Clutchness

[jstraw]

<!--quoteo(post=98185:date=May 25 2010, 12:21 AM:name=bz)-->QUOTE (bz @ May 25 2010, 12:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=98183:date=May 25 2010, 12:13 AM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ May 25 2010, 12:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=98171:date=May 24 2010, 10:40 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ May 24 2010, 10:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I don't disagree with any of that. However, most of that is not what people are talking about when they talk about being clutch.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or take closers. Every closer has to be clutch. The job is to be clutch. To come in and pitch one inning in a save situation and get it done.

<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

See LaTroy Hawkins.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Hawkins isn't a closer. He's a guy no longer trusted to close. That's significant.

[rok]

<!--quoteo(post=98186:date=May 25 2010, 02:18 AM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ May 25 2010, 02:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=98185:date=May 25 2010, 12:21 AM:name=bz)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (bz @ May 25 2010, 12:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=98183:date=May 25 2010, 12:13 AM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ May 25 2010, 12:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=98171:date=May 24 2010, 10:40 PM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ May 24 2010, 10:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I don't disagree with any of that. However, most of that is not what people are talking about when they talk about being clutch.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or take closers. Every closer has to be clutch. The job is to be clutch. To come in and pitch one inning in a save situation and get it done.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
See LaTroy Hawkins.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or Mariano Rivera, bottom of the 9th, 7th Game of the World Series, 2001.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or Jesus on 9/11.

[veryzer]

I don't know or care about clutchness as it pertains to players. I do care about clutchness as it pertains to teams though, and the Cubs are not a clutch team as a whole. Or at least they haven't been for most of the year.

[VanSlawAndCottoCheese]

<!--quoteo(post=98183:date=May 25 2010, 01:13 AM:name=jstraw)-->QUOTE (jstraw @ May 25 2010, 01:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Or take closers. Every closer has to be clutch. The job is to be clutch. To come in and pitch one inning in a save situation and get it done.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm glad you brought this up. I've long felt that the notion of a "closer" as high-pressure is vastly inflated, spurred on by the stat--as a matter of fact. The growing acceptance of the "save" as something as value from the '70s forward spiked the salaries of so-called closers and created a mythic appreciation for pitching in the ninth inning. With this increased belief in the stat and the role, baseball folk feel that coming in to pitch the ninth is "high pressure," no matter if you're coming in with the bases clear and facing the bottom of the order.

And over the last 20 years, many relievers who have racked up saves have gotten into the HOF for their ability to pitch the end of games (although Fingers, Sutter, and their contemporaries often pitched more than one inning at a time). I'm not saying that I wouldn't want Rivera out there in the ninth inning, but I can't help but think that we collectively put too much importance on the closer role.

[jstraw]

<!--quoteo(post=98216:date=May 25 2010, 10:55 AM:name=VanSlawAndCottoCheese)-->QUOTE (VanSlawAndCottoCheese @ May 25 2010, 10:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=98183:date=May 25 2010, 01:13 AM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ May 25 2010, 01:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Or take closers. Every closer has to be clutch. The job is to be clutch. To come in and pitch one inning in a save situation and get it done.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm glad you brought this up. I've long felt that the notion of a "closer" as high-pressure is vastly inflated, spurred on by the stat--as a matter of fact. The growing acceptance of the "save" as something as value from the '70s forward spiked the salaries of so-called closers and created a mythic appreciation for pitching in the ninth inning. With this increased belief in the stat and the role, baseball folk feel that coming in to pitch the ninth is "high pressure," no matter if you're coming in with the bases clear and facing the bottom of the order.

And over the last 20 years, many relievers who have racked up saves have gotten into the HOF for their ability to pitch the end of games (although Fingers, Sutter, and their contemporaries often pitched more than one inning at a time). I'm not saying that I wouldn't want Rivera out there in the ninth inning, but I can't help but think that we collectively put too much importance on the closer role.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I think where we'd probably find agreement is that I believe the threshold for "save situation" is far too low.

