New Chise

[aiclsgdskse]

I'm going to be doing an interactive franchise with the team of everyones choice. You guys can pick the team, whether I do the fantasy drafts or not, and you can decide if I need to trade a guy, bring him up, send him down, you can even tell me what lineup to put out everyday.

It will be completely interactive and completely up to you guys.

[APR]

I'm going to be doing an interactive franchise with the team of everyones choice. You guys can pick the team, whether I do the fantasy drafts or not, and you can decide if I need to trade a guy, bring him up, send him down, you can even tell me what lineup to put out everyday.

It will be completely interactive and completely up to you guys.

Sounds good to me, but I have something to tell you thats kinda off topic.

This isn't a comment directly at David Ortiz, but at everyone who thinks players have the ability to hit in the "Clutch". Clutch is not anything but luck.

Anyways, the Franchise sounds fun. Can I put in a vote for the Indians??

[aiclsgdskse]

1 for the Indains

[llcmac]

Sounds good to me, but I have something to tell you thats kinda off topic.

This isn't a comment directly at David Ortiz, but at everyone who thinks players have the ability to hit in the "Clutch". Clutch is not anything but luck.

Anyways, the Franchise sounds fun. Can I put in a vote for the Indians??

Well, not entirely. Some people handle pressure better than others. I'd say it's luck and the ability to deal with pressure.

[APR]

Well, not entirely. Some people handle pressure better than others. I'd say it's luck and the ability to deal with pressure.

But you have to agree it is mostly luck. I mean to be up in the bottom of the 9th, with the bases loaded and 2 outs, in the 7th game of the World Series, isn't that pretty lucky??

[llcmac]

But you have to agree it is mostly luck. I mean to be up in the bottom of the 9th, with the bases loaded and 2 outs, in the 7th game of the World Series, isn't that pretty lucky??

Very lucky.

[peterbernard]

It's luck maybe when A-Rod gets a clutch hit, but Thurman Munson always hit for a higher average in the World Series and I don't think that was a coincidence. Check out how Yogi Berra's average was so much higher with men on base. Some guys are better in tough situations. Maybe not too many of the current stars are good clutch players, but if it were just a game of luck then everyone would have the same batting average and era. It's also a game of skill, physical ability, and the rest is all mental (i.e. attitude, confidence, knowledge of the game and your opponent).

[aiclsgdskse]

well, do to most people on the Gamefaqs boards wanting me to do a Padres one, I'm gunna do a Padres one, look for the topic about it in the near future.

[APR]

It's luck maybe when A-Rod gets a clutch hit, but Thurman Munson always hit for a higher average in the World Series and I don't think that was a coincidence. Check out how Yogi Berra's average was so much higher with men on base. Some guys are better in tough situations. Maybe not too many of the current stars are good clutch players, but if it were just a game of luck then everyone would have the same batting average and era. It's also a game of skill, physical ability, and the rest is all mental (i.e. attitude, confidence, knowledge of the game and your opponent).

Read Moneyball, and you will figure out that Clutch is all luck.

[Sethuel]

Read Moneyball, and you will figure out that Clutch is all luck.

Actually you're both off. Yogi may have hit better with men on base, but as it happens, all players hit better with men on base, as an average. With men on, pitchers have to nibble more and are more likely to fall behind in the count. So to say a guy hit better with men on doesn't really mean much.

Also, the example of Thurman Munson doesn't mean a lot. Munson certainly caught fire in the '76 series. The probablity of someone with his season stats to put up his numbers in the postseason was about 1 out of 100. But to call it "clutch" instead of "a hot streak" doesn't quite make sense. If it were clutch, we'd expect to see him do it again in '77 and '78. But while his numbers were still better than in the regular season, the probablity of someone putting up his postseason numbers having put up his regular season numbers were 52% in '77 and 47% in '78. In other words, basically equal to chance. So Munson certainly did come through in '76, but it probably wasn't his being "clutch." He just was lucky enough to get hot at the right time.

That said, to say that clutch is "all luck" is also inaccurate. The point made by most sabermetricians is not that clutch hitting is all luck but rather that there doesn't seem to be any statistical evidence that there are any players who consistently hit better in so-called "clutch situations" than they do the rest of the time. Players who do so one year don't tend to the next. The point is, players play like who they are, so a guy who's a top-flight hitter will continue to be one in close and late situations.

