Home of the Bleacher Blogger
Links
Pirate's Homepage
PG's Pirate's Site
Trib's Pirate's Site
ESPN Page
Sports Illustrated

Pirate Weblogs
Where's Andy Van Slyke
Honest Wagner
Buc's Dugout
Romo Phone Home

Other Sports
Today's Tidbits
Heels Sox & Steelers

Archives
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
December 2006
April 2007
July 2008

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours? Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com
Tuesday, April 24, 2007

My Triumphant Return

I love fangraphs.com. Whenever people argue for or against the clutch I always think about this site. Someone will say that at the end of the game all the runs count the same, and that's unequivocally true, but during the game they don't. Scoring a run in a scoreless game in the top of the 2nd increases your chances of winning a whole lot less then doing the same thing in the top of the 9th. WPA reflects this, and as you'd expect, the best players have typically had the highest WPA. If there was some sort of comparison of WPA, to what a player would be expected to contribute based on his offensive numbers, then that might be a good idea of just how "clutch" a player has been.

Well some people a hell of a lot smarter then me did this, and came up with a stat called 'clutchiness.' I don't know enough about it to explain it, but the old clutchiness blog does a great job. What I do know, is that a positive number means you've made some clutch hits, negative means you've choked more then your fare share. David Ortiz, who had something like a hundred walk-off homeruns the last couple seasons had clutchiness of 2.91 and 1.48 in 2005 and 2006 respectively, that was good enough to lead the league by plenty in '05. And Jason Bay at -1.93 was third from the bottom amongst qualifying players.

No one will argue that there's no such thing as clutch hitting, or clutch pitching for that matter. The argument stems from the belief that certain players are inherently better in clutch situations than others. I used to believe that, but reading enough blog entries on the topic has enlightened me to just how ridiculous it is to believe that a player can turn on this ability at will. "Clutch" does imply some sort of pressure, and I believe that some players just don't handle pressure well, but at this point, I'm pretty indifferent to the whole clutch or not argument.

So Dejan's off-day piece examines the Pirates personal opinions on clutch, and how that affects strategy. Dejan has expressed a belief in the clutch before, but keeps a neutral opinion here. Charlie writes today about how idiotic it is for a team to base any decision off of "clutch" ability. But even if you accept that they have that philosophy, comparing what they believe to what clutchiness says they should believe, they're still idiots.

First Paulino contends that the key to staving a Cardinals comeback last week was hitting Eckstein and not having to pitch to him. Instead the Pirates had to throw to Pujols with the bases loaded. Jack Wilson says, "Can't let Eckstein beat you there... Eckstein's clutch." Eckstein had a .02 clutchiness last year, Pujols led the freaking league in what I believe is a ridiculous 3.50. This even ignores that Pujols is infinitely better then Eckstein to begin with. In what universe, does it make more sense to face Pujols over Eckstein?

The real bomb drop is Tracy believing "big hits" are the key to winning, and creating his lineup that way. If you are batting Jack Wilson second because you think he's clutch, you need to look at his .07 clutchiness last year, or his atrocious -0.91 from 2005. The only season Jack showed any significant clutch performance was a 1.17 his rookie season, when he batted 8th all year.

Two years ago, when Humberto Cota seemed to get every clutch hit for the Pirates, his 1.27 was good enough for 20th in the league, yet every time he comes up to bat in the a 'clutch' situation under Jim Tracy he's pinch hit for.

I'm not condoning making any decision because of a players supposed clutch ability. It's probably a good idea to pinch hit for Cota with the game on the line, cause Cota sucks. Gives me some hope that what Tracy's saying here about clutch doesn't really affect his game decisions. But it does make it seem like he is just making shit up: "Isn't that what makes teams good?" No, good teams have better players then the other team and don't screw up the easy stuff."

Links:
Clutchiness: What is Clutchiness, The Stat?
Post-Gazette: Is there clutch? Or is it the reverse?
Bucs Dugout: On "Clutch"

posted by Rory at 5:19 PM |
 
This is a blog about the Pittsburgh Pirates. My vision: to write about the games at the games.

Want to email me? Make it out to rory at bleache... you know the rest.