Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the
Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.
Wednesday, July 27, 2005 |
TINSTAACHA
Comments:
I don't know that I'd say that. I just think it can't be reliably measured, and therefore it can't really be predicted. Clutch hitters probably exist. It's just that we can't figure out who they are until their careers are pretty much over. And as a skill, it's unreliable.
Well, it can be measured. Just not to an extent that we can reliably use it as a predictor. Average with RISP can be measured. OPS in close and late situations can be measured. It just isn't a good predictor of what that player will do the next time in that situation.
Ergo, it is not a skill. Bill James has been right on a lot of things before, but he's wrong on this one.
A lot of things can be measured that don't equate to a skill. That's why most statistics are useless.
As you said, AVG w/ RISP and OPS in pressure situations is a measure of past success and in no way predictive of future success. That tells me the difference between those stats and a player’s overall numbers are a product of small sample size - and nothing else.
As you said, AVG w/ RISP and OPS in pressure situations is a measure of past success and in no way predictive of future success. That tells me the difference between those stats and a player’s overall numbers are a product of small sample size - and nothing else.
No. I mention it in reference to William’s comment about using those statistics as an indicator of future performance. So I took that is inside a season or over a few seasons.
It should also be noted that, as the linked report showed, over a career the difference is (with a few exceptions) generally insignificant. But even for most of those "exceptions" the small-sample size still applies:
"One of the things that bothers me about the last list is that 12 of the 20 players on it have less than 1000 at-bats with runners in scoring position. Of the 727 players in the study, only a little more than 30% (222) fell into that category. If the differences we're looking at were caused more by chance than talent, you'd expect to see players with small sample sizes at the two extremes."
The same applies for many of the names on the "most clutch" list as well.
"One of the things that bothers me about the last list is that 12 of the 20 players on it have less than 1000 at-bats with runners in scoring position. Of the 727 players in the study, only a little more than 30% (222) fell into that category. If the differences we're looking at were caused more by chance than talent, you'd expect to see players with small sample sizes at the two extremes."
The same applies for many of the names on the "most clutch" list as well.
Newer› ‹Older
 |
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.