Kearns is killing us
Zuke
have to watch him strike out in the 5th or 6th hole.
Bring up that kid from Louisville or play Freel in
right.
It's time to take off the kid gloves with Austin.
He's proving he's not an everyday major leaguer.
Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
David Short
> At least put him down in the 8th hole so I don't
> have to watch him strike out in the 5th or 6th hole.
>
> Bring up that kid from Louisville or play Freel in
> right.
>
> It's time to take off the kid gloves with Austin.
> He's proving he's not an everyday major leaguer.
269/347/492 isn't an everyday major leaguer?
tough crowd. You are aware that only three right fielders in the major
leagues have an OPS above Kearns', that's Drew, Abrue and the dude who gets
to play half his games at Coors.
How about 274/377/423? Is that OK or 272/333/536? Is that OK? Do you have
to hit 240/391/593 with no strikeouts to be an everyday major leaguer?
Exactly how well do you think Chris Denorfia is going to do against major
league pitching considering he's only putting up a 347/405/456 against AAA
pitching?
dfs
Zuke
The guy has returned to earth and things are only going to get
dryer. I want a guy who can put the ball in play. The last four or
five games where we are down a run coming into the last two
innings we have got nothing from Kearns.
He just has some awful at-bats.
jd
> At least put him down in the 8th hole so I don't
> have to watch him strike out in the 5th or 6th hole.
>
> Bring up that kid from Louisville or play Freel in
> right.
>
> It's time to take off the kid gloves with Austin.
> He's proving he's not an everyday major leaguer.
>
Kearns may need a rest more than he is getting and like Freel would play
better when he plays less(does that make since)?
The problem as I see it though is that neither Dunn or Griffey are
productive 3 or 4 hitters with men in scoring positions with two outs at the
end of game. All three strikeout or ground out a lot when it really counts
and yes that is when the closers or set up guys are in their pitching but
that is what the big guys get paid for.
Dunn will get his homeruns, Griffey will hit ok for a guy his age and Kearns
is better than Freel but is it enough to beat the Cards come September? I
say no and are they willing to do what it takes to get to the next level and
beat the Cards this year.
David Short
> "Zuke" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message Dunn will get his homeruns,
> is it enough to beat the Cards come September? I say no
well duh. No. Of course not. Anybody who looks at this roster as a whole and
says it's ready to "going to beat the Cards" isn't looking at the same
roster as the rest of us.
AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH AUSTIN KEARNS.
or Adam Dunn for that matter.
The pitching is too thin and they are at least one position player shy on
defense still.
productive outs and clutch hitting ....man, that's nothing but Marty
whining.
How about the Lizard giving up 5 hits and a walk over 7 innings?
That's another one, that nobody saw.
dfs
jd
"David Short" <David.n...@Wright.spam.Edu.please> wrote in message
news:e6pkct$f90$1...@jamiebaillie.com...
> "jd" <jbld...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> "Zuke" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message Dunn will get his homeruns,
>> Griffey will hit ok for a guy his age and Kearns is better than Freel but
>> is it enough to beat the Cards come September? I say no
>
> well duh. No. Of course not. Anybody who looks at this roster as a whole
> and
> says it's ready to "going to beat the Cards" isn't looking at the same
> roster as the rest of us.
>
> AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH AUSTIN KEARNS.
> or Adam Dunn for that matter.
>
Those guys are ready to take ther game to the next level.
> The pitching is too thin and they are at least one position player shy on
> defense still.
>
> productive outs and clutch hitting ....man, that's nothing but Marty
> whining.
>
It's real and its the differance of winning the last few games and not as
they have not when the at bat has counted. Today the reds are 0 for ten with
men on base. Dunn 2 strike outs, Griffey 3 men left on base no hits,
aurilla 3 men left on today, phillips 3 left on today Freel 2 strike outs,
their is a pattern there.
David Short
> "David Short" <David.n...@Wright.spam.Edu.please> wrote in message
>> whining.
>>
>
> It's real and its the differance of winning the last few games and not as
> they have not when the at bat has counted. Today the reds are 0 for ten
> with men on base. Dunn 2 strike outs, Griffey 3 men left on base no hits,
> aurilla 3 men left on today, phillips 3 left on today Freel 2 strike outs,
> their is a pattern there.
Yeah. That Dunn is soooo un-clutch.
dfs
Locutus
"David Short" <David.n...@Wright.spam.Edu.please> wrote in message
Dunn is un-clutch!!!!!
I can't say the same about Jr though.
Lance Freezeland
>>> At least put him down in the 8th hole so I don't
>>> have to watch him strike out in the 5th or 6th hole.
>>> Bring up that kid from Louisville or play Freel in
>>> right.
>>> It's time to take off the kid gloves with Austin.
>>> He's proving he's not an everyday major leaguer.
>> 269/347/492 isn't an everyday major leaguer?
>> tough crowd. You are aware that only three right fielders in the major
>> leagues have an OPS above Kearns', that's Drew, Abrue and the dude who gets
>> to play half his games at Coors.
>> How about 274/377/423? Is that OK or 272/333/536? Is that OK? Do you have
>> to hit 240/391/593 with no strikeouts to be an everyday major leaguer?
>> Exactly how well do you think Chris Denorfia is going to do against major
>> league pitching considering he's only putting up a 347/405/456 against AAA
>> pitching?
>The guy has returned to earth and things are only going to get
>dryer.
That's called a "slump". All players have them.
> I want a guy who can put the ball in play.
Why? And at what expense?
--
Lance
"If you live in a mobile home, Satan is your lord whether you
know it or not." Bob Green
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
David Short
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2006, David Short wrote:
>> "Zuke" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>> It's time to take off the kid gloves with Austin.
>>> He's proving he's not an everyday major leaguer.
>>
>> 269/347/492 isn't an everyday major leaguer?
snip
>
> The guy has returned to earth and things are only going to get
> dryer. I want a guy who can put the ball in play.
wtf? so now we can complain about Kearn's inability to make contact?
Can we learn a new song?
>The last four or
> five games where we are down a run coming into the last two
> innings we have got nothing from Kearns.
It's a test of athletic ability not a strength of character test.
I would rather the team hit well enough that they went into the last two
innings far enough ahead that I don't have to pretend one player has some
mythical non-clutch ability.
> He just has some awful at-bats.
Who hasn't?
Right now he's the third best right fielder in the world and he's not good
enough for you?
dfs
Locutus
"David Short" <David.n...@Wright.spam.Edu.please> wrote in message
>
> It's a test of athletic ability not a strength of character test.
> I would rather the team hit well enough that they went into the last two
> innings far enough ahead that I don't have to pretend one player has some
> mythical non-clutch ability.
>
So you don't believe in clutch hitting?
Some people perform better under stress, in all walks of life. I don't see
why hitting would be exempt.
Lance Freezeland
gave us:
Then you should be able to name for us those players who have
demonstrated clutch hitting ability over the course of their careers,
and those who have not.
--
Lance
"When I knew Little Richard, he looked like Larry Holmes.
One night with Liberace and his hair was purple."
Pastor William Rennick
jd
"David Short" <David.n...@Wright.spam.Edu.please> wrote in message
How many chances did he have before the homerun? How many did he leave on
base?
>
>
chuckw417
If you ask me all of them left too damn many on base in scoring positions
when a few clutch hits could of made a difference! Hard to single out just
one..Kerns is in a slump but on the road trip he was great!.....Maybe they
will come around! Gotta have Hope.
>
Kevin McClave
Fewer than he drove in. Fewer than Phillips, Aurilia or Griffey left on.
How many games did he win today?
