Beltran And Wright In The Clutch
by James Kannengieser on Mar 6, 2009 8:00 AM EST
Email
PrintClutch hitting exists. That is, a walk-off home run or game tying single in the bottom of the 9th inning is a clutch hit. However, objective evidence has shown that players generally do not demonstrate an ability to perform exceptionally better or worse in the clutch compared to their performance in all situations. This does not stop many Met fans from calling Carlos Beltran a choker, mainly because of an unfortunate called strike three, or David Wright "un-clutch" because of a certain September 2008 strikeout. It is my perception that these two players are the most frequent targets of the "he isn't clutch" rhetoric from Met fans. Are they deserving of such criticism?
Any number of metrics can help answer this question. Baseball-Reference has some great leverage stats, developed by Tom Tango, which separate a player's offensive stats into high leverage (1.5+ LI), medium leverage (0.7 through 1.5 LI), and low leverage (below 0.7 LI) situations. The higher the leverage index (LI), the more crucial the plate appearance. For example, the LI during Wright's aforementioned September strikeout was 2.28. The LI during his first plate appearance that same game was 0.40. I looked at Beltran and Wright's BA/OBP/SLG in high leverage situations during their Mets careers, as well as performance with runners in scoring position (RISP) and in "late & close" situations. Late & close means in the 7th inning or later with the team tied, ahead by one, or the tying run on deck. Their overall stats while wearing a Mets uniform are also provided. Here are the numbers:
| Carlos Beltran | PA | BA | OBP | SLG |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 2609 | .275 | .362 | .505 |
| High Leverage | 473 | .299 | .390 | .552 |
| RISP | 774 | .293 | .388 | .529 |
| Late & Close | 372 | .269 | .382 | .430 |
| David Wright | PA | BA | OBP | SLG |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3048 | .309 | .389 | .533 |
| High Leverage | 605 | .315 | .397 | .531 |
| RISP | 895 | .300 | .394 | .501 |
| Late & Close | 455 | .307 | .407 | .483 |
Notes for each player:
Carlos Beltran
- Beltran's numbers in high leverage spots and with RISP are better than his overall performance during his time with the Mets.
- His BA and SLG in late & close situations are slightly worse, but not to such a degree that he can be declared an underachiever in pivotal spots.
- September 2007 OPS: .882
- September 2008 OPS: 1.086
- The only evidence suggesting Beltran is prone to choke in big spots is anecdotal.
David Wright
- Wright's numbers in all situations are remarkably similar. His SLG with RISP and in late & close spots is slightly lower, but can anyone complain about an OPS in the .890-.900 range in both situations?
- September 2007 OPS: 1.034
- September 2008 OPS: .998
- Wright's poor 2008 season with RISP is well documented (.703 OPS), but in the long term he has been just fine. Call it an aberration.
A player might have a down year in clutch categories, but this is not indicative of an inherent weakness. Nor does it mean a player deserves to be branded with the "un-clutch" tag for the rest of his career. So if Beltran strikes out to end a close game in April, sit back, smile, and remind yourself: "small sample size."
40 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Key word in your comment:
“should”. We can only hope.
'Oh yes, I know all about that duty-of-a-citizen stuff. It doesn't go. There are exceptions to every rule, and this was one of them. When a man risks his liberty to come and root at a ball-game, you've got to hand it to him. He isn't a crook. He's a fan.'
by Catsmeat Potter-Pirbright on Mar 6, 2009 8:37 AM EST up reply actions
I think
fans get so hopped up to see that big moment that they come to expect their big player to come through. The fact that both of those Ks you mentioned are etched into my mind and the mind’s of everyone else in this room tells you something. So, as you mentioned, you get players being judged on one at bat over the course of 3 years.
Clutch doens’t seem to be sustainable. Good players do as well as they always do in important situations. Oh, except Captain Clutch, who slugs 2.052 in high leverage situations. Look it up
by HotChipWillBreakYourLegs on Mar 6, 2009 8:38 AM EST reply actions
Clutch
Numbers! Who cares? I can see with my own eyes how unclutch these guys are….
Nice work James. But can prove A-Rod is clutch? Now that’d be something.
