Article On Clutch Hitting

[rluzinski]

Is there clutch? Or is it the reverse?

 

I think Jason Bay has it right:

 

Quote:

---

"It's not so much a matter of raising your level in a clutch situation. It's a matter of keeping your level the same," Bay said. "Baseball is predicated on the idea that the people who are the most successful are the ones who do things the same way most consistently. It's not an emotion game like football or hockey, where you can go bust some skulls."

---

[sbrylski]

It's not an emotion game like football or hockey, where you can go bust some skulls.

 

Link...

[BillScottCanRake]

Quote:

---

It's not so much a matter of raising your level in a clutch situation. It's a matter of keeping your level the same

---

 

That pretty much nailed it, in my opinion.

 

Guys who are able to stay consistent and not let pressure situations bother them will always appear to be clutch, simply because they seem to come thru in pressure situations. However, as Bay said, they are aren't really raising their level of play so much as playing the same as they always do.

 

The one thing Bay implied in his comments, too, is that those players who remain consistent are probably able to take advantage of players who don't handle pressure situations so well. Not that guys are out there falling apart in pressure situations... but I am sure there are some guys who struggle a bit with that.

[RoseBowlMtg]

It seems they always compare a player's ability to hit in the clutch compared to their overall average when imo they should compare it to their average with no runners on. I know those are clutch at times also but as far as knocking in runs it should be that way imo.

 

For example they say a guy for a career rarely hits 10 points higher in the clutch than their overall average.

 

In Ted Simmons career he was known as a clutch hitter leading the Cardinals in RBI's a ML record 7 straight times. Let's look at his career numbers:

 

 21 yr career: ave: OBP; Slg career ave: .285, .348, 437 no one on: .272, .327, 417 men on base: .299, .369, .458 RISP: .299, .380, .467 bases loaded: .343, .332, .556

 

.299 with risp is better (.014) than they say rarely happens but is 27 points higher than with no one on for an entire career. His obp and slugging were much higher also.

 

So why isn't "clutch" compared to non-clutch situations instead of every ab including clutch?

[BillScottCanRake]

So why isn't "clutch" compared to non-clutch situations instead of every ab including clutch?

 

Because so far as I know there isn't a good definition of "clutch". I suppose the whole "late and close" thing is ok, but it's hardly perfect.

 

And trying to determine whether someone is clutch by comparing their stats with guys on and without guys on doesn't seem right, either, because there are plenty of important baseball situations that crop up with no one on base.

 

To me, the lack of a defining criteria makes its almost impossible tell if someone is clutch or not.

 

To illustrate, let's play a game called "Clutch or Not Clutch" and try to identify whether a player is or isn't.

 

Game Situation

Bottom of the 7th, two outs, no one on, down five.

 

Result

Single

 

Clutch or Not Clutch?

 

What if I told you the next guy grounded out to third and they lost 6-1?

 

Or, what if the next guy homered, they scored four in the 8th and they won 7-6?

 

Game Situation

Bottom of the 7th, two outs, no one on, up five.

 

Result

Ground out to second

 

Clutch or Not Clutch?

 

Would it matter if the opposition scored 3 runs each in the 8th and 9th?

 

Game Situation

Bottom of the 7th, two outs, runner on third, down one.

 

Result

Home Run

 

Clutch? What if, in the same game...

 

Game Situation

Bottom of the 9th, two outs, runner on third, down one.

 

Result

Fly ball out to the warning track.

 

Is he still clutch?

 

My biggest problem with "clutch" is the perceived ability to raise one's own performance in "clutch" situations. If a Teddy Clutch can raise his level of play in the 8th inning of a close game, why doesn't he get dogged for failing to perform at that level in the first inning?

[RoseBowlMtg]

I agree Chris that it is hard to determine but when you hear things like el caballo saying to Prince last year like you have to do anything you can to get that run in. It's no wonder Lee knocks in a lot of runs and he takes a different approach with risp. How many do and how many are as successful? I think you can watch a game and know if it is a clutch situation or not but looking at stats in hindsight makes it harder. I do believe Cooper's hit in the alcs was clutch but it is hard to determine the fringe hits.