**********************************************************************
Kevin McClave
"The reward of suffering is experience." ~Aeschylus
**********************************************************************
Locutus
"Lance Freezeland" <freezeland...@consolidated.net> wrote in message
news:u4v0921lk57obua67...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 16:40:41 -0400, "Locutus" <Loc...@Locutus.com>
> gave us:
>>"David Short" <David.n...@Wright.spam.Edu.please> wrote in message
>>news:e6prl2$lqo$1...@jamiebaillie.com...
>
>>> It's a test of athletic ability not a strength of character test.
>>> I would rather the team hit well enough that they went into the last two
>>> innings far enough ahead that I don't have to pretend one player has
>>> some
>>> mythical non-clutch ability.
>
>>So you don't believe in clutch hitting?
>
>>Some people perform better under stress, in all walks of life. I don't see
>>why hitting would be exempt.
>
> Then you should be able to name for us those players who have
> demonstrated clutch hitting ability over the course of their careers,
> and those who have not.
>
> --
> Lance
>
Why should I be able to do that? I can say with a fair degree of confidence
that there are people out there who have won the lottery, but I certainly
couldn't name any of them. :)
I could name some people I have worked with in the past who certainly were
not good at working under pressure, but I don't think you would know them.
What stats would one use to define a "clutch" hitter? BA or OPS with RISP
when they are behind by less than 2 or 3 runs?
David Short
> "David Short" <David.n...@Wright.spam.Edu.please>
>> It's a test of athletic ability not a strength of character test.
>> I would rather the team hit well enough that they went into the last two
>> innings far enough ahead that I don't have to pretend one player has some
>> mythical non-clutch ability.
>
> So you don't believe in clutch hitting?
The general Sabre type opinion as expressed in BP's latest book and quoted
by Henry...is that while clutch hitting may exist it's effects are
miniscule.
Personally no. I don't believe in clutch hitting. I think it can be
evaluated in retrospect, but is useless as a predictor.
I would go furthere and state that I'm not confident that situational
hitting really exists for ....95% of the guys at the major league level.
That's me.
Dude, you know who had the "clutchest" at bat I saw this year?
Ryan Hannigan got an at bat against some pitcher in the Diamondbacks
organization that was just blowin the ball past Votto and Herr and the rest
of the Lookouts. They guy was throwin a cutter that everybody was missing by
3-4 inches. Hannigan stayed in and didn't swing at a ball. He drew a walk
and got on base after fouling off several 3-2 pitches.
You know why that at bat was clutch? It had nothing to do with the game,
although it was a good at bat. The next day when AA rosters contracted, the
reds demoted him to their Sarasota GCL team. He went from AA all the way
down to rookie ball. Hannigan has been around long enough that he HAD to see
the cut coming. IIRC he put time in in Dayton....3 years ago. He pretty much
had to know that any chance he had of reaching the bigs was vanishing. By
all rights he could have stood in there hacking and nobody would have
thought less of him. He stayed disciplined and did the right thing.
The notion that players get to the major leagues without somehow facing
"clutch" situations smacks of amateurism.
> Some people perform better under stress, in all walks of life. I don't see
> why hitting would be exempt.
Because by the time they get into a major league clubhouse, if they have not
shown the ability to perform under stress they have been weeded out already.
You like math, so lets do some.
Say you live in a town with 8 kids and you need to make a basketball team.
Which kids do you take?
You take anybody that's willing to show up and play.
Say you live in a town with 80 kids and you need to make a basketball team.
Which kids do you take?
Just showin up isn't enough. You take the ones who are willing to come to
practice and put some effort in.
Say you live in a town with 800 kids and you need to make a basketball team.
Which kids do you take?
Just puttin in the time isn't enough. They better have heart and desire and
you're probably starting to look for height.
Say you live in a town with 8000 kids and you need to make a basketball
team. Which kids do you take?
Heart and desire are nice. But now you're after some special qualities. If
that kid doesn't catch your eye...they aren't playin for you.
Now, how many high school boys are there for each one that gets into the
minors?
...I honestly don't know, but 8,000 boys is probably a reasonable low end
figure. In the Dayton area there are only a couple kids a year that end up
playing somewhere and there are a lot of high schools here.
That's to GET INTO low level professional ball. Now, you get to play every
day for 4 years against the best of the best and you better succeed because
you've passed up the chance to go to school with your peers.
You don't survive that and not know pressure.
.... but lets pretend that you do. Let's pretend that somebody has played
high quality High School and Legion and Low level professional ball and A-
and A+ and AA and AAA ball without facing any worries. They're a rookie in
the major leagues and suddenly they start to crack under pressure...what do
you think happens to those guys? where do they go? .......that's right, they
would get weeded out yet some more. If it's a trait that's valuable...it
will be selected for in the weeding out pyramid of skills.
dfs
Locutus
"David Short" <David.N...@Wright.SPAM.Edu.PLEASE> wrote in message
news:e6qgfn$27p$1...@jamiebaillie.com...
> "Locutus" <Loc...@Locutus.com> wrote
>> "David Short" <David.n...@Wright.spam.Edu.please>
>>> It's a test of athletic ability not a strength of character test.
>>> I would rather the team hit well enough that they went into the last two
>>> innings far enough ahead that I don't have to pretend one player has
>>> some
>>> mythical non-clutch ability.
>>
>> So you don't believe in clutch hitting?
>
> The general Sabre type opinion as expressed in BP's latest book and quoted
> by Henry...is that while clutch hitting may exist it's effects are
> miniscule.
>
> Personally no. I don't believe in clutch hitting. I think it can be
> evaluated in retrospect, but is useless as a predictor.
> I would go furthere and state that I'm not confident that situational
> hitting really exists for ....95% of the guys at the major league level.
> That's me.
>
Though some of it might just be perception, there does seem to be those
players who seem to come through more often and not when the game is on the
line, and those who seem to choke. (Pujols vs Dunn for example).
If stress doesn't play a part in how well they can hit the ball, shouldn't a
players BA/OPS be somewhat consistent regardless of the situation? Currently
Dunn's OPS is 1.095 with the bases empty and .820 with runners on, and only
.769 with RISP w/2 outs. Pujols on the other hand has a 1.039 OPS with the
bases empty, and a 1.341 OPS with runners on, and a 1.319 with RISP w/2
outs.
The stats are comparable when the bases are empty, but put people on, and
Adam's numbers go in the crapper and Pujols gets better.
dun...@gmail.com
I don't think anyone who is actually trying his best all the time truly
gets *better* in stressful situations. If I were a Cardinal, I'd be
pissed if I thought Pujols was sandbagging us with 80% effort until he
decided a given AB was significant enough to give his full attention.
On the other hand, lots of people do perform worse under stress. In
baseball, this often seems to be closers who can't hack it (Byung-Hyun
Kim, where are you now?), but hitters have it happen as well.
If there is such a thing as a clutch hitter, I'd say he's a hitter who
just doesn't perform worse in tight spots, not that he is suddenly
better than he is otherwise.
Out of curiousity, what percentage of Pujols' ABs with 2-out RISP are
walks, and how does that compare to his normal walk rate?
David Short
> "David Short" <David.N...@Wright.SPAM.Edu.PLEASE>
>> "Locutus" <Loc...@Locutus.com> wrote
>>>
>>> So you don't believe in clutch hitting?
>> evaluated in retrospect, but is useless as a predictor.
>> I would go furthere and state that I'm not confident that situational
>> hitting really exists for ....95% of the guys at the major league level.
>> That's me.
>
> Though some of it might just be perception, there does seem to be those
> players who seem to come through more often and not when the game is on
> the line, and those who seem to choke. (Pujols vs Dunn for example).
>
> If stress doesn't play a part in how well they can hit the ball, shouldn't
> a players BA/OPS be somewhat consistent regardless of the situation?
> Currently Dunn's OPS is 1.095 with the bases empty and .820 with runners
> on, and only .769 with RISP w/2 outs. Pujols on the other hand has a 1.039
> OPS with the bases empty, and a 1.341 OPS with runners on, and a 1.319
> with RISP w/2 outs.