[jstraw]

I guess one could also argue that it's a perfectly reasonable stat that's simply been overvalued. How best to quantify what makes a truly great closer, special?

[Butcher]

There's a school of thought (that I mostly agree with), that you should have a late inning "fireman" instead of a "closer."

For example...on our team, Marmol is probably our best bullpen guy with Marshall a close second. Say you're winning by one run with the heart of the opposition's order coming up in the 8th inning. Do you bring in your best bullpen pitcher in the 8th to face the big guns? Or do you save him to face the bottom of the order in the 9th because he's your "closer?"

Or if your starter is cruising along, but gets in a jam in the 7th...anyway, you get it.

Pretty much every team pitches their best bullpen pitcher in the 9th if they have the lead, no matter what the situation.

[Fella]

<!--quoteo(post=98220:date=May 25 2010, 10:25 AM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ May 25 2010, 10:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->There's a school of thought (that I mostly agree with), that you should have a late inning "fireman" instead of a "closer."

For example...on our team, Marmol is probably our best bullpen guy with Marshall a close second. Say you're winning by one run with the heart of the opposition's order coming up in the 8th inning. Do you bring in your best bullpen pitcher in the 8th to face the big guns? Or do you save him to face the bottom of the order in the 9th because he's your "closer?"

Or if your starter is cruising along, but gets in a jam in the 7th...anyway, you get it.

Pretty much every team pitches their best bullpen pitcher in the 9th if they have the lead, no matter what the situation.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah I thought our pen ran better when we had Marmol to use in any situation, like in 07 and 08. He was there to bail us out whenever we needed, now he always has to be saved for the 9th.

[jstraw]

<!--quoteo(post=98221:date=May 25 2010, 11:31 AM:name=Fella)-->QUOTE (Fella @ May 25 2010, 11:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=98220:date=May 25 2010, 10:25 AM:name=Butcher)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Butcher @ May 25 2010, 10:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->There's a school of thought (that I mostly agree with), that you should have a late inning "fireman" instead of a "closer."

For example...on our team, Marmol is probably our best bullpen guy with Marshall a close second. Say you're winning by one run with the heart of the opposition's order coming up in the 8th inning. Do you bring in your best bullpen pitcher in the 8th to face the big guns? Or do you save him to face the bottom of the order in the 9th because he's your "closer?"

Or if your starter is cruising along, but gets in a jam in the 7th...anyway, you get it.

Pretty much every team pitches their best bullpen pitcher in the 9th if they have the lead, no matter what the situation.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah I thought our pen ran better when we had Marmol to use in any situation, like in 07 and 08. He was there to bail us out whenever we needed, now he always has to be saved for the 9th.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But last year, if he wasn't our anointed closer, he was a headcase and was useless in the 8th OR 9th.

I agree with the fireman premise in theory but with our personnel, I'm fine with Marshall setting up and Marmol closing.

[Butcher]

I think if the save, as a statistic, was never invented, the role Marmol used to be in would be seen as far more valuable than it is currently seen. Guys who pitch the 9th inning get big bucks. Set up men (or late-inning relievers/"firemen")? Not as much.

[leonardsipes]

<!--quoteo(post=98129:date=May 24 2010, 06:39 PM:name=KBwsb)-->QUOTE (KBwsb @ May 24 2010, 06:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=98128:date=May 24 2010, 06:34 PM:name=leonardsipes)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (leonardsipes @ May 24 2010, 06:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->I read about a couple of psychologists who studied the so-called "hot hand" in basketball—the idea that players who are hot keep hitting baskets and players who are cold keep missing them. No matter how they crunched the stats, it turned out that the phenomenon didn't exist<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

This is a great example, to show how the stat heads are misguided. It is common sense, that some days, guys are going to be sick or injured, and have a bad day. They play against different defenders and coaches use different schemes. Hotness and coldness are not random, but they happen within a normal distribution. You take a guy with a 50% FG% (a coin) and flip it 16 times, for 82 games. It is not going to be 8 heads all 82 times. There are going to be a normal distribution of results - random hotness occurs. Basketball is a game of skill. We know actual hotness happens, but because it never happens to the extent that it could not be random, it does not statistically happen.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think we need to define what we're talking about here. You guys are saying, after the fact, that some guys are clutch, or get the hot hand, and it was obvious to all who saw it. Obviously, I agree with that, because it's an inarguable point.