Personally, I think it's possible that some players consistently perform worse than normal in clutch spots. I plan to conduct an analysis about that on either baseballhq or prospectus sometime this summer. But it's unlikely that there's anyone who's somehow better than normal when it really matters.

[APR]

Actually you're both off. Yogi may have hit better with men on base, but as it happens, all players hit better with men on base, as an average. With men on, pitchers have to nibble more and are more likely to fall behind in the count. So to say a guy hit better with men on doesn't really mean much.

Also, the example of Thurman Munson doesn't mean a lot. Munson certainly caught fire in the '76 series. The probablity of someone with his season stats to put up his numbers in the postseason was about 1 out of 100. But to call it "clutch" instead of "a hot streak" doesn't quite make sense. If it were clutch, we'd expect to see him do it again in '77 and '78. But while his numbers were still better than in the regular season, the probablity of someone putting up his postseason numbers having put up his regular season numbers were 52% in '77 and 47% in '78. In other words, basically equal to chance. So Munson certainly did come through in '76, but it probably wasn't his being "clutch." He just was lucky enough to get hot at the right time.

That said, to say that clutch is "all luck" is also inaccurate. The point made by most sabermetricians is not that clutch hitting is all luck but rather that there doesn't seem to be any statistical evidence that there are any players who consistently hit better in so-called "clutch situations" than they do the rest of the time. Players who do so one year don't tend to the next. The point is, players play like who they are, so a guy who's a top-flight hitter will continue to be one in close and late situations.

Personally, I think it's possible that some players consistently perform worse than normal in clutch spots. I plan to conduct an analysis about that on either baseballhq or prospectus sometime this summer. But it's unlikely that there's anyone who's somehow better than normal when it really matters.

I can tell that you have either read Moneyball, or have read the series of Bill James' books.

[Sethuel]

I can tell that you have either read Moneyball, or have read the series of Bill James' books.

[peterbernard]

Actually you're both off. Yogi may have hit better with men on base, but as it happens, all players hit better with men on base, as an average. With men on, pitchers have to nibble more and are more likely to fall behind in the count. So to say a guy hit better with men on doesn't really mean much.

Yogi hit better with men on base by a large margin. If I were an owner or manager, that would mean a LOT to me. He wasn't a good hitter unless men were on base and that's because unlike what the Moneyball dude thinks, baseball players are not machines, they are humans who respond to situations with emotions. Like you said, some people hit worse in the postseason due to the stress. Others do okay or better, and that is being a clutch player.

Also, the example of Thurman Munson doesn't mean a lot. Munson certainly caught fire in the '76 series. The probablity of someone with his season stats to put up his numbers in the postseason was about 1 out of 100. But to call it "clutch" instead of "a hot streak" doesn't quite make sense. If it were clutch, we'd expect to see him do it again in '77 and '78. But while his numbers were still better than in the regular season, the probablity of someone putting up his postseason numbers having put up his regular season numbers were 52% in '77 and 47% in '78. In other words, basically equal to chance. So Munson certainly did come through in '76, but it probably wasn't his being "clutch." He just was lucky enough to get hot at the right time.

Why? Your argument is empty, you're saying it wasn't so because you don't believe in it. You fail to back up your argument with evidence. Munson had been hungry to be in the World Series since he was rookie of the year, but I saw the fear in the other Yankee players' eyes in 1976. He was motivated to excel. If you were suddenly at bat in front of 50,000 screaming fans and a national tv audience, would you excel or fail? The ones who excel in those situations are clutch players.

The guy who wrote moneyball would congratulate Steinbrenner for ditching Reggie Jackson after his contract expired. Steinbrenner himself later regretted the decision when he realized the importance of having clutch players on his team.

It's about MENTAL MAKEUP.

Now all that having been said, in MVP Baseball 2005, there's no such thing as clutch because these are not humans playing, and it is all decided by a simulation of physics. Real baseball is not that, please don't confuse the two.

