2012 MLB Thread

[MarsupialMadness]

However...I don't think the Angels will finish in 3rd, I think they catch the Rangers..just a gut feeling.

What will be interesting to see is if they finish 3rd in the AL West and still make the playoffs.

[icheights]

Batting average is a fairly useless stat, on base and slugging or the combination of both (OPS) are much more relevant.

RBI is a totally meaningless stat and should never be used when discussing performance as it totally relies on luck, timing, and how good the guys in front of you are at getting on-base.

Now that I have my statistical rant out of the way--Trout is simply a better player right now. He's not only a better offensive player, he's about 5x as good of a defensive player as compared to Cabrera (not to mention baserunner as well).

If I had to vote today it would be

1. Trout
2. Cano
3. Cabrera

I'd be fine with switching 2 and 3 though.

While I agree with you that RBI and BA are not as meaningful as they used to be, I completely disagree that they are meaningless.  OPS does not capture the complete productivity of a player..i.e. how about guys who are very productive with less than 2 outs and a runner on 3rd..I think this situation is highly overlooked in current statistical analysis

I also think that guys like Adam Dunn who are brought in to swing for the fences and rub produce are drastically underrated in your type of analysi...

Adam Dunn's response to a reporter who informed him that he has less singles than he does home runs-"They don't pay me to hit singles and get on base."

[jmayer1]

While I agree with you that RBI and BA are not as meaningful as they used to be, I completely disagree that they are meaningless.  OPS does not capture the complete productivity of a player..i.e. how about guys who are very productive with less than 2 outs and a runner on 3rd..I think this situation is highly overlooked in current statistical analysis

I also think that guys like Adam Dunn who are brought in to swing for the fences and rub produce are drastically underrated in your type of analysi...

Adam Dunn's response to a reporter who informed him that he has less singles than he does home runs-"They don't pay me to hit singles and get on base."

RBI was never meaningful, people just used it because it's what was available.

BA is not totally useless, but it only tells part of the picture. Ultimately, unless you get on base, you can't score. Having a team .280 BA (would lead the league), but taking no walks means you aren't going to score a lot of runs. BA has only slight value because all hits are more valuable than walks (singles are only slightly more valuable than walks). Just because things have been done a certain way for a long time does not mean that they were correct.

Paragraph 1--This is "overlooked" because statistics have shown that there is no meaningful difference in how a player performs in different situations over the long haul. Basically, there is no such thing as "clutch".

Paragraph 2 & 3--Why is that? BA actually drastically underates Dunn because he doesn't get a lot of non-hr hits. If I only looked at BA (.205), I would say Dunn should be sent down. However, since he gets a ton of walks (contrary to the last part of his comment--obp of .343) and hrs (slugging of .484), his ops (.827, 23rd in the AL out of 80 qualified players) actually reflects that he is a productive player that should get the vast majority of the DH at-bats for the White Sox.

[buckchuckler]

Trout: 86 games .346  19 homers  58 rbi

Cabrera: 108 games  .325  27 homers  91 rbi

Trout is good, but Cabrera is best in AL right now.  Cabrera is MVP, Trout is Rookie of Year so far.

There is more to the story with Trout, especially considering he is a leadoff man.  That obviously restricts his RBI opportunities, as does playing in 22 less games.  Trout has scored more runs, has a better OPS (he is better in OBP and SLG),  and 32 more steals. 

There is a lot of baseball to be played.  I'm not sure these two will really separate, it may be a tough choice for AL MVP

[buckchuckler]

there is no such thing as "clutch".

Really??? Show your work please. 

[The Process]

There is more to the story with Trout, especially considering he is a leadoff man.  That obviously restricts his RBI opportunities, as does playing in 22 less games.  Trout has scored more runs, has a better OPS (he is better in OBP and SLG),  and 32 more steals. 

There is a lot of baseball to be played.  I'm not sure these two will really separate, it may be a tough choice for AL MVP

Ever since I picked up Trout as soon as he was available on Yahoo! Fantasy Baseball, I've been undefeated.  I have a good chance for a 20-win (1 week = 1 win/loss) season in large part thanks to him.

Meanwhile in MIL... what another great outing from Fiers!

[buckchuckler]

Really??? Show your work please. 