What I'm talking about is: is it something you can <b>predict?</b> Is it something inherent in that player?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


First of all, the quote is saying not only that hot/cold can't be predicted, but that it does not exist. My post was not about clutch, except to make the point that the stat heads are so clearly wrong about hot and cold, that maybe they are wrong about clutch as well.

Making a basket is skill not luck. When a player makes few 3 pointers early in a game, the opposing coach does not say "don't guard that guy, I want him to keep putting up 3s, he is due to miss." They change their defensive scheme, so he doesn't get any more open 3s.

Hotness can't be predicted, in that the Suns can't say in game 1 we guard Kobe because he is going to be hot, in game 2 we are going to let him shoot away, but hotness/coldness can be identified when it occurs.

[jstraw]

<!--quoteo(post=98247:date=May 25 2010, 12:49 PM:name=leonardsipes)-->QUOTE (leonardsipes @ May 25 2010, 12:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=98129:date=May 24 2010, 06:39 PM:name=KBwsb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KBwsb @ May 24 2010, 06:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=98128:date=May 24 2010, 06:34 PM:name=leonardsipes)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (leonardsipes @ May 24 2010, 06:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->I read about a couple of psychologists who studied the so-called "hot hand" in basketball—the idea that players who are hot keep hitting baskets and players who are cold keep missing them. No matter how they crunched the stats, it turned out that the phenomenon didn't exist<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

This is a great example, to show how the stat heads are misguided. It is common sense, that some days, guys are going to be sick or injured, and have a bad day. They play against different defenders and coaches use different schemes. Hotness and coldness are not random, but they happen within a normal distribution. You take a guy with a 50% FG% (a coin) and flip it 16 times, for 82 games. It is not going to be 8 heads all 82 times. There are going to be a normal distribution of results - random hotness occurs. Basketball is a game of skill. We know actual hotness happens, but because it never happens to the extent that it could not be random, it does not statistically happen.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think we need to define what we're talking about here. You guys are saying, after the fact, that some guys are clutch, or get the hot hand, and it was obvious to all who saw it. Obviously, I agree with that, because it's an inarguable point.

What I'm talking about is: is it something you can <b>predict?</b> Is it something inherent in that player?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


First of all, the quote is saying not only that hot/cold can't be predicted, but that it does not exist. My post was not about clutch, except to make the point that the stat heads are so clearly wrong about hot and cold, that maybe they are wrong about clutch as well.

Making a basket is skill not luck. When a player makes few 3 pointers early in a game, the opposing coach does not say "don't guard that guy, I want him to keep putting up 3s, he is due to miss." They change their defensive scheme, so he doesn't get any more open 3s.

Hotness can't be predicted, in that the Suns can't say in game 1 we guard Kobe because he is going to be hot, in game 2 we are going to let him shoot away, but hotness/coldness can be identified when it occurs.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I have never before heard this idea that stat heads don't think hot and cold exist. Anecdotally, Posnanski mentions statisticians crunching numbers and not finding evidence of, well...essentially, streaks...hitting or missing a number of times in a row that represents a statistical outlier, in terms of distribution. I don't believe it. I think this casual mention is bullshit and is either made up or a complete misinterpretation or misrepresentation of some statistical analysis.