>
> The stats are comparable when the bases are empty, but put people on, and
> Adam's numbers go in the crapper and Pujols gets better.
My first reaction to what you've written is to throw up my hands and say if
cincinnati fans can't appreciate Adam Dunn because he isn't Albert Pujols,
then I have to wonder exactly what it is that they expect. It's like
bitching about Ted Williams because he isn't Joe Dimaggio. What the hell is
up with that? The fact that folks bitch about Dunn when the reds lose
instead of bitching about Junior when the reds lose points to the fact that
this is now Adam Dunn's team. After years of Larkin and Junior with some
Casey thrown in there, it is now Adam Dunn's team. They win a world series
and all of a sudden he's going to be Mr. Clutch and coach first base for
them 16 years down the road.
Then I calmed down a bit. I believe you have independently come up with a
very good experiment. It's kind of a classic that has been done a couple
times. I tend to think of it as the J** C*rt*r experiment, because back in
the day of RSB this experiment got trotted out every couple of days to prove
how clutch he was. Let's step through it.
You've identified a situation or two that you think is "clutch," hitting
with runners on base and hitting with runners in scoring position with 2
outs.
You've gone another step and measured a comparable "non-clutch" parameter of
hitting with the bases empty.
In order to measure hitting in those cases, you've chosen OPS which I think
is reasonable, but will bring out the credits who claim your being too nice
to walks.
Name non clutch clutch very clutch
Player A Adam 1.095 0.820 0.769
Player B Albert 1.039 1.341 1.319
Damn that seems pretty conclusive doesn't it? It's got numbers and
everything and they point in the way of our preconceived notion that Adam
just isn't a clutch kinda guy. Let's trade him to the nationals for Soriano!
Well, lets look a little bit harder than that before we pull the trigger on
that deal. Let's ask ourselves a couple of questions?
What is the sample size? How many at bats has Adam and Albert seen in which
they have seen runners in scoring position and two out? I'll bet it's not
very many. I would be shocked if it's 50 at bats. Now, what's the normal
variation in OPS for 50 at bats? ....It's a lot. Now you are looking at the
difference between two OPS figures given 50 at bats.....If you're going to
run a T-test on that the difference is going to be pretty big.
Now....I want to make this very clear, that doesn't mean that Albert has not
been more valuable to the Cardinals at the plate during this situation
during 2006 than Adam has been. The value has already happened and has
accumulated. There is no way to deny that Albert "has performed better in
the clutch in the first part of the 06 season." What it means is that if I
were choosing a player to come up to bat during that clutch situation this
experiment isn't terribly valuable in letting me know which player "will
perform better in this situation in the future." That's a very real
distinction. There is a difference between looking at numbers in order to
credit value for what actually happened on the field and looking at numbers
in order to predict what a player will do in the future.
I imagine you are scratching your head about that last paragraph. Go ahead
and read it again. It's an important concept. You may think that I'm
splitting hairs, but stay with me here because there is another thought
coming. If we really expect this difference is real that difference should
be maintainable over multiple seasons. If Adam isn't clutch now and Albert
is...well, that should have been true last year right? What has been pretty
well shown over the years is that this kind of difference does NOT keep
going in multiple years. What happens when we look at Adam and Albert's 2005
performance? 2004? and such. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but
I'll bet those numbers even out a good bit.
That's kind of what we would expect isn't it? Every year after 50 at bats,
there is some no-name who is leading the batting race and the fishwraps all
give credit to his wonderful new attitude/approach/batting glove that is
responsible for his sudden improvement. Somehow when we get to the end of
the year. We've all forgotten about that poor Joe Normal who was leading the
league in OPS back in April.
Gotta do some work today.
dfs
David Short
> If there is such a thing as a clutch hitter, I'd say he's a hitter who
> just doesn't perform worse in tight spots, not that he is suddenly
> better than he is otherwise.
The notion that guys aren't really trying runs a little counter to the
notion of professionalism.
> Out of curiousity, what percentage of Pujols' ABs with 2-out RISP are
> walks, and how does that compare to his normal walk rate?
yeah... Adam is such a strange bird, that it really wouldn't shock me if
things don't even out in his line.
I think there might be a better way to look at Adam's at bat's that involved
leverage instead of thinking of it as clutch. I think from the pitchers
point of view so many of Adam's at bats are highly leveraged that ALL of
them can be considered "clutch." It's kind of a Babe Ruth effect.
Pre-Ruth pitchers didn't have to pitch well during every at bat, but they
saved there best "stuff" for when there were runners on and the score was
close. There are several written instances of this where older pitchers tell
younger pitchers to save their arms for the "pinches." Pinches is what they
called those highly leveraged at bats and where we get the term
"pinch-hitting" a term that now means substitute hitting.
Once Ruth was in the game, pitchers had to pitch with maximum effort on
every throw to certain batters because those batters had the ability to
score at any time. I wonder if Adam's hitting talents are such that pitchers
do things differently EVERY time he's at the plate and not just during
"clutch" situations.
I'm thinking at the keyboard and I really need to do some other stuff today.
dfs
Locutus
Thanks for the well thought out reply. Checking previous years stats, you
are correct, after a full season Adam's and Albert's OPS is pretty
consistent in each situation we have discussed.
Adam Dunn
2004
Bases Empty .959 (304 AB)
Runners On .949 (264 AB)
RISP w/ 2 outs 1.015 (72 AB)
2005
Bases Empty .867 (309 AB)
Runners On .997 (234 AB)
RISP w/ 2 outs .993 (52 AB)
Albert Pujols
2004
Bases Empty 1.037 (324 AB)
Runners On 1.112 (268 AB)
RISP w/ 2 outs 1.104 (60 AB)
2005
Bases Empty 1.045 (319 AB)
Runners On 1.032 (272 AB)
RISP w/ 2 outs 1.113 (52 AB)
It does appear over a full season, these stats are pretty consistent. I
aluded to clutch hitting maybe being perception, as people have a tendancy
(even me) to only notice/remember high and low points. Thus far in the
season, I think Dunn has certainly been "unclutch", and as you pointed out,
over the full season that will mostly likely even out, but many people won't
notice that. The inverse is true with Albert.
Also, I didn't mean to imply that I was upset because Adam was not Albert,
not many players are. I was just looking at the consistency of the numbers
in each situation, not the actual numbers themselves.
Finally, I don't believe clutch hitting has anything to do with not trying
your hardest, I believe the players for the most part are trying their
hardest everytime. In a movie I saw once (I cant remember the name of the
movie or even what it was about), someone was learning how to ride a bike,
and everytime he would run into the mailbox no matter how hard he tried not
to. :) The mind has a way of making some people physically not able to
perform at their best in certain situations. I understand your opinion is
that any baseball player who cannot perform consistently under stress would
have been weeded out before ever making it to the major leagues, and I
agree, but I also believe their are people who are able to perform BETTER
under stress, they just thrive on it.
dun...@gmail.com
I also think it's important to note that a truly 'clutch' situation is
hard to define. A 2-out RISP situation in the fourth inning when
you've already got a 6 run lead isn't "clutch" just because it's 2-out
RISP. At the same time, if you're down by a run in the ninth inning
with a runner on first and no outs, that probably should be considered
"clutch" despite not being 2-out RISP. I've seen some stats for
close-and-late situations, but I still think the whole idea is too
unscientific to let us really say a given player is or isn't a clutch
hitter.
David Short
> Damn that seems pretty conclusive doesn't it? It's got numbers and
> everything and they point in the way of our preconceived notion that Adam
> just isn't a clutch kinda guy. Let's trade him to the nationals for
> Soriano!
>
> Well, lets look a little bit harder than that before we pull the trigger
> on
> that deal. Let's ask ourselves a couple of questions?
