http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...atclutchhitters

 

A baseball fan and statistics buff has proven that clutch hitters really do exist, putting statistics behind the obvious.

 

The new study, by math and economics student Elan Fuld of the University of Pennsylvania, was announced by the university Thursday.

 

Fuld defined a clutch hitter as one who hits better at more important moments. He studied stats on 1,075 Major League players in the 1974-1992 seasons.

 

Factors determining a clutch hit: how many bases were occupied, the score at the time, the inning, and how many outs. He also counted sacrifice flies, in which a runner scores but no hit is recorded.

 

"What I found was that, when I included sacrifice flys in the analysis, there was overwhelming evidence that there were clutch hitters," Fuld said.

 

So who were the greatest under pressure? Frank Duffy, Eddie Murray and Luis Gomez stood out.

 

Bill Buckner, known as a choke artist for his Game 6

World Series error in 1986 that many remember as costing Boston the championship, was statistically proven to be a clutch hitter, too.

 

Fans and players have always known there's a lot of psychology to hitting.

 

"Once situational importance rose to around at least a certain level," Fuld explained, "the player would start to think this is very important and start doing something that makes him hit better, if he's clutch, or panics and does something that makes him hit worse, if he's a choke hitter."

It is hard to draw firm conclusions without seeing the study itself. However, from what I have read, I have to believe that this is all a big pile of nonsense.

 

I only have a basic training in Statistics, but I do know a few crucial facts. First off, we have the issue of a normal probability curve. When you take a sample of 1,075 players, you are going to see a handful of outliers in their performances from situation to situation. They do not prove the existance of what you are trying to study. Let's look at one of the players mentioned as clutch, Luis Gomez.

 

Gomez carried a career OPS+ of 40. His career batting average was .210, and his career slugging percentage was .239. He played shortstop, but his range was not very good. He was used primarily as a defensive replacement. And here is my favorite statistic, in 28 stolen base attempts, he was successful six times.

 

But this Luis Gomez fellow has a secret. With runners in scoring position, he turns from Mario Mendoza into Brad Ausmus. With runners in scoring position, Luis Gomez hits .262, with a .314 slugging percentage. So he's clutch! Of course, those statistics come in 290 at bats, so I guess Penn University students do not learn about sample size until their senior year.

 

Here is the more important question. Gomez was out of the majors by the time he was 30, because he could not hit, run, or field. If he was such a good clutch hitter, why did he not hit when his failure to do so cost him a spot in the Major Leagues. When your livelihood is at stake, does that not count as "clutch?"

 

Frank Duffy has much the same problems, although at least he could field a little and play regularly (even if it was for the Cleveland Indians). Duffy raised his OPS 80 points with runners in scoring position, and he has 598 at bats to prove it!

 

Here is what troubles me most, however...

 

"What I found was that, when I included sacrifice flys in the analysis, there was overwhelming evidence that there were clutch hitters," Fuld said.

 

Now, did it honestly take including sacrifice flies in the analysis to prove clutch hitting? That hardly seems like a slam dunk, open and shut case.

 

Here is the basic problem. The sample size is so small with these players that swings in statistical performance do not prove anything except that you will see swings in performance in small samples. Look at Ichiro Suzuki. Coming into this season, he was a .339 career hitter. Did he get there by hitting .339 every year? No. His single season batting average carries a standard deviation of 27 points. Some years it swings as far as 60 points. And that is in over 700 plate appearances.

 

Now, I could be wrong, and this kid could have found something that we have all missed over the years. But I doubt it. I think he just found the outliers that exist on a normal statistical curve.

I would argue that clutch hitting does exist inasmuch as certain players have a better mentality for hitting with added presure and seem to have a flair for the dramatic.

 

David Ortiz, in the last two season has come up huge over and over again in major situations. See games 4 and 5 of the 2004 ALCS.

 

However the sample size is pretty small. Jeter who was hitting well over his regualar season avg. in the post season has come back down to earth as his postseason ABs have gone up. But he has several huge hits for his team in the post season.

 

You can look at certain guys and see fear in their eyes when they are up in certain situations. Some players, like Manny don't seem to react differently to anything, and some seem to take their game up a notch.

As far as David Ortiz goes, a lot of his success was that the Yankees had absolutely no left handed pitching of any quality, and that put Ortiz in a position to succeed. Ortiz is a fearsome hitter. He's like that every time out.

 

Same with Jeter. He's gotten many big postseason hits. Why? Because when you bring a quality hitter to the plate, he is going to collect some big hits. It does not mean a player is BETTER in the clutch. It just means he is a good hitter with an opportunity.

 

Some players seem to have a flair for the dramatic. Reggie Jackson for example. But Reggie hit very poorly in the league championship series. Generally, I find the more at bats you give a player in clutch situations, the more his statistics tend to reflect his real life statistics.