[BillScottCanRake]

I wanted to re-ask something that I alluded to in my previous post but didn't ask directly.

 

.299 with risp is better (.014) than they say rarely happens but is 27 points higher than with no one on for an entire career. His obp and slugging were much higher also.

 

How come Ted didn't try as hard when the bases were empty as he did when there were men on base? If "being clutch" is a skill whereby one raises their level of play, that's the only conclusion I can reach.

 

I don't know where you got your numbers, but I'd assume he must have tried less hard at least half the time, and that's doing a disservice to his team.

 

I think you can watch a game and know if it is a clutch situation or not.

 

Yeah, I am sure you can. The obvious ones anyways. But that doesn't make "non-clutch" situations less important, and it misses those situations are are less obvious. In that regard, you are trying to determine whether or not someone is clutch but a criteria can't be found to determine whether a situation is clutch!

 

Using your example, what about the guys Cooper drove in? They didn't get the "clutch" hit, but then again, Cooper's wouldn't have been very "clutch" with the bases empty. Maybe they'd be covered under the "close and late" definition, but what if it happens in the 5th or 6th inning?

 

When Bill Hall ended the comeback from 9-0 against the Reds, his hit is what everyone remembers, but all those other hits, walks, etc, that got them in a position to finish the comeback were all equally important. In my mind, they are all clutch, but most of them wouldn't be defined as such because when it was 9-0 the game was neither "close nor late." But, you can't hit a 10-run home run, so they must have been important in spite of that.

 

Or what about the guy who leads off the game with a home run and the score turns out to be 1-0. Was that guy "clutch"? If he is, he's also clairvoyant!

 

That's a problem that I don't think you can overcome. Because if you simply limit it to "close and late" or "bases empty vs runners on base" you are potentially ignoring too many important situations and including others that aren't. If you can't define a "clutch" situation with any degree of certainty, I don't think you have any hope of defining a "clutch" player.

 

Having said all that, I do believe in "clutch hits" even tho I don't believe in "clutch players". Cooper's hit is an example of one, as Kirk Gibson's and Joe Carter's and Bill Mazeroski's. They were obviously clutch hits. But a sample of one is too small to anoint any of those guys "clutch".

 

And the reason I don't believe in clutch players, beyond our inability to reliably define a clutch situation, is illustrated in my next point.

 

Can someone tell me how one spots a "clutch" performer? I mean, if you are a .300 hitter, and you hit .305 in "clutch" situations, are you "clutch" or are you simply performing at your normal rate? Do you have to get to .310 to be "clutch", or .320? How much over beyond your normal performance do you have to be?

 

To keep things simple, lets assume that we have found a way to define "clutch" that everyone agrees upon. Let's also say that we find some way to agree that if you hit .020 (using BA) points above your non-clutch BA, you are "clutch". We'll us good old fashioned BA over the course of a season to try to figure it out.

 

Lets say a guy hits .300 over the course of 600 ABs (180 hits). Of those 600 ABs, lets say 150 are "clutch" and 450 are "non-clutch".

 

The first issue we run into is good old sample size. I know a lot of people will roll their eyes at this, but the fact is the smaller the sample the harder it is to tell if someone is really performing to their true ability. In a sport where failing 6 times out of 10 makes you a star, it would be nice to know if someone is really "clutch" or just "(un)lucky".

 

If our hitter went 45/150 in those "clutch" situations, they'd hit .300. This will be our baseline, as someone who hits the same in both "clutch" and "non-clutch" situations would be "clutch neutral".

 

To be a "clutch" hitter by our definition, he'd need to get three extra "clutch hits" to hit .320 in "clutch" situations. Five extra hits and he'd at .333 in "clutch" situations.

 

Conversely, what would it take for him to be "anti-clutch"? Well, three fewer hits drags him down to .280, while five fewer is .267.