>
> What is the sample size? How many at bats has Adam and Albert seen in
> which
> they have seen runners in scoring position and two out? I'll bet it's not
> very many. I would be shocked if it's 50 at bats. Now, what's the normal
> variation in OPS for 50 at bats? ....It's a lot. Now you are looking at
> the
> difference between two OPS figures given 50 at bats.....If you're going to
> run a T-test on that the difference is going to be pretty big.
I've inserted the number of at bats into the table below.
no runners runners runners/2
outs
Name non clutch clutch very clutch
Player A Adam 65 1.095 60 0.820 27 0.769
Player B Albert 53 1.039 51 1.341 29 1.319
Let's pretend for a moment that Adam Dunn and Albert Pujols have the same
batting ability.
Now we give them both 50 at bats and measur the difference in their OPS.
How much of a difference would you expect to see?
Is it possible that there is a 0.001 difference in OPS and it's just luck?
How about a 0.500 difference? Is that possible?
In 50 at bats? Sure it is.
> If we really expect this difference is real that difference should
> be maintainable over multiple seasons. If Adam isn't clutch now and Albert
> is...well, that should have been true last year right? What has been
> pretty
> well shown over the years is that this kind of difference does NOT keep
> going in multiple years. What happens when we look at Adam and Albert's
> 2005
> performance? 2004? and such. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but
> I'll bet those numbers even out a good bit.
2005
no runners runners runners/2
outs
Name non clutch clutch very clutch
Player A Adam 309 0.867 234 0.997 52 0.993
Player B Albert 319 1.045 272 1.032 52 1.113
wait a minute....look at the ones with big sample sizes and last year Adam
did better in the clutch than he did in normal situations and Albert did
worse? How does that happen?
2004
no runners runners runners/2
outs
Name non clutch clutch very clutch
Player A Adam 304 0.959 264 0.949 72 1.015
Player B Albert 324 1.037 268 1.112 60 1.104
hmmmm. .......Looks like were stalking some noise here, but....but it does
look like Albert's OPS does consistently go up when there are runners on
base while Adam's seems to stay the same. Why would that be???
...I'm guessing. Be clear about that. But I think I know. D'Angelo Jimenez
is the reason. I really think so. That sounds strange, but stay with me.
In the last two and a half years Albert Pujols has had 6 at bats where he
was not hitting third in the cardinals lineup. That means if a pitcher
pitches around Albert they get to pitch to Edmonds or Larry
Walker...somebody good enough to hit cleanup for the Cardinals.
In the last two and a half years Adam Dunn has seen almost 300 plate
appearances where he has been hitting 6,7,8 or 9th in the reds order. Now if
you're the pitcher and there are runners on base...Are you going to pitch to
Adam Dunn or D'Angelo Jimenez? You're going to walk Adam or at the least not
challenge him. Adam takes the walk...trusting his teammates to do their job
and drive him in and we look at the split and say...Adam isn't getting it
done. His OPS goes down with guys on base.....Screw that. His CHANCES go
down with guys on base, because of where they hit him.
now...I really do have to sign off here.
dfs
stebain
to slide past him at third base and walk people, the reds would be in first
place.
stebain
made to the roster:
Dump the following players:
Kearns
Dunn
Griffey (and stop having him deliver the line up card :))
Claussen
Mercker
Weathers
LaLou
Yan
Bench freel and then make him the starting centerfielder from the bench
I feel I have missed something...
David Short
news:K9fkg.59722$mh.4...@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
My reservations about Felipe Lopez defense as the shortstop?
It's good to be in second place and the wildcard.
dfs
Locutus
"stebain" <ste...@NOTTHISPARTwoh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:K9fkg.59722$mh.4...@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
They could move the bench to centerfield and Freel could just play from
there.
Kevin McClave
Let's also realize that Pujols is a better player, period. Whispers of
"help" or not, he's just a better overakll hitter than Dunn, and you
know how much I think of Adam. So, he is likely to do better in 'cutch"
situations because he is more likely to do better in all situations.
That doesn't mean anyone else is bad, just that they aren't the best.
I think that whole concept is another factpr in the anti-clutch hitting
argument.
I used to strongly believe that clutch hitting existed (and now they
say it does, just not to a significant level), but the points Dave
raised here and Dan and Ron and I Lance and maybe others raised
previously changed my mind. The studies that have been done and the
rationale make sense to me.
Kevin McClave
> >
> > I feel I have missed something...
> >
>
> They could move the bench to centerfield and Freel could just play from
> there.
He has been klown to use props in the pursuit of the ball.
Bob Braun
LOL! That's it. It is his fault. This team is certainly on the same page.
When they (offense) go south, they ALL go south.
Over the course of a season, Austin Kearns will prove to be a VERY
productive player. An absolute steal at $1.7 MIL. Now if you can direct me
to couple of these "slump proof", clutch players, that would be worth
looking at. If you can indeed produce any, I seriously doubt the Reds or
many other teams could afford them.
Kevin McClave
"He has been *known*..."
stebain
"Bob Braun" <oxsp...@hotandsunnymail.com> wrote in message
news:abWdnU8urvWwEgzZ...@comcast.com...
> "stebain" <ste...@NOTTHISPARTwoh.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:08fkg.59721$mh.3...@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
>> If Kearns would stop serving goddamned grand slam homers and allowing
>> balls
>> to slide past him at third base and walk people, the reds would be in
>> first
>> place.
>>
>
> LOL! That's it. It is his fault. This team is certainly on the same
> page. When they (offense) go south, they ALL go south.
Hey Bob! How's business?
David Short
I kinda liked it the first way. Sort of a cross between clown and known.
I guess that doesn't fit Freel, but we've seen players it does fit.
dfs
Dan Szymborski
David.n...@Wright.spam.Edu.please says...
> worse? How does that happen?
>
> 2004
> no runners runners runners/2
> outs
> Name non clutch clutch very clutch
> Player A Adam 304 0.959 264 0.949 72 1.015
> Player B Albert 324 1.037 268 1.112 60 1.104
>
> hmmmm. .......Looks like were stalking some noise here, but....but it does
> look like Albert's OPS does consistently go up when there are runners on
> base while Adam's seems to stay the same. Why would that be???
I wrote a little tool to illustrate sample size issues in
baseball.
Picking 50 random Adam Dunn plate appearances demonstrated quite
well how wacky anything can happen in such a small sample.
OPS # of Times
<.400 1
.401-.500 1
.501-.600 4
.601-.700 11
.701-.800 11
.801-.900 17
.901-1.000 21
1.001-1.100 15
1.101-1.200 9
1.201-1.300 7
>1.300 2
Even this fictional Adam Dunn, "locked" into his career OPS of
.901 (coming into the season), in 50 PA, hit worse than an
average shortstop 17% of the time and hit as well as or better
than Ted Williams 18% of the time purely due to random chance.
Even *500* plate appearances doesn't completely filter out
random chance.
OPS # of Times
<.750 0
.750-.800 5
.801-.850 20
.851-.900 27
.901-.950 19
.951-1.000 21
>1.000 8
You'd get an even smoother curve with more trials. In this
case, Dunn had a season as low as 212/344/409 and as high as
305/440/648 through no change in ability.
There's even some variation in 5000 PA of Dunn's career. In 100
trials, Dunn hit as few as 242 homers and as many as 337. BA
ranged from .230-.263, OBP from .368-.400, and SLG from
.479-.572.
--
Dan Szymborski
d...@baseballprimerREMOVE.com
"A critic who refuses to attack what is bad is not
a whole-hearted supporter of what is good."
-Robert Schumann
JazzyJeff
Lance Freezeland wrote:
> That's called a "slump". All players have them.
