>> Ok, you are correctly stating a valid argument, but relating it misleadingly to the overall argument (in my opinion) based on an irrelevant premise. Sure, one shot has no bearing on the next shot-- in and of itself. But, what about the factors contributing to the streakiness of the player? Is he rested, not injured, and generally prepared for the defense layed out? Are his teammates setting picks, running his favorite plays, wearing down their defense? I've watched enough (and played) basketball to know that there ARE certain times when the "streakiness" can be embraced.

I know I feel it when I play. It's very intuitive, yet completely wrong. That's why the field is interesting to me.

Really, my point was not to confuse "streakiness" with what is going on in a situation to cause an observed streak. Let's not even consider previous successes/failures counting towards our successive attempts, but look at the situation affecting the outcome(s). Are they favorable? Then you're probably going to see a positive affect on our "streak". This is different from looking at the shots as a sequence of unrelated events, but rather as a product of an external, reproducible factor(s). That is all.

If you can bust those stats, you can resolve one of the thornier issues among baseball stathead geeks. Basically, the argument is about whether "clutch hitting" exists at all, with the two sides settling somewhere between "utterly undetectable" and "very minor".

"if I want to know one hitter's batting average on grass fields, during the day, with a runner on second and 1 out, I can get it." (sorry from other post)

No stat-busting now, sorry, but... yes, and I'd define a "clutch" hitter as someone who's better at hitting in this situation than the average, or even decent hitter in similar situations. There's some players who excel at this. Due to hand eye coordination and the ability to know where to hit the ball where the defense isn't for that particular situation. There are hitters who are better at this than others. Usually you'd bat them in the third or fifth place if you were even a mediocre manager. Better managers have a greater tendancy toward figuring this out on a day-to-day basis than others. 2002 Angels. 'Nuff said* . Someone such as Barry Bonds may or may not be this sort of hitter but the point is moot when you have other skills, namely the ability to hit the ball over the fence or off the first baseman's skull if he has to. Heehee.

In any case, this sort of statistic is still moot to our point; specifically, in that "streakiness" is not necessarily tied to "clutchiness". A reasonable manager would realize that his hitter is hitting well, or not, and choose the correct hitter accordingly. Sure you can take a stat over a given period and claim it as an absolute, but really, there's an integral summation of specific at bats for which a hitter is more or less effective. Averaged out over the entire scope you get your statistic. But real people will see the streaks involved, and I'd argue this is why good managers are good managers.

I guess I didn't figure that a published, peer-reviewed economist's study counts as "nice ammo".

Yep, that was a bad choice of words by me. I suppose I should have used the term "cool points to discuss". Because they are .

Feel free to bring global warming to the off-topic board. I know a thing or two about it.

Maybe I will. I, on the other hand, don't know too much about it. But would REALLY enjoy hearing intelligent discussion without any pulling of heartstrings or discussion of dead dolphins and such. Which is what my virgin ears are getting this year about the subject.. for whatever reason.

* The 2002 Angels had arguably the most mediocre team ever, but were uncanny in having the right people hitting in the right places at the right times. Really fun stuff to watch. I am redeemed from twenty something years of frustration even though I have little hopes for them this next.

P.S. Apologies for this not being even slightly related to gameplay. Your first post on the topic was spot on, well put, and relavent-- and this is not. Please do other importatnt things than respond to this guy's post, Valg.