a much better success rate in getting outs than hitters do at getting on. Closers are used to the pressure and the best ones thrive in those situations. There was a reason that Todd Jones was Detroit's closer for a few years even though there were much better arms in the pen. Some are able to deal with the pressure, and some are unable.
Would it be possible to rank hitters based on OPS (or perhaps some park-adjusted statistic?) and rank pitchers (again, with an agreed-upon statistic), then determine how well they performed against "the other side"?
Say, Hitter #182 would garner a "clutch rank" of +42 when he succeeds against Pitcher # 140. This would be similar, I think, to the Strength of Schedule done with NCAA teams in basketball and football.
Why wouldn't that work? Would it simply come down, at the core, to subjectivity as to the definition of clutch and the ranking of ballplayers?
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
Reply With Quote