Jerry Narron made a good call in giving Austin the day off on
Wednesday. Maybe these slumps won't have such an effect on his
offensive/defensive performance next time. I admit however that Narron
needs to shuffle the outfield defense a bit more often (leave Adam Dunn
where he is though, left field is his home).
David Short
> I wrote a little tool to illustrate sample size issues in
> baseball.
snip
Adam Dunn with 500 at bats will show an OPS of....
> OPS # of Times
> <.750 0
> .750-.800 5
> .801-.850 20
> .851-.900 27
> .901-.950 19
> .951-1.000 21
>>1.000 8
>
> You'd get an even smoother curve with more trials. In this
> case, Dunn had a season as low as 212/344/409 and as high as
> 305/440/648 through no change in ability.
>
> There's even some variation in 5000 PA of Dunn's career. In 100
> trials, Dunn hit as few as 242 homers and as many as 337. BA
> ranged from .230-.263, OBP from .368-.400, and SLG from
> .479-.572.
One reason I've always been very wary of using this tool is that we don't
tend to see that much unexplained variation in real hitters performances.
There are two explanations, first of all we can say the tool is somehow
flawed. I'm not comfortable with that.
The second explanation is that we are always looking for explanations to
explain variation. I'm inclined to go along with this, at some level we want
to believe in a rational understandable universe, but I'm still not
convinced that we do see as much variation as the models predict.Adam isn't
a very good example because he has shown wild swings in value. It SEEMS to
me that most players record much more stable patterns than the variation due
to the binomial distribution would suggest.
Any idea why that would be?
dfs
Bob Braun
--
"stebain" <ste...@NOTTHISPARTwoh.rr.com> wrote in message
news:0kgkg.64363$YI5....@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
Boomin Baby! I'm working my A$$ off.
Ron Johnson
Locutus wrote:
> "Lance Freezeland" <freezeland...@consolidated.net> wrote in message
> news:u4v0921lk57obua67...@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 16:40:41 -0400, "Locutus" <Loc...@Locutus.com>
> > gave us:
> >>"David Short" <David.n...@Wright.spam.Edu.please> wrote in message
> >>news:e6prl2$lqo$1...@jamiebaillie.com...
> >
> >>> It's a test of athletic ability not a strength of character test.
> >>> I would rather the team hit well enough that they went into the last two
> >>> innings far enough ahead that I don't have to pretend one player has
> >>> some
> >>> mythical non-clutch ability.
> >
> >>So you don't believe in clutch hitting?
> >
> >>Some people perform better under stress, in all walks of life. I don't see
> >>why hitting would be exempt.
One explanation is that baseball players who can't perform under
stress will tend to get weeded out.
> >
> > Then you should be able to name for us those players who have
> > demonstrated clutch hitting ability over the course of their careers,
> > and those who have not.
> >
> Why should I be able to do that? I can say with a fair degree of confidence
> that there are people out there who have won the lottery, but I certainly
> couldn't name any of them. :)
>
> I could name some people I have worked with in the past who certainly were
> not good at working under pressure, but I don't think you would know them.
>
> What stats would one use to define a "clutch" hitter? BA or OPS with RISP
> when they are behind by less than 2 or 3 runs?
That's the response I've frequently made in past clutch discussions.
You
provide the definition, I'll run the study.
I can think of a couple of definitions of clutch though. Most common
one
would be career BA with RISP versus overall career BA.
I've found two hitters who ht substantially better with RISP over the
course
of their careers. Paul Molitor and Tony Fernandez.
I've looked at late/close in a couple of ways. Absolute -- IE what are
the
raw numbers in late/close. Unsurprisingly (though in any given year a
player can be great or brutal -- sample size and all that) the answer
is simple. Over time, the top hitter bubble to the top.
Then there's relative Late/Close. You can make a compelling case for
Eddie Murray. Most hitters hit worse in late close (because all you
see are effective starters, elite setup guys and closers). Murray hit
a bit better in late/close than overall -- the only player I'm aware of
who did this.
In their numbers book this year the guys at Prospecutus did a
career win probability added study and compared this to the
number of offensive wins you'd have expected given conventional
offensive metrics.
The king was ... Mark Grace.
And they confirmed my reason for not bothering with WPA or any
other situational metric. Too much work for too little gain. Almost
all players are pretty well represented by good metrics like EQA
or VORP or linear weights. (Molitor for instance hit more than 30
points better with RISP than overall for a 15 year career -- and is
probably underrated by metrics that don't take this into account
by about 29 runs in that time frame. Not a year. 2 runs a year for
the king means it pretty much comes out in the wash for most
everybody)
Understand that most of these metrics have a standard error in the
5-8 run range.
Ron Johnson
David Short wrote:
>
> One reason I've always been very wary of using this tool is that we don't
> tend to see that much unexplained variation in real hitters performances.
I'm not sure what you mean by "that much"
I've actually looked at the variation in player batting stats in
consecutive month(study had 1471 player/month combinations.
I tried to cull all of the players who had been traded. May have
missed a few but I doubt it'll make a big difference.
Here are the standard deviations:
BA OBP SLG IWR ISO OPS
.049 .057 .117 .034 .090 .160
(IWR is OBP-BA. ISO is SLG-BA.)s of full time play
(90+ PA in consecutive months. Cutoff chosen because
that rates to eliminate most injured players)
And just poking around at retrosheet I found an interesting
example of a great player having just a brutal run (I guarantee
you'll find more)
Mike Schmidt finished 1974 (his first excellent season)
with a September of .219/.333/.419 (no biggie -- every
player turns in a month like that) and then started 1975
.164/.253/.299 in April followed by .198/.294/.396
in May.
Had another brutal start in 1985.
David Short
news:1150472597.4...@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> David Short wrote:
>>
>> One reason I've always been very wary of using this tool is that we don't
>> tend to see that much unexplained variation in real hitters performances.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "that much"
I'm going to try and get my thoughts on this in order on this Ron. Warning
to readers, if you're more interested in baseball than math, just skip this
post.
This is what Dan wrote about a simulated Adam Dunn. I'll believe Dan because
he's usually pretty reasonable.
>Even this fictional Adam Dunn, "locked" into his career OPS of
>.901 (coming into the season), in 50 PA, hit worse than an
>average shortstop 17% of the time and hit as well as or better
>than Ted Williams 18% of the time purely due to random chance.
I've less of a problem with monthly numbers. It may be I feel that way
simply because they are not easily available. It may be that after years of
watching hot April starts by marginal major leaguers that I just have an
understanding that over 50 plate appearances anything can happen.
Here is where I start to get interested.
>Even *500* plate appearances doesn't completely filter out
>random chance.
>OPS # of Times
><.750 0
>.750-.800 5
>.801-.850 20
>.851-.900 27
>.901-.950 19
>.951-1.000 21
>>1.000 8
Now we could represent that with a histogram and it would look all nice and
binomial and so on.
Now I want you to look at the following set of numbers.
0.941 0.890 0.900 0.967 0.798 0.950 1.004 1.080 0.949 0.923 0.919 0.907
0.937 0.936
That's Mike Schmidt after he became "Mike Schmidt" and with his last year
truncated.
Now lets map Mike Schmidt's OPS on top of what Dan did for his auto-Dunn.
FWIW Schmidt's career OPS is 0.908 so while there might be a tiny bias, the
bins still work.
Auto Player Mike Schmidt
>OPS # of Times
><.750 0 0
>.750-.800 5 1
>.801-.850 20 0
>.851-.900 27 2
>.901-.950 19 8
>.951-1.000 21 1
>>1.000 8 2
hmmm. I look at that and the first question that comes to my mind is Why
does Mike Schmidt actual performance cluster together so much tighter than
what would be predicted by an identical independently distributed model?
What's the difference here? Where does the model break down? We have
violated a couple of the assumptions of an IID model. For one thing, Mike
got hurt a couple of times, he learned some things while he was in the big
leagues. Clearly the assumption that the distribution is identical is a
shaky one at best.
