Eh, RBIs are a pretty good indicator of a hitter's ability to come through in "clutch" or otherwise important situations. A .450 avg means a hell of a lot less to me if you can't get on base when it "matters".Okay. That doesn't detract from an arbitrary stat that people say the more you get the better you are when if that same person was in another spot in the order they maybe wouldn't get even half of said stat which according to some would mean magically they aren't as good.
"Clutch" hitting is a controversial subject and there is some pretty good evidence out there that it might not exist (or if it does, it doesn't matter as much as we think it does).Here is a pretty good write upon the issues which includes links to some of the research that has been done on the subject, but this particular paragraph sums up the problem I've always had with "clutch" hitting regardless if it exists or not:Eh, RBIs are a pretty good indicator of a hitter's ability to come through in "clutch" or otherwise important situations. A .450 avg means a hell of a lot less to me if you can't get on base when it "matters".
But now we need to consider clutch as an idea. The idea of clutch hitting is that some hitters perform better with the game on the line. But what does that say about those hitters in other situations? Are they not trying very hard? Do they only focus when the flashbulbs are going off? If you have the innate ability to will yourself to perform better, why don?t you do that all the time?
The counter point is that clutch shouldn?t really be defined by performing better in tight spots, it should be about not getting worse when the pressure is on. A clutch hitter is someone who maintains the normal faculties in high leverage spots rather than getting worse. This is still an empirical matter, but it?s a more logically consistent one. Seeing a guy hit a home run in the 9th inning makes him appear clutch, but if he struck out four times before that, why didn?t he use his clutch ability to perform better earlier?
.450 means they get on base. Getting on base when it matters is literally every at bat.Eh, RBIs are a pretty good indicator of a hitter's ability to come through in "clutch" or otherwise important situations. A .450 avg means a hell of a lot less to me if you can't get on base when it "matters".
I get what they are trying to argue. Essentially, if you're just a good hitter at all times, you always appear "clutch". It's a very obvious case of, "no shit". In reality, the pressure of the situation gets to a lot of batters and they end up shortening their swings, swinging at stuff outside the zone they normally wouldn't, etc."Clutch" hitting is a controversial subject and there is some pretty good evidence out there that it might not exist (or if it does, it doesn't matter as much as we think it does).Here is a pretty good write upon the issues which includes links to some of the research that has been done on the subject, but this particular paragraph sums up the problem I've always had with "clutch" hitting regardless if it exists or not:
These guys basically don't exist. Over the course of a career just about every single player will closely match their total career averages in these situations. The very few exceptions that are out there are more likely to be anomalies of sample size than they are due to some innate ability or inability to hit better with RISP (or other high leverage situations). We just get fooled as fan because of the small sample sizes of these situations a player faces season-to-season and our tendency to remember those moments where they did come through much more vividly.I'd still take the hitter who bats .500 with RISP and .250 elsewhere
Woah, I said I agree with you on RBI. It's about as useless an indicator of player performance as Wins for a pitcherOkay. That doesn't detract from an arbitrary stat that people say the more you get the better you are when if that same person was in another spot in the order they maybe wouldn't get even half of said stat which according to some would mean magically they aren't as good.
I'm not sure that's true always true, but not because of the player just hitting better. Some batters have a better average with RISP just because the position of the infield when runners are on.Actually I would say the opposite, if a player truly is clutch you really shouldn't notice he's clutch, you should just think he is consistent.
These guys basically don't exist. Over the course of a career just about every single player will closely match their total career averages in these situations. The very few exceptions that are out there are more likely to be anomalies of sample size than they are due to some innate ability or inability to hit better with RISP (or other high leverage situations). We just get fooled as fan because of the small sample sizes of these situations a player faces season-to-season and our tendency to remember those moments where they did come through much more vividly.
We don't understand it because we haven't been able to do it very well since 2001I don't know guys, the Mariners are trying this new thing called "scoring runs" this year. They must have read about it in Moneyball or something, I dunno but so far it is working for them. (Sorry if that is too sabermetric-y for you, most of the Seattle fans don't understand it either).