 

It is a difficult issue to measure, because of the small sample sizes, along with outside influences. Who can say that good or bad postseason performances are not simply the result of fatigue at the end of a long season?

 

Truthfully, I have no problem with clutch used in the past tense. Bob Gibson came up big in the postseason. He went 7-2 in nine games, with a 1.89 ERA. He absolutely came up big, no matter how the circumstances, and he deserves all the credit for it. But clutch performance as a predictive model is an extremely hazy area, and I have not seen any substantial findings that would hold any value to a major league team.

As far as David Ortiz goes, a lot of his success was that the Yankees had absolutely no left handed pitching of any quality, and that put Ortiz in a position to succeed.  Ortiz is a fearsome hitter.  He's like that every time out.

Ortiz has come up huge in a number of other situations, as well. In Game 7 of he 2003 ALCS he homered off David Wells (LHP), which should have put that game to rest, but shit happened. He then doubled off Rivera in extra innings but was stranded.

 

He hit the 2004 ALDS winning walk off against Jarod Washburn (LHP).

 

He hit about .400 in the post season last year with a handful of HRs and a ton of RBIs.

 

He did have a relatively poor 2003 post season, save the aforementioned HR off Wells and the game winning double off Foulke in Game 3 off the 2003 ALDS against Oakland.

 

He also clinched the Wild Card in 2003 with a walk off against Baltimore.

 

The list goes on and on. Next time he hits a walk off HR the Boston Globe will list all of his big hits again. They do it every time he does something big.

 

Ortiz, seems to enjoy and thrive in the big stage with the pressure on. Some players shrink up and disapear. Barry Bonds did for years, until he got to face the crappy Angels starting pitching in 2002.

 

Same with Jeter.  He's gotten many big postseason hits.  Why?  Because when you bring a quality hitter to the plate, he is going to collect some big hits.  It does not mean a player is BETTER in the clutch.  It just means he is a good hitter with an opportunity.

But he also has to come through in tough situations. The walk off against Kim in the 2001 WS is a prime example, the 2B off Pedro in Game 7 of the 2003 ALCS, etc...

 

Some players seem to have a flair for the dramatic.  Reggie Jackson for example.  But Reggie hit very poorly in the league championship series.  Generally, I find the more at bats you give a player in clutch situations, the more his statistics tend to reflect his real life statistics.

That is probably true. But no statistic can really measure the pressure of Game 7 or whatever. A player could go 0-3 every game of the postseason and then knock in the winning run in his last AB. He will have only hit .250 in the series but will have come up big when it mattered most. I suppose the counter argument would be that had he gotten a hit earlier he may not have had to come up with the big hit in the 9th.

 

It is a difficult issue to measure, because of the small sample sizes, along with outside influences.  Who can say that good or bad postseason performances are not simply the result of fatigue at the end of a long season?

Fatigue and injury certainly play a part in it. I think that is the main reason Jeter has not been as good in the playoffs the last few years. He has played a full season (minus some injury time) and in the playoffs every year of his career. Ortiz's knee was fucked up in 2003.

 

Truthfully, I have no problem with clutch used in the past tense.  Bob Gibson came up big in the postseason.  He went 7-2 in nine games, with a 1.89 ERA.  He absolutely came up big, no matter how the circumstances, and he deserves all the credit for it.  But clutch performance as a predictive model is an extremely hazy area, and I have not seen any substantial findings that would hold any value to a major league team.

I have no problem with it being used in the present so long as one can point to multiple moments to prove his point, as I did with Papi and Jeter.

The problem is that while Jeter has had several clutch hits, he has also fared poorly in numerous postseasons. The 2004 ALCS comes to mind. Jeter has had somewhere around the range of 400 postseason at bats. You will see a few heroics if you give anyone that many chances.

 

It is hard for me to judge Ortiz because quite honestly, he hits whether or not he is in the clutch. That he has several clutch hits does not prove he is or is not a clutch hitter. He is a great hitter regardless of the situation, and those guys will produce.

 

Here is another problem with the issue. Let's say clutch hitting exists as a tangible skill. Like any skill, that could change over time. A player gets more postseason experience, and he learns to deal with the pressure. Or vice vers, for some reason. That's my real problem with clutch hitting. It is a hazy definition, and unfortunately many analysts use it to prop up their favorites for lack of better evidence. David Bell is often listed as a clutch hitter for reasons that escape me.

I think comfortability can be learned and that it is big part of clutch hitting.

 

It is hard for me to judge Ortiz because quite honestly, he hits whether or not he is in the clutch. That he has several clutch hits does not prove he is or is not a clutch hitter. He is a great hitter regardless of the situation, and those guys will produce.

But not all great hitters come through when it counts most. Ortiz never gets scared or nervous the guy is a machine. Some others tend to fade when the pressure is on. I already mentioned him but pre-steroids and Angel's starting pitching he was a miserable post-season failure and he is one of the best hitters ever.