I just checked the first guy that came to mind, and Albert Pujols has a BA .18 higher with RISP than with no one one, .13 higher than his career average.  That is over about 7900 PA.  That is a lot of flukiness if there isn't any such thing as a clutch player. 

[MarsupialMadness]

***Three True Outcomes: The three ways a plate appearance can end without fielders coming into play: walks, home runs, and strikeouts. Baseball Prospectus coined the term in homage to Rob Deer, who excelled at producing all three outcomes. The statistical result of the three true outcomes on a player's slash line is a low batting average, as well as an unusually high on-base percentage relative to the batting average. Traditionally, players with a high percentage of their plate appearances ending in one of the three true outcomes are underrated, as general managers often overestimate the harm in striking out, and underestimate the value of a walk.***

Dunn leads a group of six players by 2 HR.

Dunn leads Ben Zobrist by 10 BB.

Dunn leads Carlos Pena by 22K

Past winners are Babe Ruth four times, Hack Wilson, Mickey Mantle, Mike Schmidt, and Dale Murphy all once each.

[The Process]

3TO... that's what made Russell Branyan a cult hero for the Brewers.

[jmayer1]

Really??? Show your work please. 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2656

[jmayer1]

I just checked the first guy that came to mind, and Albert Pujols has a BA .18 higher with RISP than with no one one, .13 higher than his career average.  That is over about 7900 PA.  That is a lot of flukiness if there isn't any such thing as a clutch player. 

Yep, in the span of nearly 8,000 plate appearances, Pujols has gotten 27 less hits than expected (compared to his career batting average) with no-one on base (-0.8% of those at-bats), 25 more with runners on base (0.9%), and 24 more with runners in scoring position (1.7%). Those are well withing an expected statistical range and prove my point. Even the best hitter of his generation has shown that he is not any more "clutch" than expected based on his career norms.

Category     AB        H          BA   # of Hits Compared to Expected   Variation
Empty   3347     1063     0.318                   (27)                              -0.8%
On Base   2800      937        0.335                    25                                 0.9%
RISP           1429      489        0.342                    24                                 1.7%
               
Career   6737      2194    0.326       

[Benny B]

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2656

You can debate the existence of "clutch" all you want; however, there is no debate over whether the antithesis exists.  There are players who simply buckle under pressure... look no further than Yuniesky Betancourt.

With runners on, his batting average drops 10% once he gets 2 outs on him.  Having over 1000 games logged in his career, I would venture to say 10% is statistically significant.

[buckchuckler]

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2656

That article, does point out 2 guys that are clutch hitters (or meet the criteria to be clutch hitters, whatever).  All it takes to disprove your theory is a single clutch hitter.  By that articles admission, Tony Fernandez and Paul Molitor both disprove it.  It also seems to go on the principle that guys can't be clutch because if they were they would be every season.  Couldn't the same be said for Batting Avg overall, or HR, or SB, OR OBP or whatever?  There is going to be variance in every stat every season. 

[buckchuckler]

Yep, in the span of nearly 8,000 plate appearances, Pujols has gotten 27 less hits than expected (compared to his career batting average) with no-one on base (-0.8% of those at-bats), 25 more with runners on base (0.9%), and 24 more with runners in scoring position (1.7%). Those are well withing an expected statistical range and prove my point. Even the best hitter of his generation has shown that he is not any more "clutch" than expected based on his career norms.

Category     AB        H          BA   # of Hits Compared to Expected   Variation
Empty   3347     1063     0.318                   (27)                              -0.8%
On Base   2800      937        0.335                    25                                 0.9%
RISP           1429      489        0.342                    24                                 1.7%
               
Career   6737      2194    0.326       

Ok, anyways, maybe Pujols is a bad example.  Maybe he is just too good all around.  As I said, I'm a White Sox fan.  A guy most Sox fans remember for his clutch performances was Joe Crede.  Upon checking his numbers, it isn't my memory being bad.  

Crede hit .278 with RISP and .239 with no one on.  He was a career .254 hitter.  He had (sigh) 19 more hits than his career avg would have dictated with RISP, and 27 less with no one on.  The fact is, he hit .39 points higher with RISP than with no one on.  That seems kinda clutch to me.  

[MUBurrow]

I'm not familiar with any of the background statistics that are involved with the debate over "clutch" players, but wouldn't it be expected that players have better stats with RISP? It would seem to me that RISP also means a greater number of pitches to hit, a greater probability that the pitcher being faced is a reliever, etc. I would think most players would have measurably better stats with RISP.

