Rickie Weeks so far this season

[Dollarbill13]

Yeah but Weeks can't bunt.

 

So our #2 hitter won't bunt every time the leadoff guy gets on? What a shame

[derflotr]

If Roenicke moves Weeks back up it will be to the leadoff spot, not #2 - that's Aoki's ideal spot. But, as long as Gomez keeps playing well, it doesn't matter much to me. I don't mind having Weeks consistently getting ABs with runners on base in the meantime. It really doesn't bother me who gets the RBIs, as long as someone's doing it.

 

I disagree. Weeks and Aoki have similar OBP skills but Weeks has far more power. That can get wasted to some extent hitting leadoff.

Right, but I was saying that Roenicke will have him back in the leadoff spot if he starts trusting him again, because that's where Weeks has always had success in the past. I'd rather have him hit behind Aoki, but part of the job as the #2 hitter on RRR's team, like it or not, is to give away outs via the bunt. I'd only wish that on lesser hitters.

[rluzinski]

He gets plenty of rope because at least $21 million owed him in the next 2 season.

 

I have pointed this out to you about once a year for a decade. You have it completely backwards as you always do. He got the money because he proved himself to be consistently good. That's why guys who got paid get big ropes. Sometimes those guys still play themselves out of the league but the odds are much better that they rebound.

[gregmag]

Casey never had the long track record of success that Rickie Weeks has had. Weeks has been a consistent top level 2B for 5-6 years, outside of the injuries. He deserves plenty of rope.

 

McGehee didn't have the track record. DM didn't ride him through the post season, he switched to Hairston after Weeks came back.

 

Weeks consistent? He's on pace to hit under .240 for the 4th time in 8 seasons as a starter. Yes BA is an old school stat, and he does get on base at a decent clip, but I wouldn't call him consistently "top level". He gets plenty of rope because at least $21 million owed him in the next 2 season. With 2015 dependent on him getting 1,200 total plate appearances in 13 and 14, it will be interesting to see if he gets benched more often if he goes into another prolonged slump next year.

 

He's had a nice run lately and we see what effect him hitting does to the lineup. Then again, what pressure was left on this team disappeared after they got swept in Cincinnati. So it's definitely "grain of salt" time.

 

No, it isn't. Because your premise is false. You fabricate this stuff about some players being "clutch" and others being "not clutch" because it allows you to argue whatever you want, whenever you want, in support of biases that you can't back up with facts. "Clutch" doesn't exist, and I know that because people have been documenting its nonexistence for almost 30 years -- and it doesn't take rocket science to get there. "Clutch" is a myth that lazy analysts lean on instead of actual knowledge or insight, and despite the fact that you have knowledge and insight in spades, you seem to lean on that myth almost daily. What demands a grain of salt is anything you post about a player as to whom you have an established bias, pro or con, which seems to be three quarters of the Brewers' roster and anybody who ever set foot in Chicago.

 

Also, the effect that Weeks has on the lineup when he hits is that Weeks hits, and everybody else does what they would have done anyway, except that he gets to move around the bases on some of their hits and they get to move around the bases on some of his. You can't catch hitting from another player. That's another lazy myth.

 

Oh, and Russ already covered this, but Weeks isn't making money because Doug Melvin and Mark Attanasio are morons. He's making money based on the market for his production. Likewise, he doesn't get to play because the morons who paid him are afraid of looking like the morons they are. He gets to play because he's been productive enough in his career to make him a better bet to produce tomorrow than all but a tiny handful of other major league 2b's. I agree that he's somewhat inconsistent, but if one guy hits an inconsistent .250/.350/.430 and another guy hits a consistent .250/.350/.430, I don't see how you can value either one more than the other.

 

Finally, bringing up batting average as the sole support for your point, and then saying "Yes, BA is an old-school stat" as if to say "I know you punk kids don't understand the timeless verities (sigh)" is a rhetorical cop-out. BA is a stat. It measures what it measures. Say what you think it proves; don't hide behind the unstated nobility of the ancient. Because the nobility of the ancient is just another lazy myth.

[HiAndTight]

[sarcasm]I don't know, Weeks was just a terrible leadoff hitter when he hit .239 or whatever.

 

Sure, he was a leadoff hitter, and how a leadoff hitter makes an out is almost totally irrelevant, it supports my biased argument, so I'm going to ignore the fact that he had a .374 OBP and was one of the best leadoff hitters in the game.