Look at his career numbers, small sample size exists for all
Career – .967 OPS
Bases Empty – .954
Runners On – .981
RISP – .957
RISP w/2 outs – .889
Bases Juiced – 1.121
September – .922
Pre-AS – .965
Post-AS – .970
ARod
Overall: PA 9076, .306/.389/.578
High Leverage: PA 1626, .305/.393/.582
RISP: PA 2602, .303/.404/.553
Close & Late: PA 1207, .279/.375/.530
that said
Here are his OPS’ in high leverage situations during his years with the Yankees
08: .813
07: 1.146
06: .867
05: .875
04: .964
So he was right at his career level in ‘04, then well below it in ’05 and ’06 (after his awful playoff performance in the ’04 ALCS), was incredible in his MVP season, and way below his standards last season. I can kinda maybe sorta understand why Yankee fans are convinced he’s a choker – he was awful when it mattered in ‘04 (you know, when they were blowing 4 straight to the Red Sox) and then wasn’t “clutch” the following 2 seasons or last season. So really, in their eyes, he had 1 good season as a Yankee, and was pretty bad in the playoffs then, too.
Bottom line.
ARod has very similar triple slash stats to Mr. October, Reggie Jackson and better triple slash stats than Mr. November, Derek Jeter.
Yankee fans need to settle down. The reason they haven’t won since 2000 is because Boston and TB have improved and their pitching has sucked.
But, but, but
They’re part of the core. They’re your core guys. Core guys. This core needs to be dismantled.
Francessa’s not going to like this.
opposing pitchers
Don’t forget, these are the two best hitters on the Mets. In high leverage situations, they are probably facing better-than-average pitching. If you are the opposing manager, you want your best pitcher out there against those two.
Even if they were worse in High Leverage or Late-and-Close (which they’re not), you would still have to control for facing a better pitcher.
by rogue409 on Mar 6, 2009 11:22 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt
> This does not stop many Met fans from calling Carlos Beltran a choker, mainly because of an unfortunate called strike three, or David Wright “un-clutch” because of a certain September 2008 strikeout.
That’s hogwash. This is observed over his 4 years as a Met. Every game. Don’t pigeonhole the opinion of those you don’t agree with to 2006. Yes, that’s an example, but the real choking was Cliff Floyd, who couldn’t advance the runners, not Beltran…Beltran simply didn’t come through, but he needed at least a double, probably more to make the impact we needed.
This is a public blog, and we all have our opinions. We don’t need to hate each other for our opinions or form sides in some Civil War. What we can all agree on is we are all ROOTING for Beltran in those “big spots.” I’ve been following this team for 23 years, from New York to Colorado.
My opinion of the salary-to-clutch ration is an opinion of past performance. It’s never an indicator of what I hope future performance is and I take ZERO satisfaction when my opinion is reinforced — and am the first to cheer publicly here when he does perform in these situations.
So enough with this garbage. We’re all together behind Carlos Beltran.
The 2009 NY Mets: WE GOT K-ROD! OMG, Putz, too! Sign Lowe! Lowe's a Brave. Sign Manny! Tim Redding, WTF? Sign Manny! Sheets or Perez? SHEETS! Perez?? Oh, Sheets is hurt -- good job, Minaya! WTF?! SIGN MANNY!
See my comment below
And if you think I wrote this simply to stick it to you personally, well, you’re wrong. If you can honestly look at the numbers presented above and still call Beltran a choke-artist then I don’t know what to tell you. Fin.
by James Kannengieser on Mar 6, 2009 2:17 PM EST up reply actions
not that it really matters anymore
but it was actually Willie Randolph who choked there not Floyd or Beltran. Floyd never should have bat in the inning at all.
"This is observed over his 4 years as a Met. Every game."
The bottom line is that you need to admit that your observations are wrong. Beltran has more than lived up to his contract.
I’m not one to be so brash as to tell another person that their opinions are wrong, but I am comfortable doing it here. The Beltran signing may go down as one of the best free agent acquisitions in history. His contract became a bargain fairly quickly, he plays superlative defense in CF, and other than 2005, his bat has been great. Over the last 3 seasons, Beltran’s average VORP has been 59.53… that’s pretty awesome.
Finally, as for your salary to clutch ratio, I think this article puts your argument to bed. Look, I’m not telling you to change your opinions because you’re entitled to them. I just think when it comes to Beltran, it might be time to give it a rest. The evidence that has been presented is substantial and all you are able to counter with is that you believe Beltran isn’t clutch.
Nope.
Those numbers encompass more situations than I’m talking about. I don’t refer to RISP or situations like that. I mean the balls-to-the-walls situations. We can talk about “High Leverage” situations in the vagueness of all that all you want, but if you read all my prior posts, I am referring to very small sub-set of clutch situations that are end-of-game, big-situation scenarios.
I have never once referred to Beltran always failing when a man is on 2nd. If he did, he wouldn’t have the overall numbers he does.
