Rickie Weeks so far this season

[BrewCrew8682]

In a sport like baseball where the outcome of any play is so closely tied to the performance of both the pitcher and the batter, don't you almost have to look for relative differences? Pressure falls on both sides of the coin here. If there was a consistent drop in performance amongst batters in high pressure situations, there would be an equally large increase in pitchers/ performances at that same time. It isn't like football, where we could determine that a receiver wasn't clutch because he consistently dropped wide open passes with a defender nowhere in sight.

[Nottso]

Here's a clutch question for the stat guys. Let us assume there are 2 batters.

 

One guy has hit well above average for 10 years, but hits below average w/risp and well below average with bases loaded.

 

The second guy has hit below average for those same 10 years but actually hits above average w/risp, and especially so w/bases loaded.

 

Which guy do you want hitting if you're 1 run down, with bases loaded, bottom 9, World Series game 7? Which set of numbers do you use? The overall numbers, or the numbers w/risp or even more specifically the numbers w/bases loaded? And why?

[logan82]

I personally would go with the better overall hitter.

[dlk9s]

The second guy has hit below average for those same 10 years but actually hits above average w/risp, and especially so w/bases loaded.

 

Craig Counsell?

[Nottso]

The second guy has hit below average for those same 10 years but actually hits above average w/risp, and especially so w/bases loaded.

 

Craig Counsell?

 

He certainly came to mind.

[Nottso]

I personally would go with the better overall hitter.

 

Why? I'm not trying to argue here, just looking to get a grasp on some of this stuff. My understanding is that all of these metrics are used not only to predict outcomes but especially to do so in certain situations. Like the further we can break things down, the better the predictive ability we (should) get, no? Yes? Maybe?

 

So using Counsell as the example, why would you ignore (or assign lesser importance to) those metrics that point to his "clutchness"? I don't think small sample applies, as lengthy as his career was, or does it? I certainly don't know. What I'm wondering now is if all (or most) stat guys would also choose the guy with the better overall numbers, as you would, or would they choose Counsell?

 

I'd choose Counsell, but that's probably mostly because I'm a fan and a homer and he's from Milwaukee. More seriously, I'd still choose the guy with the better "clutch stats" even if it wasn't Counsell, although I can't really say why I'd choose that way. I guess just a gut feeling.

 

Others?

[monty57]

It takes a lot of opportunities for a handful of PAs to not skew the results. Look at McGehee last season who's one 3 HR game made a significant difference in his numbers for the entire season (from utterly dreadful to just God-awful bad). Even over a long career, the number of PAs with bases loaded are not that large - I would have to think significantly less than the 600 PAs players get in a season. Maybe your "Counsell-esque" player really is a better hitter with the bases loaded, or maybe he just happened to hit his line-drives at opportune times.

 

If I'm looking at batting Tony Gwynn Sr in his prime vs Craig Counsell in a tight situation, I'm going with Gwynn.

[HiAndTight]

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.

 

 

I believe it's quite literally the opposite. I think the average person would define clutch as performing WELL under pressure, not simply "not," choking.

 

 

I think that's a little ridiculous. If you walked up to someone and asked them if they thought Jeter was tough and they answered yes, as I think most average fans would, I highly doubt they'd say it's because he DOESN'T choke, I think they'd say it's because he comes up with the big hit, or the big play.

 

I also truly believe that some have the mental ability to zone in a little big more when there is more on the line regardless of what any stat says. I'm a big sabr guy, but I think sometimes it can go too far. The closers argument to me is a good one. Clearly there elite closers have something in my opinion that allows them to perform better with the game on the line. Not that it's enough of a sample size or anything, but Axford this year...excelled for long stretches in middle relief, went back to the closers job after losing and blew it again. I think the ability to calm your nerves, relax and not allow the situation to become too big for you.

 

The same is applicable to hitters, though again, I think it's nearly impossible to quantify. If you're talking about coming up late in the game and getting a big hit, you're also talking about facing the best relievers.