 

Doesn't it seem a bit dubious to decide whether or not someone is clutch or not based upon the fate of 6 ABs? Or, over the course of 10 seasons, 60 ABs? Keeping in mind that Fielder had 100 ABs in April this year, I'd be real cautious about labeling someone anything based on 60 ABs.

 

I'm willing to be convinced. I actually want to be convinced, because the notion of a player being clutch is something we can all get behind. I just don't believe it exists at this level.

[Time for a Miller]

Well maybe we at Brewerfan should try to develope our own defination of clutch or Clutchness. Here are a few problems I see:

 

RISP is not a good measurement.

A guy batting with a man on second and down by 8 runs is not clutch regardless of the outcome. This is an extreme, but at what point do you make a distinction. 3 runs down in the ninth, 1 run down in the ninth?

 

Also reaching base in the Ninth inning is huge if your down by one run regardless of the number of outs or men on base.

 

 

I propose this, but much more input is necessary. Also I do not have the resources for this formula.

 

 

We would start by defining clutch situations. Like the following

 

Ninth inning situations

--1 run or less

Any situation

--2 runs

Man on first

--3 runs

Two men on

--4 runs

3 runs on

 

and so on for the 8th and 7th innings.

 

 

After all this I must admit, I do not think clutch exists in baseball, but sometimes watching Big Papi makes me believe.

[sbrylski]

WPA. Its a state-dependant stat that defines "clutchiness" very well.

[Fike85]

My personal belief is that everyone in MLB is a clutch performer. Those that can't handle the pressure (Ben Hendrickson, for instance) will be weeded out quickly. While I'm sure the ability to handle pressure varies from person to person, the difference is so small that it's not worth discussing which player is "the most clutch."

[ccbrew]

First time visit to the Statistical Analysis forum, btw. I feel in over my head, but I'll try my best to contribute.

 

I agree with Fike, as well as many of the opinions already expressed. I don't think there's a measure of 'clutchness', but I think you have to be wary of players that act differently in pressure situations - as in their hitting mechanics change or their delivery gets out of sync or something. I dont think there's a way to measure this other than daily observation by coaches/scouts.

[RoseBowlMtg]

Quote:

---

How come Ted didn't try as hard when the bases were empty as he did when there were men on base? If "being clutch" is a skill whereby one raises their level of play, that's the only conclusion I can reach.

---

 

In jest I assume but:

 

lg ave for Simba's 21 yr career was .263 so not trying in non "clutch" situations he was 9 points higher. His slugging was 27 points higher.

 

Here is an interesting look imo on three catchers who played the during the same era:

 

 Player: RISP: No risp: 2 out risp: Late & close: Tie game: Carter: .271, .255, .235, .266, .260 (38 IBB) Fisk: .270, .265, .247, .261, .257, (28 IBB) Simba: .299, .272, .274, .292, .296 (64 IBB)

 

Would have Carter been closer than 169 RBI's to Simmons if he had hit .299 with risp?

 

Would Fisk had needed less than 8 yrs of play after Simmons stopped playing full time to get closer 69 RBI's if he had hit .299 with risp?

 

They didn't and that's why their numbers pale in comparison. Say what you want about clutch hitting but looking at two HOF catchers if they would have excelled in hitting with risp they would have been up with a catcher who only got 17 votes for the HOF!

[BillScottCanRake]

How come Ted didn't try as hard when the bases were empty as he did when there were men on base? If "being clutch" is a skill whereby one raises their level of play, that's the only conclusion I can reach.

 

In jest I assume but

 

No, it's not in jest. It's a very serious question that no one has ever bothered trying to answer.

 

If Simmons gets credit for performing better in "clutch" situations, and he performed better in those situations because of an ability to do so, how come he doesn't get discredited for not playing as well in "non-clutch" situations? How many times did his early game, non-clutch, sub-par performance cost his team?

 

And, for the record, this isn't a HOF debate. We are debating the merits of clutchness as ability.