[rok]

<!--quoteo(post=98250:date=May 25 2010, 12:58 PM:name=jstraw)-->QUOTE (jstraw @ May 25 2010, 12:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=98247:date=May 25 2010, 12:49 PM:name=leonardsipes)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (leonardsipes @ May 25 2010, 12:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=98129:date=May 24 2010, 06:39 PM:name=KBwsb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KBwsb @ May 24 2010, 06:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=98128:date=May 24 2010, 06:34 PM:name=leonardsipes)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (leonardsipes @ May 24 2010, 06:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->I read about a couple of psychologists who studied the so-called "hot hand" in basketball—the idea that players who are hot keep hitting baskets and players who are cold keep missing them. No matter how they crunched the stats, it turned out that the phenomenon didn't exist<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

This is a great example, to show how the stat heads are misguided. It is common sense, that some days, guys are going to be sick or injured, and have a bad day. They play against different defenders and coaches use different schemes. Hotness and coldness are not random, but they happen within a normal distribution. You take a guy with a 50% FG% (a coin) and flip it 16 times, for 82 games. It is not going to be 8 heads all 82 times. There are going to be a normal distribution of results - random hotness occurs. Basketball is a game of skill. We know actual hotness happens, but because it never happens to the extent that it could not be random, it does not statistically happen.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think we need to define what we're talking about here. You guys are saying, after the fact, that some guys are clutch, or get the hot hand, and it was obvious to all who saw it. Obviously, I agree with that, because it's an inarguable point.

What I'm talking about is: is it something you can <b>predict?</b> Is it something inherent in that player?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


First of all, the quote is saying not only that hot/cold can't be predicted, but that it does not exist. My post was not about clutch, except to make the point that the stat heads are so clearly wrong about hot and cold, that maybe they are wrong about clutch as well.

Making a basket is skill not luck. When a player makes few 3 pointers early in a game, the opposing coach does not say "don't guard that guy, I want him to keep putting up 3s, he is due to miss." They change their defensive scheme, so he doesn't get any more open 3s.

Hotness can't be predicted, in that the Suns can't say in game 1 we guard Kobe because he is going to be hot, in game 2 we are going to let him shoot away, but hotness/coldness can be identified when it occurs.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I have never before heard this idea that stat heads don't think hot and cold exist. Anecdotally, Posnanski mentions statisticians crunching numbers and not finding evidence of, well...essentially, streaks...hitting or missing a number of times in a row that represents a statistical outlier, in terms of distribution. I don't believe it. I think this casual mention is bullshit and is either made up or a complete misinterpretation or misrepresentation of some statistical analysis.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not convinced that Posnanski understands stats much, because if he did he would understand that outside of the hard sciences, they have serious flaws.

[jstraw]

<!--quoteo(post=98254:date=May 25 2010, 01:22 PM:name=rok)-->QUOTE (rok @ May 25 2010, 01:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=98250:date=May 25 2010, 12:58 PM:name=jstraw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jstraw @ May 25 2010, 12:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=98247:date=May 25 2010, 12:49 PM:name=leonardsipes)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (leonardsipes @ May 25 2010, 12:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=98129:date=May 24 2010, 06:39 PM:name=KBwsb)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KBwsb @ May 24 2010, 06:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=98128:date=May 24 2010, 06:34 PM:name=leonardsipes)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (leonardsipes @ May 24 2010, 06:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <!--quotec-->I read about a couple of psychologists who studied the so-called "hot hand" in basketball—the idea that players who are hot keep hitting baskets and players who are cold keep missing them. No matter how they crunched the stats, it turned out that the phenomenon didn't exist<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

This is a great example, to show how the stat heads are misguided. It is common sense, that some days, guys are going to be sick or injured, and have a bad day. They play against different defenders and coaches use different schemes. Hotness and coldness are not random, but they happen within a normal distribution. You take a guy with a 50% FG% (a coin) and flip it 16 times, for 82 games. It is not going to be 8 heads all 82 times. There are going to be a normal distribution of results - random hotness occurs. Basketball is a game of skill. We know actual hotness happens, but because it never happens to the extent that it could not be random, it does not statistically happen.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think we need to define what we're talking about here. You guys are saying, after the fact, that some guys are clutch, or get the hot hand, and it was obvious to all who saw it. Obviously, I agree with that, because it's an inarguable point.

