Where is Our Clutch Hitting Late in Games?

[ShaneDawg85]

This thread had a small dose of merit until it turned into a discussion of how clutchness or lack thereof equals All Start game viability.

So if a guy is hitting .200 for the year but .500 with RISP or in at bats after the 7th inning, that makes him All Star worthy over a guy hitting .350? Give me a break.

[ledzepp8]

No what I am saying wise guy is those are the wrong stats you are trying to use to support your (albeit incorrect) position. Apparently, you don't know what the proper ones even are. Here;s a helpful hint for ya: Frobby posted them on this very thread.:rolleyestf: You are either being deliberately obtuse or you don't understand this topic at all. So again, I am not dead wrong YOU ARE!

Did you even look at the stats I posted? They include all kinds of clutch situations. Innings 7+, Innings 10+, Within 1,2,3, or 4 runs, RISP, Tie game, etc. You're choosing to paint the team and at least Markakis and Roberts as being "unclutch" just because they don't have great numbers at the moment in so called "close and late" situations (one set of criteria). You're trying to say they're "unclutch" because they haven't had a walk off homerun like your new squeeze Michael Young.

[Malike]

Did you even look at the stats I posted? They include all kinds of clutch situations. Innings 7+, Innings 10+, Within 1,2,3, or 4 runs, RISP, Tie game, etc. You're choosing to paint the team and at least Markakis and Roberts as being "unclutch" just because they don't have great numbers at the moment in so called "close and late" situations (one set of criteria). You're trying to say they're "unclutch" because they haven't had a walk off homerun like your new squeeze Michael Young.

You keep ignoring what Frobby posted. They are not hitting late, with the exception of Jones, Period. You are cherry picking as much as OldFan is. Here they are again : Late and Close.

Roberts .222/.222/.222

Jones .313/.389/.500

Markakis .158/.158/.158

Huff .188/.222/.188

Scott .125/.125/.188

Mora .200/.333/.2000

[Old#5fan]

Both of you are distorting how I am using these statistics. I am not using then to comment on whether the player has been "clutch" over their careers, or whether they will be "clutch" over the full course of 2009. I'm simply using them to comment on what has occurred in the first 32 games of 2009, nothing more and nothing less. And the fact is, in the late part of close games so far in 2009, our best hitters have not done a good job so far. That's not a comment on their character, or a comment on how they have done at any other time, either earlier in games or in other seasons.

Frobby, this is just another example of posters either not reading properly and/or jumping to conclusions because they merely want to try and disagree for the sake of it as they totally are missing the topic of the thread and instead inserting their own agenda!

[Old#5fan]

This thread had a small dose of merit until it turned into a discussion of how clutchness or lack thereof equals All Start game viability.

So if a guy is hitting .200 for the year but .500 with RISP or in at bats after the 7th inning, that makes him All Star worthy over a guy hitting .350? Give me a break.

Show where anyone has claimed that? What I did claim and stand by is how can someone be a true-allstar when they get all their stats early on in the games and when the game is on the line and a clutch hit is needed most they hit 158?

[Old#5fan]

Did you even look at the stats I posted? They include all kinds of clutch situations. Innings 7+, Innings 10+, Within 1,2,3, or 4 runs, RISP, Tie game, etc. You're choosing to paint the team and at least Markakis and Roberts as being "unclutch" just because they don't have great numbers at the moment in so called "close and late" situations (one set of criteria). You're trying to say they're "unclutch" because they haven't had a walk off homerun like your new squeeze Michael Young.

I am not saying any of that. I am saying they are terrible in the clutch so far this year (other than Jones) which was the source of my topic question - What has happened to our Clutch Hitting? Can you read and comprehend the topic sentence? If so, you wouldn't be mis-interpreting it so badly.

[Frobby]

I am not saying any of that. I am saying they are terrible in the clutch so far this year (other than Jones) which was the source of my topic question - What has happened to our Clutch Hitting? Can you read and comprehend the topic sentence? If so, you wouldn't be mis-interpreting it so badly.

More accurately, the thread title is "Where is Our Clutch Hitting Late in Games?" I don't know how more clear that could be. The clutch hitting has been there in the early innings, but with the game on the line, late in the game, the team has done a lousy job. That is an undeniable fact. There is plenty of time, over the course of a 162 game season, to turn that around, but so far this team has performed poorly lat in the game.

[Lefty0315]

Show where anyone has claimed that? What I did claim and stand by is how can someone be a true-allstar when they get all their stats early on in the games and when the game is on the line and a clutch hit is needed most they hit 158?

A three run homer in the first scores as many runs as it does in the nineth. "Clutchness" is what one perceives it to be.

[Mackus]

A three run homer in the first scores as many runs as it does in the nineth. "Clutchness" is what one perceives it to be.

Clutch hits exist.

Clutch hitters do not. Or at least are incredibly rare.

A player certainly can have much better numbers in typically "clutch" splits, be it RISP, close and late, or whatever else you wanna look at over the course of a month or even a whole season. But its incredibly rare for a player to have numbers over several seasons or an entire career that continue that trend. Over enough of a sample size, and typically "clutch" scenarios don't come up enough for one season to be considered a big enough sample to be truly meaningful, a player's numbers will regress towards his mean, i.e. the stat line that he puts up on average.

