Jai Miller - 4th Outfielder?

[Tony-OH]

In the end, 26-year olds that strike out once every 2.65 PA in AAA do not have sustained success in the major leagues. If someone can find someone that defeats that statistical fact, I'll be more than happy to say he's got a one in whatever chance of being that guy. Besides that, we're talking a AAAA guy who is good as some depth, but not a guy you want to give 100 at bats of more to.

[weams]

Eddie Murray who hit just a little bit better in the clutch than not.

That's because we were screaming Ed-DEE Ed-DEE enough to intimidate the pitcher.

[allstar1579]

That's all well and good, but there's an entire cottage industry devoted to teasing out clutch hitting from boxscores and the best they can come up with is a handful of guys like Eddie Murray who hit just a little bit better in the clutch than not.

Because like I said, you can not do it from statistics in hindsight. It's just one of those issues that will never resolve between the stats world and the "scouting" world. Kind of like you said in a previous post, as you get to the ML level pretty much everyone that is a regular should be able to handle those things, so to do it at the ML level probably won't tell you much, but go down to the amateur ranks, or low level minors and do a similar study and I bet you start to see real separation in some players hitting well in those situations and others not. Hence why you ALWAYS hear something about mental make up when talking about draft prospects.

Are you seriously telling me you wouldn't want Cal Ripken hitting with the game on the line over say, Luis Hernandez?

[DrungoHazewood]

That's because we were screaming Ed-DEE Ed-DEE enough to intimidate the pitcher.

But I did that in the bottom of the 4th inning on Tuesday afternoons during 12-2 games against the Mariners.

[DrungoHazewood]

Because like I said, you can not do it from statistics in hindsight. It's just one of those issues that will never resolve between the stats world and the "scouting" world. Kind of like you said in a previous post, as you get to the ML level pretty much everyone that is a regular should be able to handle those things, so to do it at the ML level probably won't tell you much, but go down to the amateur ranks, or low level minors and do a similar study and I bet you start to see real separation in some players hitting well in those situations and others not. Hence why you ALWAYS hear something about mental make up when talking about draft prospects.

I don't disagree with that. It's altogether possible, even likely, that one of the determining factors in making the majors and being successful instead of washing out in A ball is the ability to handle pressure.

Are you seriously telling me you wouldn't want Cal Ripken hitting with the game on the line over say, Luis Hernandez?

Of course not. That's a strawman. You always want good hitters batting in important situations. Cal was a good hitter in all situations. Luis Hernandez is terrible in all situations. Since clutch hitting trends towards hitting in all situations, you always want the good guy.

[weams]

But I did that in the bottom of the 4th inning on Tuesday afternoons during 12-2 games against the Mariners.

When he was facing Mike Morgan.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Say the stats, but being in and around the game I PROMISE you that managers and GMs won't agree with you there. Getting a single with runners on 2nd and 3rd is in fact much different than a single with no one on base, because they generate runs. You can't use stats to predict what a player is going to do, you just can't, so you can't say that because in general this guy is going to get a single 30% of the time, he's going to do it here too. It doesn't account for human response, higher heart rate, adrenaline, mental toughness are all things that stats can't explain but I promise they are part of the game. Hitting with bases loaded and 2 outs is much different than hitting with 1 out and no one on. A guy with high K rates you have less of a chance of a sac fly, or a FC that scores a run which are more common than GIDP. I kind of wish I knew the stats on how many runs a team scores from sac flys and fielder's choices over the course of the season, because I know it happens more than people realize.

No one's going to argue that getting a hit with runners on second and third is more valuable than a hit with a runner on first or getting a single with runners on base is more valuable than a single with no one on base. If what the managers and players believed to be true was true, there would be statistical evidence for it. There simply isn't in this case. The things you cite are taken into account into Tango's study (and others) as well as numerous studies on clutch hittng. Basically what you're saying is Tango and a ton of other very smart guys are wrong or have have made fatal errors because of your percieved notions. I disagree and see no evidence of it.

[El Gordo]

In the end, 26-year olds that strike out once every 2.65 PA in AAA do not have sustained success in the major leagues. If someone can find someone that defeats that statistical fact, I'll be more than happy to say he's got a one in whatever chance of being that guy. Besides that, we're talking a AAAA guy who is good as some depth, but not a guy you want to give 100 at bats of more to.