What I'm talking about is: is it something you can <b>predict?</b> Is it something inherent in that player?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->


First of all, the quote is saying not only that hot/cold can't be predicted, but that it does not exist. My post was not about clutch, except to make the point that the stat heads are so clearly wrong about hot and cold, that maybe they are wrong about clutch as well.

Making a basket is skill not luck. When a player makes few 3 pointers early in a game, the opposing coach does not say "don't guard that guy, I want him to keep putting up 3s, he is due to miss." They change their defensive scheme, so he doesn't get any more open 3s.

Hotness can't be predicted, in that the Suns can't say in game 1 we guard Kobe because he is going to be hot, in game 2 we are going to let him shoot away, but hotness/coldness can be identified when it occurs.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I have never before heard this idea that stat heads don't think hot and cold exist. Anecdotally, Posnanski mentions statisticians crunching numbers and not finding evidence of, well...essentially, streaks...hitting or missing a number of times in a row that represents a statistical outlier, in terms of distribution. I don't believe it. I think this casual mention is bullshit and is either made up or a complete misinterpretation or misrepresentation of some statistical analysis.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not convinced that Posnanski understands stats much, because if he did he would understand that outside of the hard sciences, they have serious flaws.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Right because we're talking about human beings here, where not only their skills change over time but who are also profoundly influences by factors like stress, the ability to concentrate, physical health, etc., etc.

Stats are excellent at analyzing past performance. I like the whole Bill James approach to revisiting the myths of the past very much.

Stats are useful in assessing likely future performance...to a point. They're what you have to go on. I want a guy at the plate with 2 on and 2 out that's been raking, regardless of what his career numbers with RISP is. (this is an example of where I thing hot/cold and clutch are related concepts)

Stats are completely useless for predicting events. No one is ever "due," literally speaking, to do anything.

[leonardsipes]

<!--quoteo(post=98250:date=May 25 2010, 12:58 PM:name=jstraw)-->QUOTE (jstraw @ May 25 2010, 12:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I have never before heard this idea that stat heads don't think hot and cold exist. Anecdotally, Posnanski mentions statisticians crunching numbers and not finding evidence of, well...essentially, streaks...hitting or missing a number of times in a row that represents a statistical out lier, in terms of distribution. I don't believe it. I think this casual mention is bullshit and is either made up or a complete misinterpretation or misrepresentation of some statistical analysis.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Read the quote. That is what they believe. I remember when the study fist came out in the 80's. At that time, I was in to stat as much as the next guy. It was what first made me realize that stat analysis is faulty.

The fatal flaw in all the analysis, is the results are based on luck not skill. Once they assume an AB is a random event, then you can assume for the purpose of analysis, all ABs are the same. Why is OPS better than RBI - because we can see that some hitters get more RBI chances than others, and we make the assumptions that quality of pitchers faced and type of ABs even out over a season

ABs are not all the same. In a clutch AB at the end of a game, a hitter will face a different pitcher than in a blow out and be pitched differently. Because baseball is made of 9 three out innings, there are a huge amount of different situations that come up, which lead to the pitcher pitching differently and/or a different pitcher in the game.

If instead of games, each team was given 4374 outs to see how many runs they scored, only 3 things would matter OBP, double plays, and runners left on base at the end of the year. Slg and speed would only matter to the extent that they helped avoid DPs. By taking the entire seasons worth of ABs and treating them the same, you are essentially smoothing out the baseball effect (impact of 9, 3 out inning games on the results). By considering runs scored in blow outs (which skews the data, because by definition, there are a lot of them) the same as game winning runs you minimize the effect of little things (what makes baseball, baseball) on wins.

When we watch a game, we see the actual situation. Statistics don't. That is why watching the game, we see things such as clutch, speed, productive outs.