The thing is....almost every time you violate the assumption of an identical
distribution in a real world experiment...variation increases. That's not
what I see. Variation decreases....hey...maybe I'm just making it up. Lets
do a quick search on baseball reference for a player with an unadjusted
career OPS around 900 whose career spans several seasons. Let's look at some
of Schmidt's comparables....
Auto Player Fred McGriff
>OPS # of Times
><.750 0 0
>.750-.800 5 1
>.801-.850 20 3
>.851-.900 27 3
>.901-.950 19 6
>.951-1.000 21 1
>>1.000 8 1
Well, perhaps it's not fair to map out a player famous for his consistency.
McGriff seems a better match for the auto-Dunn than Schmidt does, but there
isn't MORE variation than the model shows.
Auto Player Willie Stargell
>OPS # of Times
><.750 0 0
>.750-.800 5 2
>.801-.850 20 5
>.851-.900 27 1
>.901-.950 19 6
>.951-1.000 21 1
>>1.000 8 2
Willie does a bit better job at spanning the bins, then Schmidt did,
but...that included a couple of years where Willie had less than 300 plate
appearances. He was hurt a couple of times...again, I would expect more
variation from the real player than I would from the Auto-player and I just
don't see that.
Now, I do recognize that I'm sampling here. I know the chi square test will
pass on power. It's perfectly reasonable to say these careers statistically
could have come from the distribution created by the auto-player. I suppose
if I did some sort of autoOPS correction and bining in the Lahman data base
I could get the power to really test the hypotheses, but I'm a gadfly here.
I'm also aware that I have in a certain sense cheated by trimming the starts
and tails of the careers in question in order to try and more closely create
identical independent seasons. In one sense it's not fair to complain that
we never see very low tails that I think we should see when I've
deliberately trimmed those tails caused by youth and age....but that's kind
of my point. It seems to me that injuries and personal problems and who
knows what else SHOULD make those >750
seasons happen pretty often, but for the most part...they aren't there. How
many players have seen a real 200 point drop in their OPS for a full season
and then come back to their previously established level of performance?
...That doesn't happen because the league autocorrects those players out.
They get replaced. Bary Larkin's low season ops was only 140 points lower
than his career ops and anybody who followed him will tell you he was hurt
in 02. Make him just a bit worse than that....and he's out of the mix as the
reds audition new shortstops that year. Cal Ripkin's season low OPS once you
trim the tails, is within a hundred points of his career OPS. For all his
inconsistencies, injuries and position switches, the same is true of Rod
Carew.
On the other end...Sure, we can point at the difference between Davey
Johnson's 72-73 seasons or Brady Anderson's 95-96 campaigns as examples of
positive flukes, but these things don't happen often. That's why they stand
out as fluke seasons and we immediately start suspecting that something has
changed and the seasons are not identically distributed.
Maybe I'm chasing a pattern that shouldn't be there. But it seems to me that
for most players with long careers, they are far more consistent than we
have any right and reason to expect. I'm honestly a bit puzzled by that.
dfs
Ron Johnson
David Short wrote:
> "Ron Johnson" <joh...@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote in message
> news:1150472597.4...@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > David Short wrote:
> >>
> >> One reason I've always been very wary of using this tool is that we don't
> >> tend to see that much unexplained variation in real hitters performances.
> >
> > I'm not sure what you mean by "that much"
>
> I'm going to try and get my thoughts on this in order on this Ron. Warning
> to readers, if you're more interested in baseball than math, just skip this
> post.
<snippage -- nice work there>
>
> Maybe I'm chasing a pattern that shouldn't be there. But it seems to me that
> for most players with long careers, they are far more consistent than we
> have any right and reason to expect. I'm honestly a bit puzzled by that.
This is something I've observed in my studies on clutch/choke.
I can't find anybody who's a 95% confidence interval choker.
Which is another point to your auto-correction hypothesis.
I should note that the study I referenced in my previous post found
*slightly* smaller standard deviation than you'd expect.
Two data points that suggest to me that a few people are being
dropped because of bad luck.
Oh, you want a good example of huge performance variations,
try Sixto Lezcano.
Jim Hickman and Cito Gaston are good examples of upside
flukes. Under-perform by that margin and you lose your job
in May at the latest (and drop out of a lot of studies)
Ron Johnson
David Short wrote:
> "Ron Johnson" <joh...@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote in message
> news:1150472597.4...@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> >Even *500* plate appearances doesn't completely filter out
> >random chance.
Yup.
For the record, here's a study I did a few years back:
every player who played consecutive seasons
with 300+ PAs from 1955 to 1998.
Age # BA OBP SLG BA OBP SLG SI II SD ID
18 1 .250 .276 .346 .267 .307 .367 0 1 0 0
19 6 .269 .325 .411 .259 .311 .402 0 1 1 2
20 36 .269 .324 .407 .280 .332 .427 8 14 3 6
21 109 .269 .327 .401 .272 .332 .414 20 39 10 26
22 217 .267 .328 .406 .271 .335 .412 38 76 23 47
23 379 .268 .333 .409 .267 .333 .408 46 100 48 108
24 514 .267 .332 .409 .269 .336 .414 74 159 52 142
25 650 .272 .337 .415 .271 .337 .416 87 185 81 189
26 723 .272 .339 .418 .270 .337 .413 85 194 105 214
27 699 .272 .339 .420 .270 .338 .413 81 175 101 219
28 658 .272 .340 .416 .268 .338 .410 83 167 92 203
29 599 .270 .340 .414 .268 .338 .411 66 155 78 187
30 503 .271 .341 .419 .270 .340 .415 50 125 58 137
31 413 .274 .345 .426 .271 .344 .418 51 104 68 140
32 348 .275 .347 .423 .269 .340 .413 30 75 59 128
33 255 .276 .348 .427 .272 .345 .418 27 66 40 84
34 185 .278 .350 .430 .269 .340 .411 11 32 36 71
35 130 .276 .346 .428 .273 .346 .425 13 33 15 40
36 90 .281 .358 .443 .274 .346 .422 5 12 17 32
37 65 .281 .354 .428 .267 .342 .404 4 14 17 31
38 41 .272 .353 .425 .267 .349 .418 5 8 6 11
39 24 .274 .356 .442 .272 .355 .429 3 8 5 9
40 14 .274 .366 .445 .260 .354 .410 1 2 6 10
41 6 .260 .349 .396 .244 .323 .378 0 1 1 3
42 3 .271 .343 .397 .279 .365 .399 0 1 0 0
43 2 .286 .368 .394 .253 .347 .366 0 0 1 1
There are no park adjustments or league context adjustments
so this can't be considered definative, but it's good for
a general overview. I did handle the major problem by not
including any Colorado players.
Age = Age Jul 1st of 1st year (IE there were 723 players
who had 300+ PAs at both 23 and 24)
This is followed by the average BA, OBP and SLG of the first
year then the second year
SI = number of players who improved a significant amount. (Not
I hasten to add a statistally significant amount. But it does
amount to at least 16 runs created over a full season. (using
Steve Mann's suggested metric. Basically OPS+ with simple
SB/CS built in -- IBBs removed)
II = number of players who improved by at least half that.
SD/ID opposite of SI/II.
Obviously a little more variable (because a sample size of 300+
is more volatile than 500)
David Short
>>
>> Maybe I'm chasing a pattern that shouldn't be there. But it seems to me
>> that
>> for most players with long careers, they are far more consistent than we
>> have any right and reason to expect. I'm honestly a bit puzzled by that.
> Oh, you want a good example of huge performance variations,
> try Sixto Lezcano.
I've never seen that line. Is that injury or just luck or other?
I'm kinda shocked there was a major league regular from that time period
whose name isn't familiar to me.