When looking backwards, performance in clutch situations can show you which player has had the biggest impact on a team over a season. So I think it definitely has a place in figuring out things like the MVP. But, when looking forward, numbers in "clutch" situations aren't generally repeatable, so a player hitting great in clutch situations one year isn't an indication that he'll do that again in the same situations the next year. There are very wild fluctuations.

So if you are asking/answering the question "Who has had the best year?" then stats based on clutch situations should definitely enter the equation. If you are asking "Who is going to have the best year?" then they definitely should not.

[Frobby]

A three run homer in the first scores as many runs as it does in the nineth. "Clutchness" is what one perceives it to be.

OK, now we are getting into a completely different line of debate. But I repeat what I said: the title of this thread is "Where Is Our Clutch Hitting Late In Games?" And that is a fair question.

Look, I am all in favor of three-run homers in the first inning. And I'd rather have a player with overall excellent RISP numbers than a guy who is good "Late & Close." But let's not kid ourselves -- for 32 games we have stunk late in games. If Nick Markakis were to hit .158/.158/.158 in Late & Close situations for 162 games I would say he choked like a dog. His .326/.404/.518 career numbers Late & Close obviously show he is capable of doing much better than that, and I expect that to happen. But so far, it hasn't. To me that is all this thread is about (not just for Markakis, but the team as a whole).

[Old#5fan]

A three run homer in the first scores as many runs as it does in the nineth. "Clutchness" is what one perceives it to be.

Okay, now you are splitting hairs to the point of being almost nonsensical about it. How about if I define "clutch" hitting as a game winning hit or rbi that occurs from the 7th inning or later in a one or two run game? Sort of similar to the definition I believe of the "Close and Late Hitting stat" without looking it up.

[Old#5fan]

Clutch hits exist.

Clutch hitters do not. Or at least are incredibly rare.

A player certainly can have much better numbers in typically "clutch" splits, be it RISP, close and late, or whatever else you wanna look at over the course of a month or even a whole season. But its incredibly rare for a player to have numbers over several seasons or an entire career that continue that trend. Over enough of a sample size, and typically "clutch" scenarios don't come up enough for one season to be considered a big enough sample to be truly meaningful, a player's numbers will regress towards his mean, i.e. the stat line that he puts up on average.

When looking backwards, performance in clutch situations can show you which player has had the biggest impact on a team over a season. So I think it definitely has a place in figuring out things like the MVP. But, when looking forward, numbers in "clutch" situations aren't generally repeatable, so a player hitting great in clutch situations one year isn't an indication that he'll do that again in the same situations the next year. There are very wild fluctuations.

So if you are asking/answering the question "Who has had the best year?" then stats based on clutch situations should definitely enter the equation. If you are asking "Who is going to have the best year?" then they definitely should not.

I also was watching 60 minutes yesterday where they had a segment about Bill James and they were talking about clutch hitting and indicated that James postulates there is no such thing. Yet, when this was put forth to Francona (Red Sox Manager) he laughed about it and said, he disagrees as all you need to do is look at David Ortiz and how he comes through in big situations.

[Old#5fan]

OK, now we are getting into a completely different line of debate. But I repeat what I said: the title of this thread is "Where Is Our Clutch Hitting Late In Games?" And that is a fair question.

Look, I am all in favor of three-run homers in the first inning. And I'd rather have a player with overall excellent RISP numbers than a guy who is good "Late & Close." But let's not kid ourselves -- for 32 games we have stunk late in games. If Nick Markakis were to hit .158/.158/.158 in Late & Close situations for 162 games I would say he choked like a dog. His .326/.404/.518 career numbers Late & Close obviously show he is capable of doing much better than that, and I expect that to happen. But so far, it hasn't. To me that is all this thread is about (not just for Markakis, but the team as a whole).

You are spot on as to what this thread is all about. Too bad you have to go to such length to explain what should seemingly be quite obvious.

[ledzepp8]

You keep ignoring what Frobby posted. They are not hitting late, with the exception of Jones, Period. You are cherry picking as much as OldFan is. Here they are again : Late and Close.

Roberts .222/.222/.222

Jones .313/.389/.500

Markakis .158/.158/.158

Huff .188/.222/.188

Scott .125/.125/.188

Mora .200/.333/.2000

I'm not ignoring those stats and admitted that they weren't getting it done in the small sample of opportunities afforded them in that one set of criteria. My point was that they are getting it done in the multitude of other "clutch" opportunities throughout the game. This team has come back from being down or added more runs in close games plenty of times throughout this season, as the stats show. The problem has been that the starters and/or the bullpen have been giving up those leads. It's asking a bit much, in my opinion to ask the offense to get the lead multiple times in a game on a routine basis.

The whole premise behind this thread was for Oldfan to yet again belittle Markakis (he included other players so as to not make it quite as obvious but the intent was there and it showed up as the thread progressed) for not hitting a game winning homerun like his new favorite player Michael Young. Last year it was Carlos Pena who according to him was better than Markakis (even though stats showed him this was wrong), I guess this year it's Michael Young...and I suppose Johnny Damon.

[Frobby]

The whole premise behind this thread was for Oldfan to yet again belittle Markakis (he included other players so as to not make it quite as obvious but the intent was there and it showed up as the thread progressed)

I think you are reading too much into this. Pretty much the whole team has stunk in the late innings of close games. I can be as critical of Old#5Fan as anyone, but I just don't see this thread as motivated by some anti-Markakis agenda. There are a bunch of guys not getting it done in the late innings, and that includes Markakis (who, as most posters must realize, is my favorite player on the team). They need to reverse that trend. Period.