 

I'll also aimlessly call him inconsistent despite posting wOBA of .365, .334, .365,.368,.358 the previous 5 years. Clearly he isn't consistent. Sure, he put up 4 very good seasons within 7 points of each other, but he DID have one .334 season.

 

He's also put up 15.7 WAR despite missing a great deal of time with injury during those previous 7 years.

 

But hey...he had a bad batting average and that's old school...and everyone knows old school is just beyond questioning or re-evaluating.[/sarcasm]

[HiAndTight]

Gomez since July 1st

 

.274/.333/.548/.881

 

Gomez probably should get more at bats going forward because we need to see if he can handle everyday next year. Hitting him 2nd right now is not a big deal.

 

 

No, there is no problem with hitting Gomez 2nd. He should be playing every day right now IMO to see if he can continue to perform well.

 

He was hitting similarily well before his injury, and I think his overall stat line suffer dramatically from having to go on the DL when he was hitting .280 and then coming off the DL and still not running at full speed. I can't put a number on it, but he lost several base hits because he was only running at 80 pct(or whatever, who can really put a number on it) when he came back off for the next 3-4 weeks. I think he's putting together a .800 OPS season.

 

But as it is, a .775 OPS from one of the games best, if not thee best defensive CF'er is something that you can easily win with. The problem is, he's been playing for how many years, so people are frankly just sick of watching him and convinced he's a bust..yet he's 26 years old and has shown things this season he hasn't shown recently.

[Tedaldtada]

 

No, it isn't. Because your premise is false. You fabricate this stuff about some players being "clutch" and others being "not clutch" because it allows you to argue whatever you want, whenever you want, in support of biases that you can't back up with facts. "Clutch" doesn't exist, and I know that because people have been documenting its nonexistence for almost 30 years -- and it doesn't take rocket science to get there. "Clutch" is a myth that lazy analysts lean on instead of actual knowledge or insight, and despite the fact that you have knowledge and insight in spades, you seem to lean on that myth almost daily. What demands a grain of salt is anything you post about a player as to whom you have an established bias, pro or con, which seems to be three quarters of the Brewers' roster and anybody who ever set foot in Chicago.

 

Also, the effect that Weeks has on the lineup when he hits is that Weeks hits, and everybody else does what they would have done anyway, except that he gets to move around the bases on some of their hits and they get to move around the bases on some of his. You can't catch hitting from another player. That's another lazy myth.

 

Oh, and Russ already covered this, but Weeks isn't making money because Doug Melvin and Mark Attanasio are morons. He's making money based on the market for his production. Likewise, he doesn't get to play because the morons who paid him are afraid of looking like the morons they are. He gets to play because he's been productive enough in his career to make him a better bet to produce tomorrow than all but a tiny handful of other major league 2b's. I agree that he's somewhat inconsistent, but if one guy hits an inconsistent .250/.350/.430 and another guy hits a consistent .250/.350/.430, I don't see how you can value either one more than the other.

 

Finally, bringing up batting average as the sole support for your point, and then saying "Yes, BA is an old-school stat" as if to say "I know you punk kids don't understand the timeless verities (sigh)" is a rhetorical cop-out. BA is a stat. It measures what it measures. Say what you think it proves; don't hide behind the unstated nobility of the ancient. Because the nobility of the ancient is just another lazy myth.

 

Fabulous post. Bravo. I want to save this as a .txt file so I can grab bits a pieces when I need it.

[Funketown]

[sarcasm]gregmag: Counterargument: Derek Jeter[/sarcasm]

 

Weeks' batting line is pretty much league average at this point: .212/.329/.377.

 

I, for one, am still happy about the contract extension he signed a few years ago. Assuming the 2015 option vests, Weeks is under contract for 3 years, $31.5MM. That's the exact number Michael Cuddyer signed for this offseason. Mark my words that Weeks will easily be worth that for the Brewers from 2013-2015.

[rluzinski]

I, for one, am still happy about the contract extension he signed a few years ago. Assuming the 2015 option vests, Weeks is under contract for 3 years, $31.5MM. That's the exact number Michael Cuddyer signed for this offseason. Mark my words that Weeks will easily be worth that for the Brewers from 2013-2015.

