PawPawMaxwell
Called Up to the Major Leagues
I do not disagree with this at all.
Official 2022 Offseason Moves Thread
- Thread starter bravesfanforlife88
- Start date
I do not disagree with this at all.
McCann'sCans
Gwinnett Bound
I certainly could be wrong here, but I'd want to see a data set that says "its been proven that over the course of large samples, every hitter's average with risp regresses to the mean over time." There are other things that would fall into this category: Ex: some hitters- due to differences in approach- are consistently better at hitting with two strikes than others.
This has been explored exhaustively.
https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2...reese-harrison-david-ortiz-bellinger-harrison
"There is zero consistency in high leverage performance."
Teams don't pay for this skill because this skill does not exist. If it existed teams would pay for it to gain a competitive advantage. It doesn't so they don't...they pay for good hitters.
Last edited:
I just posted such evidence. A search for the phrase "clutch hitting" will get you numerous results, all reaching the same conclusion.
This article also rightfully says the sample size of high leverage AB's is too low to draw a statistical significant conclusion.
In addition, if the premise is that the event (pitcher vs. hitter) is different in high leverage situation as a result of the pitcher pitching differently (Stretch & pitch selection) then comparing high leverage to low leverage is not reliable.
McCann'sCans
Gwinnett Bound
We are talking about different things. I never said 'clutch' was a skill- factoring in things like what the score is and what the inning is don't particularly interest me as part of the equation. I completely agree that in a high leverage situation or a low leverage situation, you just want the best hitter at the plate. I'm saying that hitting with runners in scoring position might be a skill the same way hitting with an 0-2 count might be a skill. It is a unique circumstance because pitch selection, defensive alignment, etc. will all differ when there are runners in scoring position vs. when there aren't or when the count is 0-2 vs. when its 3-2.
Again, I could be wrong, but I'm not talking about clutch hitting as an abstract concept being a skill as if David Freese somehow becomes a better player exclusively because he handles pressure well.
As we all know, you're going to cling to whatever shred of text allows you to continue harping on whatever the most recent falsehood you've most recently cooked up.
Now it's this idea of clutch hitters, which is nothing more than the latest idea you're stuck on.
If the sample size is too small to draw a conclusion, what does that tell a logical thinker? It should inform them that it isn't a measurable skill, and they should stop wasting their time trying to measure it and plan around that measurement.
Good catch.
The differentiator I'd be interested in is if the pitcher exclusively is pitching differently and I think we can all agree that is a non-zero difference between runners on and runners off.
I mean - This point right here is 100% the wrong conclusion to make.
striker42
Well-known member
I agree that people aren't good at being a high leverage hitter. That's it's not something you can be good at. However, is it something you can be bad at? Is it possible there are some guys who crack under pressure or who just abandon their approach and flail trying to be the hero.
Umm, no, it's not.
The point of all stats is to draw conclusions about the future performance. When folks used to say "oh my god, he had 100 RBI, he is a good hitter", what they were really doing was concluding that 100 RBI meant he was going to continue being a good hitter and help the team win. They were probably writing out future fantasy lineups while they marveled at the RBI totals.
If you can't measure it, then it doesn't help in planning at all. A player may very well have super human hitting skills at 7:52 PM every Friday, but if you can't measure it and plan for it, you have no way to convert that skill into a competitive advantage.
While I still don't agree with this 100% this is still a much different than saying if you can't measure it its not real.
I bet early in their career when the added stress affects performance, yes. But these guys have been studs their entire life. Even the worst MLB player was "the guy" for most of his life, and is used to being the main event at all times in every game. The 8 hole hitter on your little league team who's afraid of the ball doesn't play at the MLB level.
The same stats that show guys don't hit better under pressure also show they don't hit worse. The R2 value would be higher if that were the case.
Aaaand the semantics argument has officially started. A clear sign one side has nothing valid left to say.
McCann'sCans
Gwinnett Bound
To be clear, I don't buy into the clutch gene, I don't buy RBI as a useful stat, and I don't think the Braves should make roster decisions around a guy being a good hitter with RISP since there is not a good way to measure it right now. But, it does seem to me that there could be a way to measure it and that- because there are real changes in how the game is played in those situations- there could be players who are better or worse at hitting in those situations.
I just thought it was an interesting thought exercise.
I just thought it was an interesting thought exercise.
Its not semantics.
It was a false statement you made that you are now trying to ignore.
If the sample size is too small to draw a conclusion, what does that tell a logical thinker? It should inform them that it isn't a measurable skill,
This is wrong.
Now you're arguing semantics over the word semantics. A whole new level.
We are literally posting in the "Official 2022 Offseason Moves" thread.
The context of the discussion is well established as being "skills that help us pick which players we want in 2022 to help the Braves win more games". So when I say "not a real skill", everyone in this thread understands that context. Except you...unsurprisingly. In fact, I'm actually quite sure you do understand it, you just want to argue your erroneous point over and over.
Logic is always juuust outside your brain pan, yet you keep trying to use it.
McCann'sCans
Gwinnett Bound
*Narrator voice* He was wrong.