> Jim Hickman and Cito Gaston are good examples of upside
> flukes. Under-perform by that margin and you lose your job
> in May at the latest (and drop out of a lot of studies)
Funny you brought those up. Both flukes were in 1970 which is the year I
first started to follow the numbers in the game. In my eight year old head I
mapped their 1970 performances as normal and to this day think of both
players as decent performers. We see what we condition ourselves to see.
dfs
Ron Johnson
David Short wrote:
> "Ron Johnson" <joh...@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote in
> > David Short wrote:
> >>
> >> Maybe I'm chasing a pattern that shouldn't be there. But it seems to me
> >> that
> >> for most players with long careers, they are far more consistent than we
> >> have any right and reason to expect. I'm honestly a bit puzzled by that.
> snip
>
> > Oh, you want a good example of huge performance variations,
> > try Sixto Lezcano.
>
> I've never seen that line. Is that injury or just luck or other?
He only made one trip to the DL in his career -- and that was in
1977 (one of his best yeaars). I seem to recall he had some
chronic injury issues -- never "injured" if you know what I mean
but rarely fully healthy.
What interesting though is that his erratic pattern goes back to
his days in the minors.
Two years after hitting .270 with 10 HR in a full season of A
ball he hit .325 with 34 HR in AAA. Go figure.
> I'm kinda shocked there was a major league regular from that time period
> whose name isn't familiar to me.
A really good one too. Such an odd career arc.
>
> > Jim Hickman and Cito Gaston are good examples of upside
> > flukes. Under-perform by that margin and you lose your job
> > in May at the latest (and drop out of a lot of studies)
>
> Funny you brought those up. Both flukes were in 1970 which is the year I
> first started to follow the numbers in the game. In my eight year old head I
> mapped their 1970 performances as normal and to this day think of both
> players as decent performers.
I know exactly what you mean. I first started really following
baseball in 1969 and simply assumed Randy Hundley's 1969
was a typical year for him.
Dan may remember my friend Bob Rich. As a matter of policy he
never changed his evaluation of a player. Prevents you from
being confused by fluke years (or even two year runs like
Terry Pendleton)
> We see what we condition ourselves to see.
Yup. Check your assumptions.
Dan Szymborski
@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, joh...@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca says...
> never changed his evaluation of a player. Prevents you from
> being confused by fluke years (or even two year runs like
> Terry Pendleton)
I remember Bob, though I haven't seen him around in 6 or 7 years
or so.
JustTom
<David.N...@Wright.SPAM.Edu.PLEASE> wrote:
>"Locutus" <Loc...@Locutus.com> wrote
>> "David Short" <David.n...@Wright.spam.Edu.please>
>>> It's a test of athletic ability not a strength of character test.
>>> I would rather the team hit well enough that they went into the last two
>>> innings far enough ahead that I don't have to pretend one player has some
>>> mythical non-clutch ability.
>>
>> So you don't believe in clutch hitting?
>
>The general Sabre type opinion as expressed in BP's latest book and quoted
>by Henry...is that while clutch hitting may exist it's effects are
>miniscule.
>
>Personally no. I don't believe in clutch hitting. I think it can be
>evaluated in retrospect, but is useless as a predictor.
>I would go furthere and state that I'm not confident that situational
>hitting really exists for ....95% of the guys at the major league level.
>That's me.
>
Dude, you're a reds fan. 1 name is all you have to remember to
believe in clutch... Bo Diaz!
I tried to look up some of his numbers but am woefully lacking in
ability to find them.
Several things are now troubling me now that I tried.
First, I had forgotten that Diaz had passed, and was bummed to be
reminded.
Second, I had forgotten how he had died, and was even more bummed to
be reminded.
Finally, I'm somewhat troubled to discover that baseball-reference
acually keeps track of where MLBers die.
David Short
> On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 22:33:07 -0400, "David Short"
> believe in clutch... Bo Diaz!
heh.
> I tried to look up some of his numbers but am woefully lacking in
> ability to find them.
>
> Several things are now troubling me now that I tried.
>
> First, I had forgotten that Diaz had passed, and was bummed to be
> reminded.
37 is too young.
> Second, I had forgotten how he had died, and was even more bummed to
> be reminded.
We all have to go somehow. Going with a wrench in my hand working on my
home, would beat what happened to Ken Caminiti.
> Finally, I'm somewhat troubled to discover that baseball-reference
> acually keeps track of where MLBers die.
Sean keeps track of some weird stuff. Once I'm outside the niche of old
major league numbers, I have to go elsewhere.
Baseball Cube has old minor league numbers.
Current Major League numbers are kept at both Yahoo and ESPN, but sometimes
you have to think a bit to get what you want.
I've not found a source for all current minor league numbers, so I often end
up going to team sites and although many seem to use a central vendor, they
are pretty scattershot.
There still isn't one site with decent biographical information on most
players. Google will usually turn up a couple different sites for any one
player. Wiki is likely the best with detail, but coverage is kind of random.
dfs
JustTom
wrote:
And still have more range than JR.
Kevin McClave
<David.n...@Wright.spam.Edu.please> wrote:
>"JustTom" <t...@nomail.please> wrote in message
>
>> Finally, I'm somewhat troubled to discover that baseball-reference
>> acually keeps track of where MLBers die.
>
>Sean keeps track of some weird stuff. Once I'm outside the niche of old
>major league numbers, I have to go elsewhere.
>
>Baseball Cube has old minor league numbers.
>Current Major League numbers are kept at both Yahoo and ESPN, but sometimes
>you have to think a bit to get what you want.
>I've not found a source for all current minor league numbers, so I often end
>up going to team sites and although many seem to use a central vendor, they
>are pretty scattershot.
Current minor league numbers seem pretty good at Baseball America's site.
That's always where I've gone.
Unless by current you mean career statistics for all current minor
leaguers.
**********************************************************************
Kevin McClave
"The reward of suffering is experience." ~Aeschylus
**********************************************************************
David Short
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 08:53:38 -0400, "David Short"
> That's always where I've gone.
>
> Unless by current you mean career statistics for all current minor
> leaguers.
No. That's what's at BaseballCube career minor league (and school) numbers.
What I didn't have was a nice coherent single repository for current minor
league numbers.
Looks like Baseball America has it.
Thanks.
dfs
JustTom
David Short
>>league numbers.
>>Looks like Baseball America has it.
>
I like that one even better.
Thanks, squared.
dfs
chuckw417
"JustTom" <t...@nomail.please> wrote in message
Not Jr. Bashing but he sure has played badly lately! Freel is looking good
tonight against The Tribe.
Ron Johnson
JustTom wrote:
>
> Dude, you're a reds fan. 1 name is all you have to remember to
> believe in clutch... Bo Diaz!
>
> I tried to look up some of his numbers but am woefully lacking in
> ability to find them.
Start at www.retrosheet.org. In the links under box scores
(on the left side of the page) You'll see players. And from
there you can find both splits and a daily resuts. (for
any player back to 1957)
His career RISP numbers are unremarkable. No late/close
numbers yet, but it's just a question of Tom Ruane getting
around to it.
Kevin McClave
Looks easier to navigate than the BA stuff. Thanks, Tom.
JustTom
<kmcc...@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 19:37:32 -0400, "David Short"
><David.N...@Wright.SPAM.Edu.PLEASE> wrote:
>
>>"JustTom" <t...@nomail.please> wrote in message
>>> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 16:09:12 -0400, "David Short"
>>>>What I didn't have was a nice coherent single repository for current minor
>>>>league numbers.
>>>>Looks like Baseball America has it.
>>>
>>> What about http://www.minorleaguebaseball.com/app/milb/stats/ ?
>>
>>I like that one even better.
>>Thanks, squared.
>
>Looks easier to navigate than the BA stuff. Thanks, Tom.