 

Weeks's bad half season turned his contract from great to good, going forward:

 

Preseason ZiPS projection: .260/.350/.460/.810

Current Projection: .241/.342/.425/.767

League Ave 2B: .260/.320/.390/.710

 

I am presuming Weeks is an average defender (even if that might not be true this year).

 

Many fans have been predicting the demise of Hart and Weeks for years. Unfortunately, a few of them are still searching for an "I told you so" on the matter. It's OK to be wrong about a player; we all are often enough.

[pacopete4]

I hope I never see Weeks in the 1 or 2 hole again. He's a good 6 or 7 batter in the lineup. He will drive in more runs and it is still very important to get on base down in the order. Guys like Aoki and Segura on top will serve us better for Braun-Aram-Hart-Lucroy-Weeks to drive them on in consistently.

[Baldkin]

I hope I never see Weeks in the 1 or 2 hole again. He's a good 6 or 7 batter in the lineup. He will drive in more runs and it is still very important to get on base down in the order. Guys like Aoki and Segura on top will serve us better for Braun-Aram-Hart-Lucroy-Weeks to drive them on in consistently.

 

Considering it is Weeks or Gomez. I'd much rather have Weeks in front of Braun, since they will SLG about the same and Weeks will carry an OBP about 80 points higher.

[chickinbrickin]

I hope I never see Weeks in the 1 or 2 hole again. He's a good 6 or 7 batter in the lineup. He will drive in more runs and it is still very important to get on base down in the order. Guys like Aoki and Segura on top will serve us better for Braun-Aram-Hart-Lucroy-Weeks to drive them on in consistently.

 

It is actually the complete opposite. Weeks should be in the 1 or 2 hole where he can do what he does, which is get on base and pop home runs occasionally. He is a very bad situational hitter. His career average with the bases empty is .261, but his average with Men on is .233. Men in scoring position is .241.

 

He is much better served to be batting at the top of the order where the team can benefit from his high OBP.

[joepepsi]

Weeks has been the same hitter he's always been since June1st: 258/357/447. He had a bad spring. It happens.

[benji]

Weeks has been the same hitter he's always been since June1st: 258/357/447. He had a bad spring. It happens.

 

I wont discard the effects of his ankle injury either. Some injuries take more than an offseason to fully recover from.

[Funketown]

If you'd like, I'll risk $60 v. your $50 since I did go overboard with the hyperbole. 450 ab's is good with me.

 

http://www.alsa.org/donate/

 

$60/$50.... 450 AB sounds good.

 

Just a friendly reminder Gobias .

 

Weeks now hitting .218/.330/.383 for a wRC+ of exactly 100.

[Gobias Industries]

rluz, you are just asking for an 0-30 streak or one of Weeks' wrist sheaths to pop with that comment.

 

Believe me, I've been rooting for you the whole time because a) I want a rebuild/tear down after the year, and Weeks wasn't gonna go anywhere playing like crap. b) he was never dogging it and probably works as hard as anyone in the league.

 

That said, between Hart and Weeks we have to have the most streaky two players in mlb. I think I have proclaimed Weeks' career over about 3 different seasons now lol.

[Funketown]

I'm not rluz, as far as I know, so we should be safe from the 0-30.

[PrinceEatMeat]

Weeks is back up in the 2 hole today. About time Roenicke made that move.

[topper09er]

"Clutch" doesn't exist, and I know that because people have been documenting its nonexistence for almost 30 years -- and it doesn't take rocket science to get there.

 

If you cant prove something exists that is NOT proof that is does not exist.

 

Again, baseball is not played by simulated computer models, much to the dismay of those who cannot accept that everything in life cannot be completely controlled and predicted. It is in fact possible that a player may be "clutch" sometimes and not others. If that is the case then stats over large samples will not show any consistent clutchness, which in no way proves it does not exist.

 

It amazes me sometimes how crippled people become when some data does not show an obvious answer. THINK ABOUT YOURSELF. Have you ever played sports? Do you feel anything differently between an AB with your brother in your back yard and one with the tying run on 3rd in the championship game? Can you easily catch a pass in practice but in the game you maybe drop it because you are thinking about how important it is too much? Can you have an easy conversation with your mom but freeze up when you try to approach a random hot chick sitting at the bar? Can you recite a speech perfectly in your head but then get nervous when you have to deliver it to your boss or 500 people? Have you ever gotten nervous before an important test?