[RoseBowlMtg]

Chris as always you bring up interesting points. Should Wilt Chamberlain be criticized for not scoring 100 points in every game? OK that's a bit of an extreme but anytime someone excells do you criticize them for not doing it all the time. In baseball that would be difficult since 1 for 3 is excellent.

 

No HOF debate but clutch but it is interesting comparing Carter, Fisk and Simmons since they played the same era.

 

Let's look at these numbers:

 

 player: AB: %: RBI's Carter: 7971: 15.37%: 1225 Fisk: 8756: 15.19%: 1330 Simba: 8680: 16.00% 1389

 

If Carter would have knocked in runs at the 16% pace Simmons did he would have had 50 more RBI's

If Fisk would have knocked in runs at the 16% pace Simmons did he would have knocked in 1401 runs or 71 more and 12 more than Simmons.

 

But they didn't!

 

Let's look at numbers with risp:

 

 player: RBI: AB: H: %: 2B: 3B: HR: ave: OPS+ Carter: 882: 2220: 601: 39.73%: 100: 12: 79: .271: 107 Fisk: 924: 2318: 625: 39.86%: 107: 13: 84: .270: 100 Simba: 1121: 2509: 751: 44.68%: 141: 18: 81: .299: 116

 

If Carter would have knocked in a run at Simmons 44.68% clip with risp he would have knocked in 110 more runs or 1335 in his career or 8.9% more for his career. He didn't.

 

If Fisk would have knocked in a run at Simmons 44.68% clip with risp he would have knocked in 111 more runs or 1441 for his career and more than any catcher ever but he didn't.

 

If Simmons would have knocked in runs with risp at Fisk's pace of 39.86% he would have knocked in 121 fewer runs and would have knocked in 1268 or 62 fewer than Fisk or only 43 more than Carter. Simmons didn't and that's why he did better than those HOF catchers.

 

For you OPS+ fans with risp:

 

Fisk: 100

Carter: 107

Simmons: 116

 

To criticize Simmons when he hit .272 or 9 points over the league average with no runners on open plenty of players to rip then.

 

Michael Jordan's shot over Craig Ehlo was great but he missed one in the first quarter? How many people would have made that or was willing to make it? That to me is clutch.

 

Thanks for the fun discussion Chris.

[BillScottCanRake]

Chris as always you bring up interesting points. Should Wilt Chamberlain be criticized for not scoring 100 points in every game? OK that's a bit of an extreme but anytime someone excells do you criticize them for not doing it all the time. In baseball that would be difficult since 1 for 3 is excellent.

 

The issue isn't that all baseball players fail more often than the succeed. The issue is what causes a player (Simmons in this case) to fail 2.7% more often when there is no one on base than when there are runners on base.

 

We aren't talking about a stray game, or a stray jump shot or AB. We are talking about over the course of a 21 year career a player failed nearly 3% more when the bases were empty than when there were players on base. That's three fewer hits per 100 ABs. That's probably between 3-6 fewer hits per year, times 21 years.

 

My original question remains unanswered. If Simmons (and others) have the ability to raise their level of play in certain situations (in this case clutch) and perform to a higher level, why didn't they do it all the time? And why doesn't anyone call them out?

[RoseBowlMtg]

Quote:

---

My original question remains unanswered. If Simmons (and others) have the ability to raise their level of play in certain situations (in this case clutch) and perform to a higher level, why didn't they do it all the time? And why doesn't anyone call them out?

---

 

So if Simmons would have hit .272 or 9 points over the league average you wouldn't have criticized him but since he unlike most major leaguers actually performed better with risp you rip him for that.

 

Interesting to me is how well el caballo did in knocking in runs and the pride he took in it. In 06 Lee batted .331 with risp while knocking in 77 runs and .307 with no one on. So why didn't he hit .331 all year? That is the interesting question and an interesting take on criticizing someone who does better with runners on.

 

Don't you feel the Brewers miss his bat and his attitude at the plate? Not saying anything negative about the trade but a guy who excels at coming thru with risp is rare and should be praised imo.