 

 

I just have a strong disdain for those who summarily throw it out and claim it does not exist because they can't quantify it.

 

 

And while I hate trying to compare athletics to real life, I actually do agree with the comment about a big presentation. I give several dozen presentations each month, and the more at stake their is, the easier it is to trip over your own words, get flusttered, to speed up, etc..etc...despite the fact it's the same exact presentation that I've given every other time. But having 100K on the line vs 10 K(just throwing numbers out) changes the scenario just as being in a close game in the 3rd inning vs the 8th or 9th changes the scenario.

[HiAndTight]

.272/.380/.533/.912 in July. Not too much to complain about there.

 

except where he has been batting in the order.

 

Yep, it's a joke that he's not in the 2 hole. Sadly, I don't see him moving up either because I'm sure RRR is in love with Gomez in that spot right now.

 

 

I swear, no matter how inconsequential, there is always something to complain about. By the way, RR should have been in love with Gomez in the #2 spot and Weeks is now hitting in the #2 spot. You're BA makes Rickie's first half look like Teddy Ballgame...

 

If Micheal Phelps were on the team, he'd be the most gifted athlete on the team. That doesn't mean that I would want him batting in front of Braun. I want guys getting on base in front of Braun. Everything else is secondary. Gomez is an excellent base runner but he also runs into some foolish outs on occasion.

 

 

Yes, and if Phelps was a former top prospect who's producing extremely well right now and you wanted to get a sense of how he was going to do next year, your completely illogical point...may have some logic.

 

But he's not, and Gomez, who's younger than Fiers, our rookie pitching sensation, is still just 26 years old and performing extremely well. The comment about his pure physical skills was meant(at least as I took it) to mean it's worth getting an extended look at him, PARTICULARLY when he's hitting and playing exceptionally well and if he can turn into the player many previously thought he could, he could be a AS caliber player.

[logan82]

Like the further we can break things down, the better the predictive ability we (should) get, no? Yes? Maybe?

The more we break things down the less predictive ability in them. You need to regress them more.

 

Remember a few years back when A-Rod was a choker in the playoffs?

 

Monty did a pretty good summation.

[Nottso]

 

If I'm looking at batting Tony Gwynn Sr in his prime vs Craig Counsell in a tight situation, I'm going with Gwynn.

 

I get that. I think I'd have to probably do that myself, but that's Tony Gwynn we're talking about. What about if it was the Counsell-esque guy vs a guy like Weeks or maybe even Lucroy? Is there any way you go with the Counsell clone, or would it always be the other guy? (Assuming, of course, that the other guy is a somewhat significantly better hitter overall)

 

Again, I'm just curious. This kind of fascinates me. I may need to avoid these stats entirely. I could easily see me driving myself around the bend with this stuff.

[OldSchoolSnapper]

No amount of metrics will convince me that clutch doesn't exist. It's human nature. I feel like anyone who has played sports knows that clutch exists. Even going back to high school sports, on the teams I played with, there were always those kids who were decent but not great but always seemed to get the big takedown, hit the big three, and other kids who maybe were better most of the time but got shy with the game on the line. There are definitely players who seem to shine in the big moment, or at the very least remain calm and perform the same regardless of the situation. And there are definitely others who seem to be more prone to letting the moment get the best of them.

[gregmag]

The problem comes with the weight a claim is asked to bear. Weeks should be dumped for a bag of balls because he isn't clutch. Counsell should be paid because he is clutch. Part of this is my fault, because -- as a couple of people have quite properly pointed out -- I was quite wrong and sloppy to say clutch doesn't exist. I don't know that it doesn't. "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" -- that's absolutely right.

 

Clutch may exist. God may also exist, and alien life may exist, and ghosts may exist. I make those statements not to ridicule anyone who believes in any of those things (I believe in one of them myself) but to swing a fairly frivolous debate back to a substantial place. Some of the posts above are just rehashing the old canard that "clutch exists because I say it does, and I don't need proof." That's what bugs me. When you say "clutch exists," you're making a claim, as surely as the oh-so-convenient stathead foil you're ridiculing (because that's never been done before) makes claims with numbers. The only question worth asking, of you or the stathead, is whether, and why, a reasonable, intelligent, disinterested observer should believe the claim on offer.