You’re article is a response to the mis-characterizations made against me the last two years. Hope you had fun with that.
The 2009 NY Mets: WE GOT K-ROD! OMG, Putz, too! Sign Lowe! Lowe's a Brave. Sign Manny! Tim Redding, WTF? Sign Manny! Sheets or Perez? SHEETS! Perez?? Oh, Sheets is hurt -- good job, Minaya! WTF?! SIGN MANNY!
"I am referring to very small sub-set of clutch situations that are end-of-game, big-situation scenarios."
First of all, it wasn’t my article.
Your argument is based totally on conjecture. Unless you’ve been charting Beltran’s results in your narrowly defined situations then your opinion is nearly unprovable, unless someone feels like spending hours pouring over play-by-play data. And even if Beltran performs poorly in the “ZaBlanc Clutch Metric” you’ve defined the situation so narrowly that any kind of conclusions drawn from those parameters is pretty much worthless (and this works both ways.) Hope you have fun with that.
Eh, this is a fail.
You may watch, but apparently you don’t take in the information. You see what you want to see.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
???
“My opinion of the salary-to-clutch ration is an opinion of past performance. It’s never an indicator of what I hope future performance is and I take ZERO satisfaction when my opinion is reinforced”
What?
by James Kannengieser on Mar 6, 2009 2:14 PM EST reply actions
Maybe I can clarify what ZB is saying here
First of all, he meant to say “ratio” not “ration” – that’s just a typo. What he’s saying is, he thinks Beltran hasn’t been clutch enough in the past to live up to his high salary. He doesn’t root against Beltran based on this distaste and it doesn’t make him happy when he [believes he is] proven right.
That being said – look at the numbers Eric posted, ZaBlanc. They just don’t back up your opinion.
OK
I agree that everyone is entitled to an opinion, even “Carlos Beltran hasn’t been clutch.” But people shouldn’t be offended if they’re asked for a basis/support for that opinion.
by James Kannengieser on Mar 6, 2009 2:58 PM EST up reply actions
The whole thing is kind of ridiculous.
Yes you are entitled to your opinion but when you stick to a position after being given irrefutable evidence to the contrary it’s just absurd. This is like saying 2+2=5 and when someone proves you wrong you say " well I’m entitled to my opinion".
The more I read my comments
The more i realize it looks like I don’t agree with James. Trust me I do. I just feel the need to make that clear.
pssh
there you go again, bragging about carlos beltran’s stats.
HELLO HELLO MR WILPON. WE WANT THE MANSION NOT THE CONDO.
seriously
stop bragging and go buy some rings from Jared, b/c rings are all that matter. Whichever team has the most Rings wins, like that movie with the Hobbits.
no
Only the One Ring matters.
The one that says champtions
If you like it, then you should of put a ring on it.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
Alright, my mind is made up.
As soon as I reinstall a graphing utility onto my computer, I’m compiling the world’s largest pro-Beltran database of stats, which I will then unleash in a FanPost.
"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw
I think it would be better
if you made a graph of players with rings and their impact on players without rings, or something like that
The numbers actually support the hoi polloi.
Taken literally those who say, “Numbers! Who cares? I can see with my own eyes how unclutch these guys are….” are actually vindicated by the charts above (stick with me before clicking “reply”.) Taken literally, both Wright and Beltran fail to reach base around 60% of the time in “clutch” situations. In short, they fail in most of their atbats in “clutch” situations.
Now, what these discussions reveal is not that these fans’ eyes are lying, it’s that they don’t place what they’re seeing in the proper context. Although their eyes see Beltran and Wright failing in 60% of their “clutch” atbats, they should take a moment to allow their brain to tell their eyes, “Relax guys, this means they succeeded around 40% of the time, which is All Star level production.”
This is a point I try to make to a lot of my friends and that I have tried to make on the internets for a few years now. Baseball is a game of failure, and in our instant gratification, NOW NOW NOW society, fans do not take a moment to place what they’re observing into the proper context. I wish I was kidding when I tell you that someone has actually said to me, after Wright went 2 for 5 (no RBIs or anything, just 2 hits), my friend would say to me, “Wow, Wright didn’t really do much today huh?” I just shake my head and say, “You realize that if he ‘only’ went 2 for 5 every game he would hit .400 for the season?”
Most fans exhibit short-term thinking and it's a long-term game
Hence baseball talk radio. Hence people clamoring to sign Pedro after his 3-inning dominance over the Netherlands today.
by James Kannengieser on Mar 8, 2009 12:09 AM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