 

Late inning pressure situations are when their closers are in to face the best hitters and the ones who beat them are special.

[BillScottCanRake]

So if Simmons would have hit .272 or 9 points over the league average you wouldn't have criticized him but since he unlike most major leaguers actually performed better with risp you rip him for that.

 

I don't care what league average was, I don't care what other hitters did, or who is or isn't in the HOF. I don't care about Carlos Lee, or Derrick Lee or Robert E. Lee. I am comparing Ted Simmons the bases empty hitter to Ted Simmons the runners on base hitter; Ted against Ted. I don't mean to be critical, but thats the issue, and it's being danced around by bringing up all sorts of irrelevant examples.

 

Simmons hit .027 points higher with runners on base than he did with runners not on base. I don't care if he hit .100/.127 or if he hit .400/.427. The fact still remains that he failed 2.7% more often when runners were not on base. If Simmons is able to become "clutch" when runners reach base, then he should have flipped that same switch and hit like that all the time. By not doing so, he cost his team games and he cost himself a hundred plus base hits, and he might well have even cost himself some chances to be "clutch" later in some games.

 

Why is it that the greatest hitting catcher of all time deprived himself, his fans and his team of greater glory by only hitting as well as he was capable half the time?

 

Until someone can provide me an answer, I can only assume that Simmons didn't give it his all all the time, that the only time he truly gave his all at the plate was when he had a chance to bring extra attention to himself by driving in runs. I don't like coming to that conclusion, but it is the only one I can reach with the data we have.

[RoseBowlMtg]

Quote:

---

Until someone can provide me an answer, I can only assume that Simmons didn't give it his all all the time, that the only time he truly gave his all at the plate was when he had a chance to bring extra attention to himself by driving in runs. I don't like coming to that conclusion, but it is the only one I can reach with the data we have.

---

 

 

I don't know why one excels in hitting with runners on base while others don't but I wouldn't criticize them. If Simmons batted .272 with runners not on and risp he would be free from your rip. If he hit worse with risp your question would be how come. That is an easier answer since there is a clutch situation imo where there is more pressure. Since Simmons excelled in hitting with risp was it because he took more pride in it or since he batted 4th that was his job. In his Cardinal years the runners on were fast so did he get more fastballs to hit which he was good at? Did the pitcher not pay as much to Simmons which changed the way he pitched? Did the pitcher concentrate too much on the runners on base?

 

I don't know but he did well.

 

Let's look at situational hitting for our 2 HOF catchers and Simmons: (ave: OBP: IBB)

 

 .........Simmons............Fisk..........Carter risp: .299, .380, 188/ .270, .358, 105/ .271, .363, 106 none: .272, .327, 0/ .265, .334, 0/ .255, .318, 0 on: .299, .369, 188/.274, .348, 105/ .272, .354, 106 1 - -: .298, .350, 0/ .279, .335, 0/ .273, .338, 0 - 2 -: .275, .403, 93/ .249, .371, 53/ .270, .402, 57 - - 3: .265, .370, 28/ .273, .361, 14/ .282, .350, 8 1 2 -: .309, .347, 0/ .250, .303, 0/ .253, .310, 0 1 - 3: .326, .331, 3/ .352, .408, 5/ .329, .362, 3 - 2 3: .339, .550, 64/ .321, .460, 33/ .189, .437, 38 123: .343, .332, 0/ .246, .304, 0/ .282, .292, 0

 

 

Simmons batted worse than his no one on average only with a runner on third but his obp was 43 points higher. Why? They pitched around him.

 

Let's start criticizing all Fisk for hitting .352 with runners on the corners and .321 with runners at 2nd and third. How come he only hit .265 with no one on?

 

HOFamer Gary Carter hit .329 with runners on the corners but .255 with no one on. He doesn't care either?

 

Interesting seeing what these two HOF catchers did over their careers with the bases jammed: Fisk .246 and Carter .282 while Simmons hit .343. That could be a reason why he had more RBI's.

