|
TheDude | Thu 04-Jan-07 10:14 PM |
Member since 20th Sep 2005
283 posts
|     |
|
#15836, "Some clutch numbers:"
|
Alright, I've had some free time to look into stats on "clutchiness". And, I have to humbly agree with you. For the most part, clutchiness seems to exist only in our minds.
Specifically, I looked at stats of RISP, RISP2 (avg w/ runners in scoring position, and avg w/ runners in scoring position and two outs, respectively) for hitters I thought were exceptional "clutch hitters". Although I did find a few statistics to support my belief that clutch hitting exists, I became tired and worn from finding waffling counter examples for the same player. I.e., a player who has a +.25% increase in RISP one year, will have a -.25% RISP the next. Et cetera. Quite frustrating, I've got to say, as I found no silver bullet which I thought would present itself piece o' cake. Ugh.
However, I did come across an interesting set of team statistics. Which at first glance might be a start to back the elusive clutch factor.
Again, mainly I'm looking at the difference between None on/out, and Scoring Posn, ScPos/2 Out data. The average league data represents little "clutchiness", the Yankees represent a negative "clutchiness" (who needs it with such a stacked lineup), and the Angels representing an extreme clutchiness:
Total stats for the all 2005 teams:
AVG AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS TBB SO OBP SLG
Total .268 5586 983 .330 .424
None on/out .272 1396 --- 380 73 8 47 47 0 0 100 230 .326 .437
Scoring Posn .272 1485 --- 404 78 8 46 582 23 5 179 269 .347 .428
ScPos/2 Out .248 644 --- 160 33 3 19 213 9 1 84 123 .342 .398
Close & Late .254 867 --- 220 40 4 22 112 14 4 86 175 .325 .385
And here are the numbers from a good offensive team, the 2005 Yankees:
AVG AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS TBB SO OBP SLG
Total .276 5624 886 1552 259 16 229 847 85 27 637 989 .355 .450
None on/out .288 1356 --- 390 66 5 57 57 0 0 134 230 .359 .470
Scoring Posn .272 1490 --- 406 63 6 67 623 31 8 203 288 .360 .458
ScPos/2 Out .233 679 --- 158 24 2 23 216 10 1 107 138 .344 .376
Close & Late .260 734 --- 191 35 3 25 121 10 0 107 142 .357 .418
2005 ANGELS:
AVG AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS TBB SO OBP SLG
Total .270 5624 761 1520 278 30 147 726 161 57 447 848 .325 .409
None on/out .263 1402 --- 369 74 6 41 41 0 0 97 201 .315 .412
Scoring Posn .296 1400 --- 414 70 7 37 566 39 13 159 198 .361 .435
ScPos/2 Out .279 663 --- 185 35 3 14 232 25 5 85 103 .364 .404
Close & Late .270 923 --- 249 36 3 22 115 30 3 88 154 .336 .387
... Anyways I'll go out on a limb here and say the reason for the ups in numbers for the Angels RISP stats is, imo, probably due to a few factors. Among them, 1) They're style of play is to make contact when people are on base. And, 2) They're style of play is to send runners (steals, hit and runs), which is going to take away from the overall number of outs counted in the stats (e.g. a sacrifice would be an out, but would not count negatively as such in the stats because the runner was moving). And so on..
Really, a good study, and if you look into Scoscia's managing style it's really anti-moneyball, and uses odd statistics which most people don't track. He's the man, in my opinion  .
As a digression on streakiness, I'm still convinced it exists, btw  . Specifically, I'd like to look more into things like concentration of home-runs, hits, etc for big hitters, and see how it lays out on a graph... I've read some cursory analysis backing this (for example, sammy sosa tends to group his home runs together with less ab's in between successive homeruns when he's "hot" more than most players.. steroids? Heh) but alas, this is a bit more of an excercise than I have time for right now.
Cheers!
|
|
|
 The "Hot Hand", and interpreting logs.
[View all] , Valguarnera , Wed 03-Jan-07 04:26 PM
  Good post,
Sandello,
04-Jan-07 11:21 PM, #26
Nice post:,
Tac,
04-Jan-07 10:27 AM, #16
Agreed to your point. But "hot hands"?,
TheDude,
03-Jan-07 11:26 PM, #5
  RE: Agreed to your point. But,
Valguarnera,
04-Jan-07 12:24 AM, #7
RE: Agreed to your point. But,
Isildur,
04-Jan-07 02:32 AM, #9
RE: Agreed to your point. But,
Eskelian,
04-Jan-07 06:59 AM, #11
RE: Agreed to your point. But,
Valkenar,
04-Jan-07 11:59 AM, #19
RE: Agreed to your point. But,
Valguarnera,
04-Jan-07 01:14 PM, #21
RE: Agreed to your point. But,
Eskelian,
04-Jan-07 02:40 PM, #23
RE: Agreed to your point. But,
Valguarnera,
04-Jan-07 09:15 AM, #13
Some clutch numbers:,
TheDude,
04-Jan-07 10:14 PM #25
Statistics vs. scope and integrals,
TheDude,
04-Jan-07 04:12 AM, #10
Some remarks,
Dwoggurd,
03-Jan-07 07:22 PM, #1
RE: Some remarks,
Valguarnera,
03-Jan-07 07:53 PM, #2
There is more than just probability,
Dwoggurd,
03-Jan-07 08:37 PM, #3
If you didn't, I suggest reading the cited article(s).....,
Tac,
03-Jan-07 10:54 PM, #4
Conditional probability:,
Valguarnera,
03-Jan-07 11:50 PM, #6
Invalid application,
Dwoggurd,
04-Jan-07 08:18 AM, #12
RE: Invalid example,
Tac,
04-Jan-07 09:40 AM, #15
RE: Invalid application,
Marcus_,
04-Jan-07 10:31 AM, #17
RE: Whitecloaks,
vargal,
04-Jan-07 12:57 AM, #8
Muscle Memory,
Chuntog,
04-Jan-07 09:37 AM, #14
Quick note on pros vs. amateurs:,
Valguarnera,
04-Jan-07 11:08 AM, #18
That's harsh,
Chuntog,
04-Jan-07 01:03 PM, #20
Blind Side!,
Valguarnera,
04-Jan-07 01:41 PM, #22
RE: Blind Side!,
Straklaw,
04-Jan-07 04:47 PM, #24
| |
|
