Chicago North side team followers may be familiar with an ex-right fielder, now with Baltimore (heh heh, the joke’s on you now), who was notorious for hitting dingers when they seemed to count least. One indirect measure of his uselessness can be made by comparing his homeruns with his RBI’s. The closer those numbers are, the fewer home runs he hit with men on base. Or, in other words, clutch hitters tend to do their best with guys on base, ducks on the pond, ya know? And some guys don’t. I think the stat merits attention, although I acknowledge my bias against this particular over-rated nitwit. xo, C.
An alternative formulation is that the closer those numbers are, the fewer men were on base when he hit home runs. That’s something over which players often have little control.
Well, the idea was to make a stat that was better than either BA, OBA or SLG alone, but was still pretty simple to calculate. It’s meant to be a quick, fairly crude but still accurate assessment of a player’s worth. Once you get into weighting the different stats differently, you may as well just go with EqA or something.
How can someone who hit 500 HR’s in a 10-year period (1994-2004) be over-rated?
I realize his defense is suspect and he stikes out a lot, but cmon. The guy’s a Hall of Famer!
Hmm.
I think you missed my point. I’m not referring to WALKS in particular, and saying that they missed half of all clutch situations because they didn’t count walks. Maybe I was unclear. What I’m saying is that by counting only at bats with RISP, they’re missing far, far more than half of all clutch situations.
Look, forget walks. Bottom of the ninth, tie game, nobody on, and the leadoff batter hits a home run. According to an RISP-based study, that is NOT a clutch hit.
Bottom of the eighth, team losing 2-1, nobody out, man on first, the batter hits a triple to tie the game and put the winning run on third with nobody out. According to an RISP-based study, that is NOT a clutch hit.
Top of the ninth, nobody out, tie game, the batter walks. According to the RISP-based study, no credit for that, either, even though it’s clearly a clutch play.
Bottom seventh, team losing 4-2, runner on first, batter hits a home run. Again, not a clutch hit if you go by RISP.
On the other hand; your team up 13-2, man on second, you bunt a single towards third base, runner can’t advance. That’s a clutch hit in an RISP study.
Basing clutch skill on RISP situations only is exactly the same as judging a hitter’s overall batting skill solely based on how he hits on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. You can’t seriously tell me that a study to measure clutch is accurate when **it discounts almost ALL at bats in the late innings of close games. ** I mean, according to this study, Bill Mazeroski’s home run to win the 1960 World Series was not a clutch hit. Isn’t that kind of crazy?
No, I didn’t miss your point. Clutch walks, solo HR’s, Triple’s with man on 1st, and discounting blowout situations, don’t come close to half of all “clutch” situations.
If one could account for these specific situations, the list would still be not that different than a simple RISP vs. Non-RISP list. RISP situations account for the vast majority of “clutch” situations, period.
Would it be more accurate to include the more detailed criteria? Heck, yes. But I just havn’t seen one. Again, if someone has a link to one, I would love to see it.
Bill Spiers or Mark Sweeney will still be the best “clutch” hitters of the modern era. Heh, Bill Spiers, who would have thought.
[QUOTE=Phish Head]
No, I didn’t miss your point. Clutch walks, solo HR’s, Triple’s with man on 1st, and discounting blowout situations, don’t come close to half of all “clutch” situations.
[QUOTE]
Wait a minute. On second thought, I’m wrong. You’re right RickJay, accounting for clutch walks, solo HR’s, HR’s with man on 1st, Triple’s with man on 1st, and discounting blowout situations, probably DOES account for close to half of all “clutch” situations!
Accounting for these criteria probably does change the lists quite a bit!
Heh, I’m not afraid to admit when I’m wrong. I’ve been wrong several times today alone. I think I need some more coffee.
Anyway, RISP vs. Non-RISP is still a somewhat valid benchmark, yes?
I think I could make an excellent case, but inasmuch as we’re in GQ, I’ll defer to the rules. xo, C.