 

I conclude that Simmons didn't care less with no one on he performed better with the pitcher pitching from the stretch and concentrating on the fast runners on base. That to me is more reasonable than not caring.

[RoseBowlMtg]

Chris interesting premise so I looked up some other players to see how they did in risp.

 

 ......Aaron.....Brett.....Carew......Yount......Molitor risp: ...321......307.....339..........293........327 none on:.293.......297......316.........277........299

 

Some of the great hitters of our time just didn't care or were they clutch or did pitchers pitch differently to them with risp? Sure they did.

[BillScottCanRake]

I don't know why one excels in hitting with runners on base while others don't but I wouldn't criticize them.

 

I am not being critical of Simmons for excelling with runners on base. Rather, I am being critical of him for not excelling with the bases empty.

 

Did the pitcher not pay as much to Simmons which changed the way he pitched? Did the pitcher concentrate too much on the runners on base?

 

I don't know but he did well.

 

That's exactly what I was looking for. Simmons never raised his level of play artificially (as is the premise of most "he is a clutch player" discussions) , he simply never let it drop when there was added pressure.

 

Combine "anti-clutch" and simple statistical anomalies and that probably explains 99.9% of "clutchness".

[RoseBowlMtg]

Chris do you really believe there aren't situations where there are more pressure than other times? On ESPN this morning why was there criticism on LeBron for passing up the last shot? Chip Beck still gets criticized for not going for the green on 13 at the Masters in two where people say he didn't have the guts to try? He went for it the first day on Thursday but not on Sunday in second place. How come? Should he play the same way every shot? The top 50 list on "The Best Damn Sports Show" shows many clutch hits so let's criticize every one of those players who shined.

 

Molitor, Yount, Carew and Brett did what Simmons did so maybe it is not that uncommon for good hitters to excel in the clutch. I thought I read a study where only a couple players hit 10 points higher over a long career in the clutch. I looked up those names and only omitted Johnny Bench who hit .262 with risp and without risp. All hail Johhny Bench for not letting his teammates down even though he hit less than Simmons.

 

Bill Hall's last two HR's have come in blowouts. Do you think he was more relaxed and wasn't pressing? Clutch situations involve extra pressure and some players were better than others at it. Explained away by situations maybe but over a 21 yr period is a good enough sample size showing the excellence.

 

Reggie Jackson Mr October.

 

Dave Winfield Mr May.

 

Do you think Steinbrenner appreciated the difference?

[Thurston Fluff]

while doing some research for predicting wins I found this that seems to suggest there is some sort of clutch although very small.

 

www.tangotiger.net/clutch.html

 

I'm by no means good enough at this sort of thing to vet out the accuracy but it's worth looking at.

[dadofandrew]

Dave Pinto showed a study years ago that said all but like 20 players in history hit within 5% of their expected total in "clutch" situations...Mickey Tettleton was one of the best, if memory serves.

[igor67]

the real problem here is that the number of players being detected is still within what you could expect to find randomly. The odds of any player showing clutch ability consistently is small, but by chance over a large sample you'd expect to find a couple of players who apparently show clutch ability.

[RoseBowlMtg]

"Dave Pinto showed a study years ago that said all but like 20 players in history hit within 5% of their expected total in "clutch" situations"

 

 

 

 

......Aaron.....Brett.....Carew......Yount......Molitor...Simmons

 

risp: ...321......307.....339..........293........327.........299

 

none on:.293.......297......316.........277........299........272

 

 

Here are the players who came to mind as pretty good clutch hitters who I mentioned previously and how they did with risp and with no one on.

 

 

Aaron 9.56%

Brett: 6.73%

Carew: 7.28%

Yount: 5.78%

Molitor: 9.36%

Simmons 9.93%

 

What does "5% of expected" mean?

 

These players all hit over 5% better in clutch situations so is it determining what "expected" means or is it wrong since of the 9 players I checked only the HOF catchers Bench, Fisk and Carter did not excel in clutch situations so 67% of them did. Please explain if I am missing what "expected" means.