 

If you can't prove to some degree of satisfaction that a thing exists, then people should not treat that thing, in material ways, as if it exists. You should not trade a guy because he "isn't clutch" or pay a guy because he "is clutch" if you can't provide some basis, better than "because I said so," to believe clutch exists. Because money and roster spots do exist, and nobody should ever trade a cow for a handful of magic beans.

[thebruce44]

For the most part, I believe clutch can be explained with small sample sizes. But then I see a guy like Braun or Pujols hit .500 in a playoff series and I start to wonder if its just that they are locked in and if they were mentally capable of giving that much mental and physical attention to every AB during the regular season they could actually hit .500. I actually believe that to be the case, though that is a different definition of clutch than someone like Counsell and even then, I'm talking about a situation where they are only successful half the time. Braun could come up in the 9th with the game on the line and have a 50/50 shot of getting a base hit to win the game. I'm sure if it works out where he doesn't get that hit, a lot of people would label him as unclutch.

[monty57]

No amount of metrics will convince me that clutch doesn't exist. It's human nature. I feel like anyone who has played sports knows that clutch exists. Even going back to high school sports, on the teams I played with, there were always those kids who were decent but not great but always seemed to get the big takedown, hit the big three, and other kids who maybe were better most of the time but got shy with the game on the line. There are definitely players who seem to shine in the big moment, or at the very least remain calm and perform the same regardless of the situation. And there are definitely others who seem to be more prone to letting the moment get the best of them.

 

I think that the "prevailing wisdom" is that anyone who routinely chokes will never make it to the major leagues. These guys are the top one percent of the top one percent. Really, really good baseball players (guys who would dominate vs 99% of society) do not make it to the MLB. Even bad MLB players are still elite. If someone has a serious flaw in their game - in any aspect of their game - they will not make it to the majors, or if they do, they probably won't last long. To the example of giving a speech, if someone begins stuttering and stammering every time they get in front of people, their boss would do well to never put them in front of people. Same with the guy in A-ball who routinely chokes. He just won't make it to AA.

 

I agree there is tremendous pressure in professional athletics. There's always someone ready to take your job, teammates and fans who will hate you for not performing, ruthless media, etc. If you can sustain the "normal pressure" of being a professional athlete, how much more pressure is being in a playoff game? I'm sure there's some, but maybe not as much as is being let on. Compound that with the fact that baseball players fail more often then they succeed, and that the "additional pressure" situations are pretty rare, it would be really hard to determine if one person truly is "clutch" or not. The most "non-clutch" player in baseball could come through in a big situation, while the most "clutch" player could fail. If they only get one playoff series in their career, how do you know who was truly more "clutch" in the playoffs?

[Raw Biz]

It is shocking how far off-topic this thread has gotten. Can we either lock it or move some of the clutch stuff to a new one?

[rluzinski]

I agree that we should get back on topic. A moderator could split off this clutch discussion into its own post. I will also point people to a couple of clutch threads in the statistical analysis forum:

 

viewtopic.php?f=70&t=11661&p=317318&hilit=clutch#p317318

 

viewtopic.php?f=70&t=3849&p=147484&hilit=clutch#p147484

 

God may also exist, and alien life may exist, and ghosts may exist. I make those statements not to ridicule anyone who believes in any of those things (I believe in one of them myself)

 

I believe that alien ghosts created the universe.

[HiAndTight]

I agree that we should get back on topic. A moderator could split off this clutch discussion into its own post. I will also point people to a couple of clutch threads in the statistical analysis forum:

 

viewtopic.php?f=70&t=11661&p=317318&hilit=clutch#p317318

 

viewtopic.php?f=70&t=3849&p=147484&hilit=clutch#p147484

 

God may also exist, and alien life may exist, and ghosts may exist. I make those statements not to ridicule anyone who believes in any of those things (I believe in one of them myself)

 

I believe that alien ghosts created the universe.