[jmayer1]

You can debate the existence of "clutch" all you want; however, there is no debate over whether the antithesis exists.  There are players who simply buckle under pressure... look no further than Yuniesky Betancourt.

With runners on, his batting average drops 10% once he gets 2 outs on him.  Having over 1000 games logged in his career, I would venture to say 10% is statistically significant.

Can you let me know where you are getting your data?

By my count, he has a career .262 BA with runners on and 2 outs (189/721). His career BA is is .266. He has about 3 less hits than expected in those situations in over 700 at-bats.

If you are talking about 2 outs with RISP, he has a .249 BA (106/426). He has 7 less hits than expected in over 400 at bats. Again, not statistically significant. In fact, some of his other "clutch" situation numbers (tie game, within 1 run) are slightly better than his career averages.

At the end of the day, a career .260 hitter is going to be more or less a .260 hitter in all situations, the same holds true with a .290, or .320 hitter. They perform at or close to the same level regardless of circumstances. Can you find some small outliers if you look hard enough? Sure, probably, but you will fail to find a significant difference in the vast, vast majority of players. It's been proved statistically on numerous occasions.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?id=betanyu01&year=Career&t=b

[Bocephys]

You can debate the existence of "clutch" all you want; however, there is no debate over whether the antithesis exists.  There are players who simply buckle under pressure... look no further than Yuniesky Betancourt.

With runners on, his batting average drops 10% once he gets 2 outs on him.  Having over 1000 games logged in his career, I would venture to say 10% is statistically significant.

Yiniesky didn't need runners on base to show the world he sucked.

[jmayer1]

That article, does point out 2 guys that are clutch hitters (or meet the criteria to be clutch hitters, whatever).  All it takes to disprove your theory is a single clutch hitter.  By that articles admission, Tony Fernandez and Paul Molitor both disprove it.  It also seems to go on the principle that guys can't be clutch because if they were they would be every season.  Couldn't the same be said for Batting Avg overall, or HR, or SB, OR OBP or whatever?  There is going to be variance in every stat every season. 

??? All it takes is one guys to disprove a theory. How many guys played a statistically relevant amount of games in that timeframe? A thousand? More? And out of all those guys, they found exactly 2 guys that met the criteria. Yep, really disproves the whole theory?

Have you ever, ever told a lie? If so, should you always be considered a liar? My goodness, is everything so black and white?

Yes, there will be variance in every stat. That's the whole point. Eventually over time, though, people will revert to the mean.

[buckchuckler]

Yep, in the span of nearly 8,000 plate appearances, Pujols has gotten 27 less hits than expected (compared to his career batting average) with no-one on base (-0.8% of those at-bats), 25 more with runners on base (0.9%), and 24 more with runners in scoring position (1.7%). Those are well withing an expected statistical range and prove my point. Even the best hitter of his generation has shown that he is not any more "clutch" than expected based on his career norms.

Category     AB        H          BA   # of Hits Compared to Expected   Variation
Empty   3347     1063     0.318                   (27)                              -0.8%
On Base   2800      937        0.335                    25                                 0.9%
RISP           1429      489        0.342                    24                                 1.7%
               
Career   6737      2194    0.326       

In a game where 24 points (BA with RISP and BA with no one on) in BA isn't statistically significant, 24 points is the difference between Robby Alomar and Omar Infante; Ryan Braun and Javy Lopez; Lou Brock and Hank Blalock; Jim Edmonds and Jay Gibbons.   Just sayin.  

[buckchuckler]

??? All it takes is one guys to disprove a theory. How many guys played a statistically relevant amount of games in that timeframe? A thousand? More? And out of all those guys, they found exactly 2 guys that met the criteria. Yep, really disproves the whole theory?

Have you ever, ever told a lie? If so, should you always be considered a liar? My goodness, is everything so black and white?

Yes, there will be variance in every stat. That's the whole point. Eventually over time, though, people will revert to the mean.

You said they don't exist.  That means there are none.  If I find Bigfoot, it disproves the theory that says he doesn't exist.  

