Good Thread Idea on the Sun Deck--Clutch Project

[Chip R]

Originally Posted by WilyMoROCKS

George Grande defines eternal love as "JIM EDMONDS."

Fixed that for you.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by paulrichjr

But....one of the greatest examples of clutch in the history of this team was the grand slam by Dunn off of the Indians. Just incredible to watch.

But instances like that would have to happen more frequently for that player to be clutch.

[princeton]

Originally Posted by oneupper

Without getting too much into the "clutch" debate, I think Edwin's hitting style makes him "clutch", regardless of "state of mind" or "mental toughness" considerations (which the pundits like to refer to).

As a right-handed pull hitter, Edwin puts a LOT of balls into the hole on the left side. He can even pull pitches quite a bit outside into that hole, due to his bat speed.
Put runners on second and third or even better load the bases...and with the shortstop and third baseman playing near their bags...that hole is HUGE.

So, it shouldn't surprise us that Edwin is "clutch", in those situations...he just hits that way. (Well, at least that's what I think).

works in little league. any grounder to the left side has a chance

I'd definitely want EdE hitting in the tight spots for my fifth grade team this summer

[bucksfan2]

Adam Dunn is Clutch.

[princeton]

Originally Posted by bucksfan2

Adam Dunn is Clutch.

say the words, BE the words Adam. Say the words, BE the words

and use that third person. It's a nice touch

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by bucksfan2

Adam Dunn is Clutch.

Bizarro clutch.

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by edabbs44

Performance based on the situation.

I think this new stat era has to come to grips that everything doesn't have to be measured by a stat. Everyone wants to come up with the equation that trumps the previous one. Everyone wants to come up with the number that defines production.

Maybe it doesn't exist in some instances, especially for something so subjective like "clutchness." If someone comes up with one out in the 9th, down one, men on first and third and one out and takes Mariano Rivera to 14 pitches and finally hits one in the hole where they can't turn two and the run scores, would you say that it clutch?

I think clutch is doing what you set out to do in that given situation when the pressure is on. Reliever comes in during the 8th inning, up one, one out and a man on third. He knows he needs a K, pop up, short fly ball or ground out. Succeeding there is pretty clutch. Getting a fly ball to the warning track isn't really what you set out to do in that situation, though you still got the batter out. Launching one over the catcher's head is also less than clutch.

Personally, I think clutchness is determined better by observing the games and situations that take place during the season. A single in the 5th inning of a blowout shouldn't count as much as a single with the bases loaded, down 2 in the 9th with 2 out. People tend to remember big situations and people coming through in those games. That's where clutchness should be measured, situations rather than a number.

Ok, back to the point of my post then. How do you intend to compare players to arrive at a conclusion on who is the most clutch, by your definition.

You say it should be measured, but you don't want to use a number to do it. Maybe you prefer a color or sound... And if you really don't want to measure it, how exactly should we compare players on their clutchiness?

[jojo]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

Ok, back to the point of my post then. How do you intend to compare players to arrive at a conclusion on who is the most clutch, by your definition.

You say it should be measured, but you don't want to use a number to do it. Maybe you prefer a color or sound... And if you really don't want to measure it, how exactly should we compare players on their clutchiness?

BA w/RISP. DUH.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

Ok, back to the point of my post then. How do you intend to compare players to arrive at a conclusion on who is the most clutch, by your definition.

You say it should be measured, but you don't want to use a number to do it. Maybe you prefer a color or sound... And if you really don't want to measure it, how exactly should we compare players on their clutchiness?

Why does it have to be quantified?

Watching baseball tells me that Papi tends to come up big more often in clutch situations than Adam Dunn. I don't need a stat to tell me that.

I didn't say it should be measured and that's it. I said it should be measured on coming through in pressure situations. If someone wants to quantify that statement, then have fun trying to do it.

But I already know how to measure it. It can be measured by watching the games and seeing when that person performs well in those situations.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by jojo

BA w/RISP. DUH.

That's one medium it could be measured through.

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by edabbs44

I didn't say it should be measured and that's it. I said it should be measured on coming through in pressure situations. If someone wants to quantify that statement, then have fun trying to do it.

But I already know how to measure it. It can be measured by watching the games and seeing when that person performs well in those situations.

"measured and that's it"? Huh? What does that even mean and when did I suggest it? Of course any measurement is going to be based on some definition of the thing you're trying to measure. That goes without saying. So... "coming through in pressure situations". Sounds like all we need to do is define coming through and define pressure situations, compare them on a player by player basis, and viola!

Why do we want to quantify it? Because no single person has watched every game, watched every at bat, and remembers them all clearly. Because we all have different definitions of what a "pressure" situation is and what "coming through" looks like in those situations. Because some people view clutch as performing the best overall in those situations and some people see it as raising one's game in those situations. People are incredibly biased even when it comes to intuitively measuring things that have fixed definitions. Throw in a vague definition of the thing being measured and we might as well be asking what good music sounds like.

We all have our own biases and definitions. The use of a metric allows us to accept a common definition and measuring stick. The metric itself is certainly up for debate. I think we can all agree that no metric could possibly capture every pressure situation in all their varying degrees and all the types of "coming through". But we have to start somehwere. And given that, I think Tango has taken an interesting approach. He's not trying to measure it absolutely. He simply wants us to answer the following question: If your team is at bat and faces crucial situation in a ballgame, who do you most want to be hitting?

My answer is:

1.) Scott Hatteberg
2.) Adam Dunn
3.) Ken Griffey Jr

[pahster]

Originally Posted by edabbs44

Watching baseball tells me that Papi tends to come up big more often in clutch situations than Adam Dunn.

This is likely a function of Ortiz being a much better hitter than Dunn.

[nate]

Originally Posted by pahster

This is likely a function of Ortiz being a much better hitter than Dunn.

I was thinking it was more a function of watching ESPN and seeing the Red Sox play more often than the Reds.

[rotnoid]

Originally Posted by nate

I was thinking it was more a function of watching ESPN and seeing the Red Sox play more often than the Reds.

Or a function of Papi having guys on base in front of him when the game's on the line.

[gonelong]

Originally Posted by edabbs44

But I already know how to measure it. It can be measured by watching the games and seeing when that person performs well in those situations.

Not trying to be argumentative here, just curious.

Now that we know Papi is some level of "more clutch" than Dunn ... what does anyone do with that? Does it have any more relevance than saying Dunn is "more tall" than Papi? For Joe-fan it might, and maybe thats enough. It exists, I see it, I don't care if you can measure it.

For an armchair GM or an actual GM, what does it mean to them? If you can't put a price/value on clutch than its pretty much useless to a lower payroll organization like the Reds. If you can't value it how do you know who to acquire or retain?

Lets say Papi commands $20M/yr and Dunn commands $15M/yr. How do I choose between them knowing Papi is "more clutch", but also more expensive?

Is it more valuable to be a clutch LF, a clutch SS, or a clutch closer? If I can only have 2 of the 3 clutch guys I want, which of the two do I choose?

GL