The way I see it we need a guy to be Marcus Thames for 150-200 PA. Miller has a better chance to be that guy than Angle. Neither would have much long term value for this team. Chavez makes Angle redundant.

[CA-ORIOLE]

That's all well and good, but there's an entire cottage industry devoted to teasing out clutch hitting from boxscores and the best they can come up with is a handful of guys like Eddie Murray who hit just a little bit better in the clutch than not.

Murray is one of the best examples of a guy who sustained good/above clutch performance over an entire career. He's typically an answer for those that support the clutch hitting argument. But you are right. When you peel the onion and neutralize the numerous IBB's (not to mention the fact that he likely benefitted as switch hitter) he was probably slightly above his statistical norm.

[El Gordo]

No one's going to argue that getting a hit with runners on second and third is more valuable than a hit with a runner on first or getting a single with runners on base is more valuable than a single with no one on base. If what the managers and players believed to be true was true, there would be statistical evidence for it. There simply isn't in this case. The things you cite are taken into account into Tango's study (and others) as well as numerous studies on clutch hittng. Basically what you're saying is Tango and a ton of other very smart guys are wrong or have have made fatal errors because of your percieved notions. I disagree and see no evidence of it.

WS, G 7, bottom of the 9th, 2 out, 2 men on base, down 1 R, who do you want hitting, Alex Rodrigez or Frank Robinson?

[CA-ORIOLE]

WS, G 7, bottom of the 9th, 2 out, 2 men on base, down 1 R, who do you want hitting, Alex Rodrigez or Frank Robinson?

Without looking, wasn't Frank's post season performance relatively poor? I actually think you can make an argument for clutch playoff/short term performance. The sss with large swings against premium pitching is kind of interesting to consider. Brooks Robinson had a pretty good post season hitting record as I recall. I'll take him as long as Ron Swoboda isn't in RF.

[allstar1579]

I don't disagree with that. It's altogether possible, even likely, that one of the determining factors in making the majors and being successful instead of washing out in A ball is the ability to handle pressure.

Of course not. That's a strawman. You always want good hitters batting in important situations. Cal was a good hitter in all situations. Luis Hernandez is terrible in all situations. Since clutch hitting trends towards hitting in all situations, you always want the good guy.

Haha, very fair, I guess a better question would be Cal versus Rob Deer maybe? Classic all or nothing hitter there, but made a good career out of it.

Like I said earlier, I'm not against guys with high K rates, I just think they need to be balanced with guys with good contact rates. Going further than alternating L/R hitters in a lineup, I would alternate contact/power guys in a lineup.

[TGO]

Without looking, wasn't Frank's post season performance relatively poor? I actually think you can make an argument for clutch playoff/short term performance. The sss with large swings against premium pitching is kind of interesting to consider. Brooks Robinson had a pretty good post season hitting record as I recall. I'll take him as long as Ron Swoboda isn't in RF.

Frank hit a bunch of homers but yes, his BA and OBP in the postseason were pretty poor.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Like I said earlier, I'm not against guys with high K rates, I just think they need to be balanced with guys with good contact rates. Going further than alternating L/R hitters in a lineup, I would alternate contact/power guys in a lineup.

Not to get off track, but the alternating of L/R hitters has always seemed like a questionable strategy to me. Why not load up your lineup with the best hitters against that SP and give yourself the best opportunity to score runs early and knock the SP out early. Worry about the situational relievers later.

[El Gordo]

Without looking, wasn't Frank's post season performance relatively poor? I actually think you can make an argument for clutch playoff/short term performance. The sss with large swings against premium pitching is kind of interesting to consider. Brooks Robinson had a pretty good post season hitting record as I recall. I'll take him as long as Ron Swoboda isn't in RF.

I don't recall ARoid having much of a reputation for post season performanace, either. I picked the two because though ARoid has better career numbers per 162 G, I still would prefer Frank for an important AB. BTW Frank and ARoid have virtually the same post season numbers. Frank .887 OPS. ARoid .844. In fewer PA Frank has more HR and RBI's.....:scratchchinhmm: