Poll: Best Shortstop Evah Topic

trsnoke
Posts: 263 (0)
Hall of Famer
124 100
Prospect

That would be mean-spirited.

6/29/2012 8:57 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Well, then here's something to ponder:

People react differently to stressful situations.    People even have different ideas to what a stressful situation is.   So is it so crazy to believe that some people handle situations better?
6/30/2012 8:39 AM
trsnoke
Posts: 263 (0)
Hall of Famer
124 100
Prospect
Absolutely not - that's perfect and correct, whether we are talking about teachers, firefighters, parents, or baseball players.  So if you want to say that some people handle high pressure situations better, I will agree 100%.  The problem is in identifying who those players are.  Usually, players labeled "clutch" performed well in a very small handful of high profile situations.  It's the small sample size issue. 

6/30/2012 12:00 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
So, because the statnerd can't be satisfied due to small sample size, it must not exist? 

Even after we've agreed that people determine and handle stressful events differently?
7/2/2012 2:09 PM
toddcommish
Posts: 5109 (0)
Hall of Famer
523 10 1 14 16 90
Prospect
Well, to bring this "discussion" full circle, some players have a rather large pool of these high-profile situations on their resume.... for example, Derek Jeter.  In addition to being the best offensive second-baseman to have every played shortstop for his entire career, he's pretty OK in high-profile situations.

Several other players have demonstrated the ability to fold up like a cheap tent in their opportunities.  To simply ignore FAILURE due to small sample size isn't logical.  If someone has demonstrated that they are "good" or "great" at baseball over the course of their career, but perform below this level in high-profile situations, one can reasonably conclude that the situation has defeated them.
7/2/2012 4:33 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I think we accept "anti-clutch" more than clutch. 
7/2/2012 5:10 PM
trsnoke
Posts: 263 (0)
Hall of Famer
124 100
Prospect
I think it can exist.  But if you can't identify it, how do you use it?  It is logical to ignore failure, and success, due to small sample size.  You should ignore it.  How many clutch situations does a player have each year?  How many years would it take to be comfortable that you have enough situations to categorize the player as clutch?  And how much are you going to rely on the oldest data, that is years old by that time?  How much positive or negative impact do you think "clutch" provides anyway?  I'll take the best player available or the platoon advantage. 

Most people underestimate the impact of random variations.  We want to attribute every outcome to skill, or attitude, or heart.  That makes for fun headlines and fun discussion, but it's not realistic.  There's randomness everywhere, in everything we do - why wouldn't it impact baseball outcomes, too?  The smaller the sample, the bigger the impact randomness can have. 
7/2/2012 10:22 PM
toddcommish
Posts: 5109 (0)
Hall of Famer
523 10 1 14 16 90
Prospect

GREAT PLAYERS CAN OVERCOME RANDOM VARIATIONS.

7/2/2012 10:40 PM
DoctorKz
Posts: 14974 (0)
Hall of Famer
1203 1
Veteran


Jump Steady doesn't get Whitey's vote....He had 100 hits from both sides of the plate his first full season, the sky was the limit...Flipping off the  STL fans isn't gonna endear you, dumbass.....



7/2/2012 11:23 PM (edited)
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by trsnoke on 7/2/2012 10:22:00 PM (view original):
I think it can exist.  But if you can't identify it, how do you use it?  It is logical to ignore failure, and success, due to small sample size.  You should ignore it.  How many clutch situations does a player have each year?  How many years would it take to be comfortable that you have enough situations to categorize the player as clutch?  And how much are you going to rely on the oldest data, that is years old by that time?  How much positive or negative impact do you think "clutch" provides anyway?  I'll take the best player available or the platoon advantage. 

Most people underestimate the impact of random variations.  We want to attribute every outcome to skill, or attitude, or heart.  That makes for fun headlines and fun discussion, but it's not realistic.  There's randomness everywhere, in everything we do - why wouldn't it impact baseball outcomes, too?  The smaller the sample, the bigger the impact randomness can have. 
What if you can identify it?  Why does it have to be a stat? 