 

Some people can act the same in any of these situations, and some people act differently. I actually think that part of what it takes to become a professional athlete means that you tend to be the type of person who can overcome these pressures and perform the same in any situation. I think it is human nature to perform a little worse in these types of situations because I see it all the time in REAL LIFE. Of course unless you program a factor for this into your simulated computer model you will just assume everyone can easily treat any situation the same regardless of the context of the situation...sort of like how a robot would react to any situation. Based on this I think there is a decent argument to be made that because there is no noticeable "choking" or decrease in performance of players in "clutch" situations is actually proof that on average an MLB player is a "clutch" type of person. We should expect to see a slight decrease in performance in a clutch situation because the population on average would do that.

 

The entire premise is wrong I think, instead of looking at a players average stats and then seeing that they don't perform better in the "clutch" and concluding clutchness does not exist, we should look at a players average stats and expect a decrease in the "clutch" and conclude that the player may be "clutch" if they can sustain their average stats in those situations.

[Roderick]

"Clutch" doesn't exist, and I know that because people have been documenting its nonexistence for almost 30 years -- and it doesn't take rocket science to get there.

 

If you cant prove something exists that is NOT proof that is does not exist.

 

I guess I was wondering what type of documentation there is to track the clutch or lack of clutch? It seems to me if they use any stats, it would be one-sided. If you use batting stats, how does that account for the pitcher's level of stress or clutch in that situation? Maybe the batter is feeling stress and would swing weakly on a good pitch, but the pitcher is also feeling the pressure and throws a fat pitch up there or walks the batter.

[jerichoholicninja]

"Clutch" doesn't exist, and I know that because people have been documenting its nonexistence for almost 30 years -- and it doesn't take rocket science to get there.

 

If you cant prove something exists that is NOT proof that is does not exist.

 

I guess I was wondering what type of documentation there is to track the clutch or lack of clutch? It seems to me if they use any stats, it would be one-sided. If you use batting stats, how does that account for the pitcher's level of stress or clutch in that situation? Maybe the batter is feeling stress and would swing weakly on a good pitch, but the pitcher is also feeling the pressure and throws a fat pitch up there or walks the batter.

 

Also, what's a clutch situation. Is hitting a homerun in a tie game with no one on in the 7th inning the same as driving in a run on a groundout in tie game in the 5th?

[rluzinski]

If you cant prove something exists that is NOT proof that is does not exist.

I agree 100%. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It is more correct to say that there is little or no statistical evidence that "clutchiness" is a persistent skill in professional baseball.

 

Again, baseball is not played by simulated computer models...

You do realize that the data being used is from games that were played by human beings, right? Data derived from simulations would only be useful for providing a "clutch-neutral" baseline.

 

..much to the dismay of those who cannot accept that everything in life cannot be completely controlled and predicted.

To their dismay? The gentlemen doing these kind of studies want nothing more than to find evidence of a clutch skill in certain players. It would increase their ability to predict individual performances

 

It is in fact possible that a player may be "clutch" sometimes and not others.

Doesn't that describe every batter ever? Batters don't have to bat 1.000 in clutch situations to prove a clutch skill exists. They simply have to perform better than an average player to a statistically significant degree.

 

I think there is a decent argument to be made that because there is no noticeable "choking" or decrease in performance of players in "clutch" situations is actually proof that on average an MLB player is a "clutch" type of person.

I think that is both true and obvious, isn't it?

 

The entire premise is wrong I think, instead of looking at a players average stats and then seeing that they don't perform better in the "clutch" and concluding clutchness does not exist, we should look at a players average stats and expect a decrease in the "clutch" and conclude that the player may be "clutch" if they can sustain their average stats in those situations.

These kind of studies are typically performed to gain insight regarding the expected performance of professional baseball players. We don't really care how they compare to some guy who played a couple of years of division 3 baseball.

[logan82]

I think there is a decent argument to be made that because there is no noticeable "choking" or decrease in performance of players in "clutch" situations is actually proof that on average an MLB player is a "clutch" type of person.

I think that is both true and obvious, isn't it?

I would argue that because there is no noticeable choking I think that by the time players reach the majors the chokers have been mostly weeded out.

[topper09er]

It is more correct to say that there is little or no statistical evidence that "clutchiness" is a persistent skill in professional baseball.