>
Just call me Occam ; )
JustTom
<joh...@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote:
It's a pity SAS doesn't come with a "baseball useless factoid" module,
or I'd be all over it. My manual statistical skills fade further with
each passing year.
David Short
>>(on the left side of the page) You'll see players. And from
>>there you can find both splits and a daily resuts. (for
>>any player back to 1957)
>>
>>His career RISP numbers are unremarkable. No late/close
>>numbers yet, but it's just a question of Tom Ruane getting
>>around to it.
>>
>
> It's a pity SAS doesn't come with a "baseball useless factoid" module,
> or I'd be all over it. My manual statistical skills fade further with
> each passing year.
I've you've any database-fu Seab Lahman's database is a good way to kill a
week or two. Jump certainly has a dbf import feature. From what I remember
of SAS, it had a DBF reading module as well.
just fwiw.
dsf
JustTom
I was being facetious with the sas reference. I had a punchline of
"but who has a mainframe in the basement", but figured the nerdometer
would go off the hook. This is a baseball group for chryssakes.
At first, I thought '-fu" was some kind of acronym that I wasn't
familiar with. Thinking further though, is "database-fu" a
manglination of "kung-fu", and were you referencing db skills?
And oddly (or coincidentally, or both), yes, I do have database-fu,
mainly the "big iron" type, as that is what I do for a living.
David Short
>>week or two. Jump certainly has a dbf import feature. From what I remember
>>of SAS, it had a DBF reading module as well.
>>
>
> I was being facetious with the sas reference. I had a punchline of
> "but who has a mainframe in the basement", but figured the nerdometer
> would go off the hook. This is a baseball group for chryssakes.
>
> At first, I thought '-fu" was some kind of acronym that I wasn't
> familiar with. Thinking further though, is "database-fu" a
> manglination of "kung-fu", and were you referencing db skills?
>
> And oddly (or coincidentally, or both), yes, I do have database-fu,
> mainly the "big iron" type, as that is what I do for a living.
Sorry bout that. It's Sean Lahman, not Seab Leahman.
The database is at http://www.baseball1.com/statistics/
It's an access database. I knew that. It's been a long time since it was
just a dbf.
If you work with big-iron stuff. I'm sure you can do what you need in access
to push it into SAS.
dfs
Ron Johnson
JustTom wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 09:13:54 -0400, "David Short"
> <David.n...@Wright.spam.Edu.please> wrote:
>
> >"JustTom" <t...@nomail.please> wrote in message
> >> On 24 Jun 2006 01:28:49 -0700, "Ron Johnson"
> >>>Start at www.retrosheet.org. In the links under box scores
> >>>(on the left side of the page) You'll see players. And from
> >>>there you can find both splits and a daily resuts. (for
> >>>any player back to 1957)
> >>>
> >>>His career RISP numbers are unremarkable. No late/close
> >>>numbers yet, but it's just a question of Tom Ruane getting
> >>>around to it.
> >>>
> >>
> >> It's a pity SAS doesn't come with a "baseball useless factoid" module,
> >> or I'd be all over it. My manual statistical skills fade further with
> >> each passing year.
> >
> >I've you've any database-fu Seab Lahman's database is a good way to kill a
> >week or two. Jump certainly has a dbf import feature. From what I remember
> >of SAS, it had a DBF reading module as well.
> >
>
> I was being facetious with the sas reference. I had a punchline of
> "but who has a mainframe in the basement", but figured the nerdometer
> would go off the hook. This is a baseball group for chryssakes.
Yes but.
Tom Ruane has done all sorts of worderful stuff (He's the guy
who's produced splits going back to 1957, reached on error
data for everybody and all sorts of stuff that many fans
really enjoy. (Tom's an IBM database guy in real life)
Nobody's going to get too annoyed with nerdishness
that produces stuff they're interested in.
>
> At first, I thought '-fu" was some kind of acronym that I wasn't
> familiar with. Thinking further though, is "database-fu" a
> manglination of "kung-fu", and were you referencing db skills?
>
> And oddly (or coincidentally, or both), yes, I do have database-fu,
> mainly the "big iron" type, as that is what I do for a living.
Mostly small iron myself.
JustTom
<joh...@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote:
Now it's getting a little creepy. I, too, am an IBM database guy in
real life; DB2 Sysprog to be exact.
And no, I'm not Newport Tom, Tom Ruane, or Tom Tuttle.
I'm JustTom ; )
BTW, how is Ruane pronounced?
Is it like Dwayne, Roowaahn, Rain, or ???
>Nobody's going to get too annoyed with nerdishness
>that produces stuff they're interested in.
>>
>> At first, I thought '-fu" was some kind of acronym that I wasn't
>> familiar with. Thinking further though, is "database-fu" a
>> manglination of "kung-fu", and were you referencing db skills?
>>
>> And oddly (or coincidentally, or both), yes, I do have database-fu,
>> mainly the "big iron" type, as that is what I do for a living.
>
>Mostly small iron myself.
I have a P/390 humming alongside my knee right now, just for grins.
Ron Johnson
JustTom wrote:
> On 28 Jun 2006 12:36:41 -0700, "Ron Johnson"
> <joh...@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote:
>
> >
> >JustTom wrote:
> >>
> >> I was being facetious with the sas reference. I had a punchline of
> >> "but who has a mainframe in the basement", but figured the nerdometer
> >> would go off the hook. This is a baseball group for chryssakes.
> >
> >Yes but.
> >
> >Tom Ruane has done all sorts of worderful stuff (He's the guy
> >who's produced splits going back to 1957, reached on error
> >data for everybody and all sorts of stuff that many fans
> >really enjoy. (Tom's an IBM database guy in real life)
> >
>
> Now it's getting a little creepy. I, too, am an IBM database guy in
> real life; DB2 Sysprog to be exact.
>
> And no, I'm not Newport Tom, Tom Ruane, or Tom Tuttle.
> I'm JustTom ; )
>
> BTW, how is Ruane pronounced?
>
> Is it like Dwayne, Roowaahn, Rain, or ???
Roowaahn -- or at least that's how he was introduced to me and
he didn't object.
>
>
> >Nobody's going to get too annoyed with nerdishness
> >that produces stuff they're interested in.
> >>
> >> At first, I thought '-fu" was some kind of acronym that I wasn't
> >> familiar with. Thinking further though, is "database-fu" a
> >> manglination of "kung-fu", and were you referencing db skills?
> >>
> >> And oddly (or coincidentally, or both), yes, I do have database-fu,
> >> mainly the "big iron" type, as that is what I do for a living.
> >
> >Mostly small iron myself.
>
> I have a P/390 humming alongside my knee right now, just for grins.
Best I can do is production systems on some mighty old Suns.
Though I share an office with a guy who's still keeping some Vaxen
running. (To read really old data tapes.)
JustTom
<joh...@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote:
>
>JustTom wrote:
>> On 28 Jun 2006 12:36:41 -0700, "Ron Johnson"
>> <joh...@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote:
>> >Mostly small iron myself.
>>
>> I have a P/390 humming alongside my knee right now, just for grins.
>
>Best I can do is production systems on some mighty old Suns.
>
they e15000s now?) to manage a middleware product called db2 connect.
>Though I share an office with a guy who's still keeping some Vaxen
>running. (To read really old data tapes.)
>
And now the geek alert is going 5 alarmer. My first "box" of any
kind was a VAX terminal, a 300 baud modem, and a 9pin printer that I
bought off of a professor in college for $300 so that I could do my
homework at home instead of trotting out to the labs in the middle of
the night. Could get to a pdp-11, an ibm 360, and maybe a 3090?
But enough geezin', as we've veered way beyond the pale.
To bring back OnTopic......
Caesar Geronimo!
David Short
I've got a couple of alpha stations running VMS within 10 feet of me. The
last VAX I had filled a room.
dfs