The Simontific Method

by Eric Simon on Dec 22, 2005 12:37 PM EST

I wrote an article at MetsGeek today about Paul Lo Duca and whether or not he is "clutch". We already know that he's a "gamer", but I wanted to see if there was any evidence to suggest that Lo Duca performed better in "clutch" situations than in others.

(MetsGeek.com)

Also, I finally figured out how to add a poll to the right sidebar. The color scheme currently makes it impossible to see the number of votes, but it's all good.

Tweet Comment 4 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

hitting with RISP a skill?

Until very recently, and as far as I know still among the majority of baseball stat-heads, hitting with runners in scoring position was not thought to be a skill, and variations were thought to be a matter of statistical noise, just random variation as you'd expect in a large population. Now, as far as I know, this is still the state of our understanding, so I'm still very skeptical of analyses of "clutchness" until somebody can show me real evidence that it exists. But over at Sons of Sam Horn, the extremely smart (and currently employed by the Red Sox) analyst Eric Van has recently been asserting that, based on private studies which he can't share, he's conclusively established that hitting with runners on is a skill which is definitely possessed by some hitters more than others (his pet examples are the anti-clutch Alfonso Soriano and the according-to-him-demonstrably-clutch Manny Ramirez). I'm waiting for public evidence, and from anyone else I'd reject the claim out of hand; but Eric Van has been right about a lot of things before.

by anonymous on Dec 22, 2005 8:43 PM EST reply actions

Clutch

Sabermetrics all but refutes the idea of "clutch" hitters. Any number of studies have been conducted on the topic, and in general the conclusion has been that players who have hit well in pressure situations one year don't hit particularly well the next year. That is to say, clutch hitting doesn't correlate very well from year to year, as does, say, on-base percentage.

I agree with this theorem in general; I think there probably are players who have shown a propensity for hitting better in clutch situations than at other times, but I am not so sure that this is a discernable skill as much as it is happenstance, like getting struck by lightning multiple times.

The problem is that many contemporary baseball people -- managers, broadcasters, etc. -- slap the "clutch" label on anyone who suits their fancy. More often than not, the players who hit well in clutch situations are the same players who hit well in all situations. To put it another way, good hitters hit well in the clutch; lousy hitters hit poorly in the clutch.

by Eric Simon on Dec 22, 2005 10:23 PM EST reply actions

RE: Clutch

In general studies have shown that clutch behavior is inconsistent from season to season. The real reason is that, given enough at bats, EVERYONE reverts to their norm. This not only includes clutch statistics but L/R splits, etc.

The real reason is that anyone, if they do something enough, gets used to the conditions in which they play. However, the problem is that on the short term, people can definitely let their nerves get the better of them. For many, acting in the post season can be somewhat disarming, much in the way playing a recital in front of a crowd for the first time can be. It's just something different; everyone adapts but some adapt quicker than others.

This is probably a big reason why clutch statistics are so volatile. However, the question becomes "should we reward those who succeed in clutch situations over those who don't, even if it's a skill that will fade relatively quickly?" In the end, I think the answer is a sort of yes. Even if it's not skill, it is an important factor in the short run, and in long term studies, more often than not, it will even out.

by Alex Nelson on Dec 23, 2005 10:30 AM EST reply actions