 

Only if you assume that clutchiness requires you to perform better instead of just being able to maintain your average level of play when the pressure in on.

 

..much to the dismay of those who cannot accept that everything in life cannot be completely controlled and predicted.

To their dismay? The gentlemen doing these kind of studies want nothing more than to find evidence of a clutch skill in certain players. It would increase their ability to predict individual performances

 

By this I mean people in general who refuse to accept that something may exist even though there is no statistically significant evidence of it. I am not talking about the search for clutchness here specifically. One example is when you hear players say it takes a little something special to be a closer or have a closer's mentality, not just anyone can do it. Now I dont know how much that matters, but you will then see people from the SABR crowd jump all over that when their basic argument is just that there isn't a well defined metric called the "closer's mentality" that can be measured so it must not exist. Again, look to your own life, if your company has a very important presentation to make to some potential clients would you say you want the right person to deliver it who has the mentality to nail a presentation, or that just anyone can do it who is familiar with the product and it doesn't matter who does it? Clearly you can tell without any data, only from experience, that some people have it what it takes to that and some don't.

 

Doesn't that describe every batter ever? Batters don't have to bat 1.000 in clutch situations to prove a clutch skill exists. They simply have to perform better than an average player to a statistically significant degree.....

I think there is a decent argument to be made that because there is no noticeable "choking" or decrease in performance of players in "clutch" situations is actually proof that on average an MLB player is a "clutch" type of person.

I think that is both true and obvious, isn't it?

 

You are totally contradicting yourself here, which is it? Is clutchness simply the lack of choking (which is apparently obvious) or a statistically significant increase in performance?

 

The entire premise is wrong I think, instead of looking at a players average stats and then seeing that they don't perform better in the "clutch" and concluding clutchness does not exist, we should look at a players average stats and expect a decrease in the "clutch" and conclude that the player may be "clutch" if they can sustain their average stats in those situations.

These kind of studies are typically performed to gain insight regarding the expected performance of professional baseball players. We don't really care how they compare to some guy who played a couple of years of division 3 baseball.

 

I was addressing the post that claimed to know that "clutch" doesn't exist without using rocket science to come to that conclusion, maybe there is no MLBer who is more clutch than any other but it certainly exists. The problem is that these studies are only looking for relative clutchness among MLB players, which is not what the word "clutch" means colloquially and is not how it is used by the general population. The average person would define clutch as not choking under pressure. If 2 people can sing the national anthem at the Super Bowl perfectly in front of 100 million viewers most people would call that clutch whereas a statistical analysis of them would conclude clutchness does not exist since they just sung that song the same way they do in the shower. Now a select few number of people may recognize that when a SABR study says there is no evidence of clutchness it really means there is no evidence that some players are consistently more clutch than others, but I think when most people say that they are actually thinking that it is a myth that someone could be clutch at doing something under pressure despite all of the evidence staring them in the face from their own experiences.

[rluzinski]

Only if you assume that clutchiness requires you to perform better instead of just being able to maintain your average level of play when the pressure in on.

 

Let's not devolve this into a worthless semantic-based argument. If you want to define a clutch player as one who doesn't perform worse than their aggregate numbers in high leverage situations, more power to you. I do not believe that to be the generally accepted definition, however. To take out any of the ambiguity regarding how these studies define the term "clutch", they are looking for players that perform better than their average expected performance in high leverage situations.

 

You are totally contradicting yourself here, which is it? Is clutchness simply the lack of choking (which is apparently obvious) or a statistically significant increase in performance?

 

Again, semantics. I am acknowledging the fact that a high school player has a higher probability of choking than a professional player. I do not believe that baseball announcers are celebrating Jeter's ability not to completely choke when they claim he is clutch, however. That quality would not differentiate him from the vast majority of professional baseball players, after all.

 

I was addressing the post that claimed to know that "clutch" doesn't exist without using rocket science to come to that conclusion, maybe there is no MLBer who is more clutch than any other but it certainly exists. The problem is that these studies are only looking for relative clutchness among MLB players, which is not what the word "clutch" means colloquially and is not how it is used by the general population. The average person would define clutch as not choking under pressure.

 

So, the average person thinks 99% of professional baseball players are clutch? We'll apparently have to agree to disagree about what is the standard definition of clutch in professional baseball. That appears to be the only thing we are disagreeing on with regard to this subject, really.