I'm sure, in your life, there have been situations where you've been confident in a certain situation.   And situations have presented themselves that left you unconfident.   While you may or may not have succeeded, don't you think you had a better chance in the confident situation?   Do you think it's possible that someone on the outside looking in might have watched your reactions and said "trsnoke is gonna nail this" or "trsnoke is a goddam mess.  He's gonna muck it up bad"?
7/3/2012 8:13 AM
trsnoke
Posts: 263 (0)
Hall of Famer
124 100
Prospect
I would love to see someone identify it. It doesn't have to be a stat, but it's not very useful if it can't be measured (or predicted).  Let's say you have a hitting situation that calls for "clutch" and you have 3 players on your bench - one is clearly the best hitter of the 3 but faces a platoon disadvantage, another is a decent hitter and has the platoon advantage, and the 3rd is not as good a hitter as the other two but is perceived as clutch (don't ask me why he's riding the pine then, though).  Wouldn't you want to know how much "clutch" elevates the 3rd guy's performance in order to make the best decision about who to bring in here?  I think that's why you look to see if you can measure it.

I like your confidence analogy and think that's as fair a tiebreaker as any, all else being equal, but other factors aren't typically equal.  Experience is another factor you could use but you would still have to answer the question about how much difference in confidence or experience it would take to negate an identified amount of difference in ability in order to make the "best" decision.
7/3/2012 1:23 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I think we've come full circle.  Jeter is considered clutch.   A-Rod is considered choke.   There is very little difference between their post-season averages(Jeter higher BA, A-Rod higher SLG, OBP almost the same).   Who do fans, coaches, teammates want at the plate in the 9th inning of a WS game? 

To take it a bit further, neither would be considered the Yanks biggest threat these days.    I'd say it's Granderson or Cano.   Granderson, with limited experience(121 PA), is pretty close in AVG/OBP/SLG to Jeter/A-Rod.   Cano stinks it up a bit in 176 post-season PA.      Of the four, who do most people want batting?   Jeter over A-Rod is easy.  Then you could start with lefty/righty with the other three.    Or maybe situational(need a homer, a hit or a baserunner).   I'm sure I'm biased but, for a generic late-inning pressure AB, I take Jeter.    Is he clutch or do I just think that way?  More importantly, does he think that way? 
7/3/2012 2:10 PM
1899_spiders
Posts: 357 (0)
All Star
16 12 3 1
Prospect
Should clutchiness be measured relative to the average, or to the player himself? For example, consider two players who play the same position in the same conditions. One is a true .320/.420/.620 hitter who bats .300/.400/.600 in the playoffs. The other is a true .240/.310/.370 hitter who bats .270/.340/.410 in the playoffs. The first player performed far better, but the second improved while the other declined. Who is more clutch?
7/3/2012 3:19 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Well now you're trying to put numbers on it but I'm sure you can.    Can a player even get 100 "clutch" AB in a career?   If he does, he could hit 20 screamers right at someone and lose 200 points off his BA.   So he's hitting .150 instead of .350.   

Of course, this is why statnerds hate "clutch".
7/3/2012 4:01 PM
1899_spiders
Posts: 357 (0)
All Star
16 12 3 1
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 7/3/2012 4:01:00 PM (view original):
Well now you're trying to put numbers on it but I'm sure you can.    Can a player even get 100 "clutch" AB in a career?   If he does, he could hit 20 screamers right at someone and lose 200 points off his BA.   So he's hitting .150 instead of .350.   

Of course, this is why statnerds hate "clutch".
The numbers are hypothetical, of course, but what alternatives are there? Gut feeling is hardly appropriate for gauging its existence.

Clutch hitting exists. That is obvious. Every walk-off hit is clutch, and that's just one example. The question is whether there are true clutch hitters. Given enough players over time, some will overperform in clutch situations due to random chance. So a player who does well in such situations might be clutch, or he might just be a result of the effect of large numbers.

Proving whether it exists or not will probably never be accomplished, although more evidence will certainly help study of it. But there are statnerds who think clutch players exist, others who think they might exist, and others who don't think they exist, but are open to changing their mind with more evidence. The folks who think people have proven clutch players are a fictional idea are idiots masking themselves as statnerds. I fit into the "might" category, and lean "yes, they exist". Oh, and I prefer the term statgeek.
7/3/2012 6:20 PM
◂ Prev 1...21|22|23|24|25|26 Next ▸
Poll: Best Shortstop Evah Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.