Astros Should Give Orioles What They Want for Britton

[Roll Tide]

2 hours ago, phillyOs119 said:

Ok, I get it, you get to say that you know something from your experience as an athlete, but then you mock me for giving my take from my legitimate experience as an athlete.  Well, let’s put that aside, as unfortunate as it is.

So since you want to talk about Eddie Murray and Cal, here we go.

I’ll use the same situation - 2 out, RISP.

I’ll use stats that actually tell a bigger story than just batting average. I’ll use OPS.  Instead of comparing them to each other (which doesn’t make sense because they have different hitting abilities) I compared them to their overall OPS in all situations.

Murray

.855 in clutch

.836 overall 

Cal

.774 in clutch 

.788 overall

Ok, now we have some decent data. Keep in mind this still doesn’t control for hitting environments of the stadiums, quality of pitchers, or score of the game (don’t think it matters that much personally but just saying 2 out RISP is far from a perfect analog for clutch situation.).

So Cal hit 1.8% worse than career in this situations and Eddie hit 2.2% better than career in these situations. That’s a small difference, but not nearly the one you portrayed in your post.

How do we explain this difference, well for one Murray had 58 more Intentional walks than Cal in less plate appearances. Intentional walks, I think you’d agree are not under the hitter’s control.  If you add the intentional walks to Cal’s 2 out RISP line, it makes his OPS almost identical to his career line.

So now the difference is about 0% for Cal and 2.2% for Eddie, could that 2.2% improvement for Eddie be explained by greater clutch ability, perhaps, but I think it’s far from conclusive and even if it is the effect is quite small.

 

 

Not really sure where you cam up with the 1% and 2% numbers.

 

I chose average deliberately since it doesn't take walks into account. The difference between the two players is 4+ hits per hundred at bats with just about 1300 ABs in that situation. So Eddie had 52 more hits in those situations over his career. The home runs were 63 - 46,  2B/3B 74 - 66 all in favor of Murray.

And you're right the hitter has no control over intentional walks ... But I'm certain Eddie was intentionally walked more than Ripken because he was    A more feared hitter.

[drdelaware]

Obviously the Astros didn't need Britton.

[ArtVanDelay]

36 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

Not really sure where you cam up with the 1% and 2% numbers.

 

I chose average deliberately since it doesn't take walks into account. The difference between the two players is 4+ hits per hundred at bats with just about 1300 ABs in that situation. So Eddie had 52 more hits in those situations over his career. The home runs were 63 - 46,  2B/3B 74 - 66 all in favor of Murray.

And you're right the hitter has no control over intentional walks ... But I'm certain Eddie was intentionally walked more than Ripken because he was    A more feared hitter.

Obviously Eddie was the more feared hitter, he was a better hitter.  So the better hitter hit better with 2 outs and RISP.  What’s your point?

Using batting average was extremely misleading and basically useless.

[Tx Oriole]

44 minutes ago, drdelaware said:

Obviously the Astros didn't need Britton.

Nope they sure didn't. Very glad they won. First time in their history to win. I am all smiles. Time for bed. 

[Tx Oriole]

3 hours ago, phillyOs119 said:

Ok, I get it, you get to say that you know something from your experience as an athlete, but then you mock me for giving my take from my legitimate experience as an athlete.  Well, let’s put that aside, as unfortunate as it is.

So since you want to talk about Eddie Murray and Cal, here we go.

I’ll use the same situation - 2 out, RISP.

I’ll use stats that actually tell a bigger story than just batting average. I’ll use OPS.  Instead of comparing them to each other (which doesn’t make sense because they have different hitting abilities) I compared them to their overall OPS in all situations.

Murray

.855 in clutch

.836 overall 

Cal

.774 in clutch 

.788 overall

Ok, now we have some decent data. Keep in mind this still doesn’t control for hitting environments of the stadiums, quality of pitchers, or score of the game (don’t think it matters that much personally but just saying 2 out RISP is far from a perfect analog for clutch situation.).

So Cal hit 1.8% worse than career in this situations and Eddie hit 2.2% better than career in these situations. That’s a small difference, but not nearly the one you portrayed in your post.

How do we explain this difference, well for one Murray had 58 more Intentional walks than Cal in less plate appearances. Intentional walks, I think you’d agree are not under the hitter’s control.  If you add the intentional walks to Cal’s 2 out RISP line, it makes his OPS almost identical to his career line.

So now the difference is about 0% for Cal and 2.2% for Eddie, could that 2.2% improvement for Eddie be explained by greater clutch ability, perhaps, but I think it’s far from conclusive and even if it is the effect is quite small.

 

 

What's it really matter? Both were great players. Both in the Hall of Fame. Wish the Orioles had players like them now. 

[Luke-OH]

6 hours ago, Tx Oriole said:

What's it really matter? Both were great players. Both in the Hall of Fame. Wish the Orioles had players like them now. 

It doesn't matter, but that was my point.  RollTide was trying to use them to prove a point about how closing takes a certain type who can handle the pressure and was trying to use Eddie and Cal to back up that argument.  I just did a deeper dive into his examples to show that he was cherrypicking data and that actually there isn't a significant difference in ability to handle clutch situations. 

[Luke-OH]

7 hours ago, Roll Tide said:

Not really sure where you cam up with the 1% and 2% numbers.

 

I chose average deliberately since it doesn't take walks into account. The difference between the two players is 4+ hits per hundred at bats with just about 1300 ABs in that situation. So Eddie had 52 more hits in those situations over his career. The home runs were 63 - 46,  2B/3B 74 - 66 all in favor of Murray.

