Clutchiness

by MrIncognito on Jul 29, 2006 9:00 PM PDT

Anyone who's interested in the clutch vs. non-clutch debate should check out this site:

http://clutchiness.blogspot.com/

Here's the site description:

"Clutch hitting may or may not exist. Clutchiness most certainly does. By comparing a player's value in terms of win probability to his projected value based on OBP and SLG, we see how much he has over- or under-performed expectations due to performance in higher leverage situations. If clutch exists, it might just look like this."

There are some surprises on the A's page. The clutchiest player is Payton, but Crosby at #2?

Good stuff.

Tweet Comment 22 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

A-Rod is definitely not clutch.

Last on the Yanks? Ouch.

"The hard... is what makes it great."

by Jjjsixsix on Jul 29, 2006 9:25 PM PDT reply actions

looks again

Yeah, that didn't make sense. It was a calulation mistake. He's actually first.

Duh.

"The hard... is what makes it great."

by Jjjsixsix on Jul 29, 2006 9:26 PM PDT up reply actions

waitnohe'slast

see sal's explaination below.

"The hard... is what makes it great."

by Jjjsixsix on Jul 29, 2006 10:34 PM PDT up reply actions

Any formula in which

Crosby is 2nd on the A's needs reworking. My eyes ain't that bad.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Jul 29, 2006 10:18 PM PDT reply actions

That is for damn sure

Crosby and Kendall are the two worst hitters on the A's in clutch situations, Swish is next. The issue isn't whether or not they get a hit but how they hit the ball, sometimes a guy might hit a line drive that is caught, but those 3 guys will do absolutely nothing, Crosby and Swisher will strike out, Kendall will pop up to the first baseman, pathetic.

by china bob on Jul 29, 2006 10:24 PM PDT up reply actions

Well,

You could argue that his hits are weak, but the hits are there. And this thing isn't to predict future success, but how clutch they've been in the past. Results only, Appearance need not apply.

The numbers back up Crosby being "clutch" in his own special way. He is terrible in meaningless situations, and merely below average in others(except bases loaded, which he's been pretty good, granted its only 11 or so PAs).

OPS -

Season: .637

Runners On: .669 (+.032)
RISP: .685 (+.048)
RISP w/2 out: .783 (+.146)
Bases Loaded: .917 (+.280)

by SuperBean on Jul 29, 2006 10:40 PM PDT up reply actions

Not really.

Crosby has set a pretty low bar for himself. If clutch is "performance above baseline in high leverage situations," Crosby doesn't have to do much - a couple of hits with ducks on the pond - to go above his baseline. His place on the list is an indictment, not praise.

It's actually a great insight into the clutch debate: with the game on the line, you want your best hitter at the plate, not your most clutch hitter. What we think is clutch is usually just a great player continuing to be great.

Can intangibles exist? Only the ones you can touch.

by salb918 on Jul 29, 2006 10:31 PM PDT up reply actions

Indeed, if you look

at the numbers (and, bad Nico, I don't think you did), we would expect Crosby to be worth -1.4 wins based on his performance. He's actually at -0.5. So, in a sense, his best performance has been leveraged to high pressure situations -- but his best performance is still piss poor.

Can intangibles exist? Only the ones you can touch.

by salb918 on Jul 29, 2006 10:36 PM PDT up reply actions

Actually read the link???

Pfssh, I don't have that kind of time.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Jul 29, 2006 10:54 PM PDT up reply actions

look at the stats.

It's a calculation mistake: the OPS part of Crosby's is accidently made positive instead of negative, so Croz is actually... last. By a lot.

"The hard... is what makes it great."

by Jjjsixsix on Jul 29, 2006 10:32 PM PDT up reply actions

waitnevermind.

I misunderstood the stat. A-Rod is indeed last. This needs reworking.

"The hard... is what makes it great."

by Jjjsixsix on Jul 29, 2006 10:33 PM PDT up reply actions

I just thought of something.

Wouldn't "clutchiness" simply be the the sum total of what each player's at-bat adds to a team's win expectations?

That is, a grand slam when you're already up 10 runs is worth rather little, while another grand slam that ties the game in the bottom of the ninth must be worth a lot. On the flip side, grounding into a double play in the eighth inning must hurt those numbers a great deal.

Put another way, how "clutch" you are is simply how much better a position is at after your at-bat. If you can compute win expectations down to a pitch-by-pitch level (can you?), presumably pitchers can also be evaluated this way.

But surely somebody else considered this already...

by GlassHeart on Jul 29, 2006 10:41 PM PDT reply actions

That's precisely how these data

were produced, albeit on a play-by-play (not pitch-by-pitch) grain. Pitchers can (and are) evaluated in the same way.

An excellent thought -- you're in good company with your ideas.

Can intangibles exist? Only the ones you can touch.

by salb918 on Jul 29, 2006 10:43 PM PDT up reply actions

I just found the math clumsy.

From the site, "in terms of the leverage-adjusted win probability added, to his expected value, in terms of straight OBP and SLG, we can see how much value he added to (or cost) his team by over- or under-performing his seasonal averages in higher leverage situations."

Why would a player's average matter? By my cursory examination it seems that if a player was batting .200 one year and .300 the next, then he would be "clutchier" in the first year if he hit .300 with RISP in both years? That doesn't make any sense to me. To me, "clutch" is how much better a position you can move your team to, whether you're Frank Thomas or Antonio Perez.

by GlassHeart on Jul 29, 2006 10:55 PM PDT up reply actions

I'm surprised there isn't more talk

of how silly the word "clutch" sounds.

Clutch.

It's a shame that families get torn apart by something as simple as wild dogs. -Jack Handey

by JediLeroy on Jul 30, 2006 12:23 PM PDT reply actions

Clutch doesn't exist

I don't think you can compute a player's 'clutchiness', either. It's just a fancy number system trying to put logic on something that doesn't exist. In other words...it doesn't work.

by Squeaky on Jul 30, 2006 4:57 PM PDT reply actions

File under Colbert, Stephen...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness

by MrIncognito on Jul 30, 2006 4:59 PM PDT up reply actions

Ah. Well.

I'm sure it's very interesting and all that, but...I still don't think clutch exists. I believe in luck, sure, but luck is fickle and is not so kind as to fall for someone and make them clutch.

by Squeaky on Jul 30, 2006 5:02 PM PDT up reply actions

acutally...

Clutch does exist. They are a Devastating band from Baltimore. If you like good ass kickin music you should check em out. Oh yea while your at it check out my new solo album that I just uploaded to www.mp3.com.au/shipititez

Bring back the Bash! Bring back the Mustache! Go A's in 2006!!!

Death To The Angels!!

by Shippee33 on Jul 30, 2006 9:50 PM PDT up reply actions

Clutch exists!

It's all in your mind: some players go to the plate nervous, some are steady of mind. When A-Rod goes to the plate with 2 runners on and his team down by two runs with 2 outs in the ninth, he is a wreck, because he wants soooooooo much to be the good guy, but he is weak of mind, so he pops out. Milton Bradley, in the same situation, is entirely focused on actually hitting the baseball, not what others think of him. It's all mental.

"I've learned something today. It doesn't matter where we're from, as long as we're all the same religion" - Peter Griffin

by Philip Christy on Jul 31, 2006 7:29 AM PDT up reply actions

Except when A-Rod

steps to the plate in the 10th with one on and his team down a run, and hits a walk-off HR. "Clutchiness" may not exist, but "perception" and "reality" do, and they rarely meet.

I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal

by Nico on Jul 31, 2006 9:35 AM PDT up reply actions