And Moneyball is a book about playing the percentages. That plan will work most of the time for most teams. You ever watch the old Star Trek and you'll find plenty of lectures from Kirk or McCoy to Spock that it's NOT ALL ABOUT NUMBERS. Sometimes it's intuition and gut feelings and coming through in the clutch because that's what it means to be HUMAN and not a computer.

"God does not play dice." ~~ Albert Einstein

[APR]

I can tell that you have either read Moneyball' date=' or have read the series of Bill James' books.[/quote']

...yes, I've read Moneyball. It's not a guide to baseball stats though, by any means. It just tells a good story. It has a lot of information about baseball, but a bunch of it is sensationalized. You read baseball prospectus at all?

Actually I haven't. But do you reccommend it?

[Sethuel]

Why? Your argument is empty, you're saying it wasn't so because you don't believe in it. You fail to back up your argument with evidence. Munson had been hungry to be in the World Series since he was rookie of the year, but I saw the fear in the other Yankee players' eyes in 1976. He was motivated to excel.

Actually, I'm pretty sure I gave you some really good evidence. You said Munson "always hit better in the series," and I pointed out that really only one of those years was significant.

Also, if you read just a little bit of what I said, I pointed it that I do think that some players perform worse in clutch situations. That is, it's entirely possible that everyone else on the yankees could choke from the pressure.

But to imply that Thurman Munson had this extra ability in him, and he only used it when it was really important is, quite frankly, an insult to the man. You're implying that if he had focused harder or been that hungry all the time, then he could have played that well all the time. And if that's true, then I wouldn't want him on my team, because most of the time he wasn't trying his hardest.

I'm a big proponent of mental makeup. I think players with a bad makeup will perform worse in clutch situations than the rest of the time. But a player with good makeup will perform to the best of his abilities even in clutch situations. To say that he will somehow be a superior version of himself is ridiculous.

Also, no one's saying it's all about the numbers. I'm not saying that Thurman Munson was a dice, and that every time he came up, there was a 30% chance that he'd succeed. I'm saying that, from the data, we can tell what was significant (his performance in '76) and what was not (his performance in '77 and '78.) At that point, it's a matter of what you choose to attribute it to. I think that you can't claim that he was always better in the series, because it would have held true the next two years as well. I think that more likely, he got locked in and caught fire at the right time. And yes, his lack of failure may be a result of his mental makeup. But his superior ability at that time probably was not.

I don't have the data on Berra in front of me, but if you tell me where to get it, I'd be happy to take a look at it.

And, honestly, if you're going to criticize probability, maybe you should start by understanding probability. Because it really seems like you'd rather be lazy and write something off than take the time to learn about it. It's not that hard to get a stat textbook. Or even the cliffs notes: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...ks&n=507846

Probability isn't saying that everything is a result of chance. But it can look at data and tell you what could be chance, as well as what could not. And I've never seen evidence that clutch hitting is not.

And, by the way:

If you were suddenly at bat in front of 50,000 screaming fans and a national tv audience, would you excel or fail? The ones who excel in those situations are clutch players.

If that's true, why did this happen:

Derek Jeter

2000 World Series: 9/22, 2 2B, 1 3B, 2 HR, .409/.480/.864

2001 World Series: 4/27 0 2B, 0 3B, 1 HR, .148/.179/.259

Where did Jeter's "clutch ability" go?

Just because you believe something is true doesn't mean it actually is. Otherwise the world would be flat and the sun would revolve around it.

And if you're going to accuse me of failing to cite evidence, maybe you should cite some yourself other than Star Trek, which, by the way, was a PIECE OF FICTION! It's not like I came in with an example from the TV show "Numbers."

Also worth noting that my initial response was perfectly civil. Yours is downright rude and defensive.

Best,

Seth

"Ok, if I roll a 1, 3, or 5, Einstein lives, and if I roll a 2, 4, or 6, he dies." ~~ God

[Sethuel]

Actually I haven't. But do you reccommend it?

Yeah, it's pretty aces. Especially that article from January about Extreme swings :)

[Fastflink2009]

Rangers please, and remember to put Chris Young 6'10'' pitcher in the starting rotation, b/c he isnt in the game but is in real life.

[aiclsgdskse]

sorry dude, I already started a Padres one

[Fastflink2009]

dang

[carter]

"Chise???"

Does anyone speak proper English anymore?