And you're right the hitter has no control over intentional walks ... But I'm certain Eddie was intentionally walked more than Ripken because he was    A more feared hitter.

The 1.8% and the 2.2% numbers come from the difference in "clutch" OPS vs career OPS divided by the career OPS.  That way you can see how much a given player's "clutch" numbers varied from their career numbers.  

Eddie being a more feared hitter is true, his career batting OPS is significantly higher than Cal's so you'd expect Murray to hit better than Cal in EVERY situation.  Now if the numbers showed that Cal had better clutch numbers than Murray, maybe you'd have an argument, but they don't.  

It's like saying Jonathan Schoop handles clutch situations better than Ryan Flaherty because Schoop has hit better in those situations.  That's true, but it's not because Schoop is more clutch, it's because Schoop is a better hitter.  This is the same logic used to say that the best pitcher will be the best closer if used as such.

[Roll Tide]

37 minutes ago, phillyOs119 said:

It doesn't matter, but that was my point.  RollTide was trying to use them to prove a point about how closing takes a certain type who can handle the pressure and was trying to use Eddie and Cal to back up that argument.  I just did a deeper dive into his examples to show that he was cherrypicking data and that actually there isn't a significant difference in ability to handle clutch situations. 

Ok I'm cherry picking! When data doesn't match your argument it's easy to make that claim.

My point is certain guys handle those situations better than others. 

For the record, I didn't compare all stats to find one that worked for me. I chose Murray and Ripken (both Orioles, HOF members, and stars). I did it that way so no one could say that I randomly chose the comparison to Murray by cherry picking. 

Either way ....it's not worth it and very typical of folks selected by this site that hold any position to have that type of approach....You know "your wrong and I'm right just because".

"My data is sound and yours was cherry picked"

i get it!

[Roll Tide]

7 hours ago, ArtVanDelay said:

Obviously Eddie was the more feared hitter, he was a better hitter.  So the better hitter hit better with 2 outs and RISP.  What’s your point?

Using batting average was extremely misleading and basically useless.

It was simply that some players are better than others in pressure situations.

 

Average provides the simplest calculation number of at bats with either a hit or and out in those types of situations. It removes walks that can be intentional and out of the hitters control and walks that are also manipulated based on an umpire/strike zone.

So one guy was successful 24 times out of 100 and the other 29. 

 

 

[Luke-OH]

5 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

Ok I'm cherry picking! When data doesn't match your argument it's easy to make that claim.

My point is certain guys handle those situations better than others. 

For the record, I didn't compare all stats to find one that worked for me. I chose Murray and Ripken (both Orioles, HOF members, and stars). I did it that way so no one could say that I randomly chose the comparison to Murray by cherry picking. 

Either way ....it's not worth it and very typical of folks selected by this site that hold any position to have that type of approach....You know "your wrong and I'm right just because".

I"m convinced you aren't actually reading my posts,  aren't comprehending them, or you are trolling me.

Either way, I'm not going to beat my head against this wall anymore.  I'm sure most people reading my responses understand what I'm saying and follow my logic, even if they agree with your assessment of different guys handling clutch situations differently.

[Roll Tide]

13 minutes ago, phillyOs119 said:

I"m convinced you aren't actually reading my posts,  aren't comprehending them, or you are trolling me.

Either way, I'm not going to beat my head against this wall anymore.  I'm sure most people reading my responses understand what I'm saying and follow my logic, even if they agree with your assessment of different guys handling clutch situations differently.

Yep ....I'm a troll also! That the second response that comes out.

[Luke-OH]

8 minutes ago, Roll Tide said:

Yep ....I'm a troll also! That the second response that comes out.

That's one of three options I listed, and probably the most flattering of the three. I didn't want to assume lack of reading comprehension.

[Camden_yardbird]

Well the astros bullpen was so bad they only used one traditional reliever in the last game.

[bobmc]

2 hours ago, phillyOs119 said:

I"m convinced you aren't actually reading my posts,  aren't comprehending them, or you are trolling me.

Either way, I'm not going to beat my head against this wall anymore.  I'm sure most people reading my responses understand what I'm saying and follow my logic, even if they agree with your assessment of different guys handling clutch situations differently.

Springer quoted yesterday by Tom Boswell on why some guys don't respond well to post season pressure situations:

“I just think when the lights turn on even brighter you tend to subconsciously press, and you want to succeed so bad that you start to do things that you wouldn’t do, or you start to come out of an approach that has worked the whole year,” Springer said during the Series. “This is my first experience at playing this far, playing this long and in [games] of this magnitude. So, for me to understand, ‘Hey, slow yourself down.’ I understand now why some guys struggle in the postseason and some don’t.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/on-team-full-of-great-stories-george-springer-world-series-mvp-might-be-the-best/2017/11/02/b2a6f822-bf33-11e7-959c-fe2b598d8c00_story.html?utm_term=.8da863af3664

He was both "un-clutch" and "clutch" in two playoff series....

[Roll Tide]

2 hours ago, phillyOs119 said:

That's one of three options I listed, and probably the most flattering of the three. I didn't want to assume lack of reading comprehension.

Ok ...so a troll and now I have reading comprehension issues. 

Im pretty sure I'm a college educated male, with honors by the way!

And wasn't handed anything due to my status as a former athlete....but 

I get it! I'm dumb and your smart. And beyond the board rules since you have a role beyond posting