Also, according to your own source (maybe read it more carefully next time ) that study covered a 15 year span of baseball history.  Not the entire history of the game

[jmayer1]

Ok, anyways, maybe Pujols is a bad example.  Maybe he is just too good all around.  As I said, I'm a White Sox fan.  A guy most Sox fans remember for his clutch performances was Joe Crede.  Upon checking his numbers, it isn't my memory being bad.  

Crede hit .278 with RISP and .239 with no one on.  He was a career .254 hitter.  He had (sigh) 19 more hits than his career avg would have dictated with RISP, and 27 less with no one on.  The fact is, he hit .39 points higher with RISP than with no one on.  That seems kinda clutch to me.  

Yes, looking at that narrow prism, Crede would seem to be clutch. Of course, looking further you can see that a lot of this so-called "clutch" ability was based off the fact that he was pretty lucky in those circumstances (RISP) with a .274 batting average on balls in play vs. a career .255 BABIP.

Of course, looking at situations generally defined as "clutch", you can see Crede is back to his career norms.

"Clutch" situations:

2 outs, RISP - 98/371 - .264 - 4 more hits than expected
Late and Close - 130/489 - .266 - 6 more hits than expected

There are always going to be variances. A .254 hitter like Crede won't hit exactly .254 in every situation. But as a general rule, he will revert to the mean in most situations (home/away, lhp/rhp excluded as those is correlation with a lot of hitters in those scenarios). It's been proven that there are very few exceptions to this rule.

[SaintPaulWarrior]

It's not what you hit, it's when you hit.

[jmayer1]

You said they don't exist.  That means there are none.  If I find Bigfoot, it disproves the theory that says he doesn't exist.  

Also, according to your own source (maybe read it more carefully next time ) that study covered a 15 year span of baseball history.  Not the entire history of the game

There are exceptions to every rule. The study came up with 2 guys out of how many. I would say those would be considered outliers, not normal.

Maybe you should be the one to read more careful. I didn't say if covered all of baseball, I said over that timeframe. I can't put it any better than that article did:

All major-league players have a demonstrated ability to perform under pressure. They've proven that by rising to the top of an enormous pyramid of players, tens of thousands of them, all trying to be one of the top 0.1% that gets to call themselves "major leaguers." Within this group of elite, who have proven themselves to be the best in the world at their jobs, there is no discernable change in their abilities when runners are on base, or when the game is tied in extra innings, or when candy and costumes and pumpkins decorate the local GigaMart. The guys who are good enough to be in the majors are all capable of succeeding and failing in these situations, and they're as likely to do one or the other in the clutch as they are at any other time. Over the course of a game, a month, a season or a career, there is virtually no evidence that any player or group of players possesses an ability to outperform his established level of ability in clutch situations, however defined.

[jmayer1]

In a game where 24 points (BA with RISP and BA with no one on) in BA isn't statistically significant, 24 points is the difference between Robby Alomar and Omar Infante; Ryan Braun and Javy Lopez; Lou Brock and Hank Blalock; Jim Edmonds and Jay Gibbons.   Just sayin.  

That would be an apples and oranges comparison. You are taking the guys highest and lowest ba in certain situations (with smaller sample sizes) and comparing that difference to the difference among players over the span of their careers 10,000+ at bats. That doesn't seem to be a valid comparison.

Btw, batting average still isn't a great stat to compare players, however I think it only has some relevance here as we are only comparing players against themselves (assuming he is going to walk and slug at about the same rate).

At any rate, this has been a pretty good discussion but alas, I have to buckle down and do some work.

[buckchuckler]

That would be an apples and oranges comparison. You are taking the guys highest and lowest ba in certain situations (with smaller sample sizes) and comparing that difference to the difference among players over the span of their careers 10,000+ at bats. That doesn't seem to be a valid comparison.

Btw, batting average still isn't a great stat to compare players, however I think it only has some relevance here as we are only comparing players against themselves (assuming he is going to walk and slug at about the same rate).

At any rate, this has been a pretty good discussion but alas, I have to buckle down and do some work.

I know it wasn't apples to apples, just trying to point out that in baseball, since the numbers can be so small, differences that don't appear significant when you break it down to 25 extra hits, when you look at the big picture and see a guy hitting .24 points higher with RISP, it is a pretty big deal. 

It is a good discussion, I fear we will have to agree to disagree, as you feel there exceptions that prove the rule, and I feel as though I found bigfoot and you can't unfind him.