 

 

 

I guess it would be safe to assume you are not a Dave Cameron fan from fangraphs then. He recently wrote an article arguing the merits of Miguel Cabrera for MVP based almost solely on his performance in the....clutch.

 

http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/8277193/mlb-case-miguel-cabrera-al-mvp

 

MVP talk must include Cabrera

Tigers slugger has been terrific in the clutch

 

 

So...I don't know where you fall with Cameron. But I've seen him quoted several times by people, a couple individuals in particular who think extremely highly of Cameron and have cited him and used him in arguments before. Hard to keep track of who is and who isn't.

[HiAndTight]

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.

 

Hell, I've been wrong about both of them.

 

I've expected Hart to fall off for a few years and Weeks to breakout(to superstar level, not just very good level) for the last few years.

 

I'm happy with Hart, though not convinced he's going to age well...though obviously better if he stays at 1st. I just don't want to see a 4/60 type deal this off-season. And I'm still convinced Weeks will have that MVP-caliber season left in him.

[rluzinski]

I guess it would be safe to assume you are not a Dave Cameron fan from fangraphs then. He recently wrote an article arguing the merits of Miguel Cabrera for MVP based almost solely on his performance in the....clutch....So...I don't know where you fall with Cameron. But I've seen him quoted several times by people, a couple individuals in particular who think extremely highly of Cameron and have cited him and used him in arguments before. Hard to keep track of who is and who isn't.

The "Most Valuable Player" award has everything to do with context of performance, so there is no contradiction. Everyone knows it's not the "Highest Projected Context Neutral Performance Player" award. I think "MVP is a slightly more elegant name than "HPCNPP" anyway.

 

Cameron is saying that Cabrera has performed very well in clutch situations this year. He is not saying that Cabrera has a clutch skill that we should expect him to exhibit for years to come.

[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.

 

Sorry to keep going down this road, but I just saw this article, which is pertinent and does say there is such a thing as clutch, at least how I define it (not letting pressure ruin your performance).

 

http://olympics.time.com/2012/07/19/lolo-jones-olympic-hurdler/

[Baldkin]

"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.

 

Sorry to keep going down this road, but I just saw this article, which is pertinent and does say there is such a thing as clutch, at least how I define it (not letting pressure ruin your performance).

 

http://olympics.time.com/2012/07/19/lolo-jones-olympic-hurdler/

 

Again, no one says someone cannot be clutch. The problem lies in the idea that previous clutchiness will predict future clutchiness or that someone has this ability to raise their game to another level during a specific AB (if that were the case, why didn't they do that ALL THE TIME and be the greatest player EVER?).

 

Not-pooping-yourself in pressure situations does not equal being clutch in my mind.

[SoCal Brew Crew Fan]

Here's a thread in need of some bump-itude

 

Rickie now up to .230/.336/.395/.731.

 

Considering his awful start, this is one heckuva comeback. Maybe I was just a year early on my MVP prediction ;-)

 

Certainly has to make one feel better about a healthy Rickie heading into 2013.

[TooLiveBrew]

From OD-June 15: .162/.302/.282/.584

 

Since June 16: .285/.365/.485/.850

 

I don't know what was wrong for that first 2.5 months, but it was brutal.

[monty57]

TLB, Rickie must've read your comment on June 14:

 

"Just off the top of my head, Dan Uggla, Adam Dunn, & Nick Swisher are all good but not elite hitters who've had disastrous down seasons or half-seasons. Each of them proved he hadn't forgotten how to hit, and I think Weeks will do the same.

 

Dunn & Uggla were each in the first seasons of big new contracts and under pressure to be 'the guy', and I wonder if Rickie's been putting too much pressure on himself to be that 30+ HR threat the Brewers lost in Prince."

 

Hindsight is always 20/20, but it is kind of fun sometimes to look back and see fan over-reaction first-hand. There were a number of "trade him for nothing" and "send him to AAA" posts earlier in this thread.