Baseball Musings
Baseball Musings
December 11, 2007
Random Ortiz

Dan Fox finds a lot lacking in Bill James latest Sports Illustrated article on clutch hitting. Fox:

First and foremost, the article seems to promote the idea that after the now famous study titled "Do Clutch Hitters Exist?" published in the 1977 Baseball Research Journal by Dick Cramer, that little to no work has been done on the subject of clutch hitting and that what has been done has had an in-grained bias. Quite to the contrary, the topic has been the subject of almost continual debate with a variety of studies published over the years as documented on Cyril Morong's fine site. And more recently there have been several very good analyses done as I discussed in the introduction to my Schrodinger's Bat column of March 1, 2007.

This is not a typical James entry from the Baseball Abstracts. There no details of the method used or why the results are interesting. For example, he produces a table of David Ortiz in clutch situations since 2002 and notes the numbers are impressive.

That's the regular season; I understand he's had a couple of hits in postseason as well. It's a pretty good record; in fact, you kind of have to see more data to understand how good it is. We've started an award for the major leagues' clutch hitter of the year, based on the data, and David could pretty much win it any year. Only a handful of players a year drive in 30 runs in clutch situations. As to whether these data prove that David is a clutch hitter ... I ain't going there. This discussion has been messed up for 30 years because we got our shoulders way out in front of our shoelaces. From now on, I'm holding back.

My problem with the Oritz table is there's no reason to believe it's not random. In 394 at bats, Ortiz produced 127 hits. Over the six seasons covered, Ortiz hit .298. A .298 hitter has a 95% confidence interval of 100 to 135 hits. Ortiz hit 35 home runs in that number of at bats. His home run rate during those six years was .07236. The 95% confidence interval for home runs is 19-39. So he's at the high end of the range, but still in the range. He had a 1 in 8 shot at hitting that many home runs.

When James says, "kind of have to see more data to understand how good it is," I take it he means compared to other players. Until I see the other data, I remain unconvinced that clutch hitting is more than random noise.

Bill, in a way, makes my point for me:

The other question everybody asks now is "How do you determine what is a clutch at-bat?" I'll have to stiff you on that one for right now. I'll explain it generally and leave the details for some other time.

"Clutch" is a complicated concept, containing at least seven elements:


  1. The score,

  2. The runners on base,

  3. The outs,

  4. The inning,

  5. The opposition,

  6. The standings,

  7. The calendar.


All these items whittle down the at bats to a very small number, and it is very difficult to find significance in small numbers of plate appearances. For now, I'll stick to my mantra that good hitters are the good clutch hitters.


Posted by David Pinto at 08:41 AM | Statistics | TrackBack (0)
Comments

One of the biggest issues in all of the clutch hitting debates is getting people to agree on what "clutch" means. To some, it means doing better in important situations than you do in normal situations. To others, it means doing well in important situations. It looks like James is evaluating the latter (since he doesn't include non-clutch stats), but I'm definitely of the opinion that "clutch" is the former.

Posted by: Mike at December 11, 2007 10:32 AM

I'm actually kind of disappointed James has parsed things this way. You can usually rely on him for some pretty spot on analysis, but I agree with David that good hitting and clutch hitting are really the same thing.

Posted by: robustyoungsoul at December 11, 2007 11:00 AM

Part of the "clutch" ability is to have runners on base in, e.g. close and late situations. I would suspect David Ortiz has more opportunities to get an rbi in that situation because there is someone on base for him. If you're a good hitter, but you're down 2 runs and the rest of the lineup stinks you won't get the opportunity to be clutch.

Posted by: rbj at December 11, 2007 11:16 AM

Yeah, I wrote about this last week. It seems like a pretty lazy, extremely subjective and very statistically unsound argument.

I think my biggest problem is assuming that somehow there are players who are BETTER in high stress situations. That and "clutch" hitting would be impossible to categorize in added value in a sabermetic sense.

Link

Posted by: eriz at December 11, 2007 11:19 AM

That being said i'd never pitch to him with an open base

Posted by: Bandit at December 11, 2007 12:35 PM

More important than over-performing in "clutch" situations, maybe it's simply a matter of not under-performing, (succumbing to pressure, choking) in clutch situations. I wouldn't be surprised if that's what we should be looking for.

Posted by: Rob at December 11, 2007 02:04 PM

I'd like to point out that this wasn't really an SI article. It's an article from the THT Annual. We gave permission to SI to reprint it.

He's basically trying to drive some interest in his new book and website, which will be open for business next year.

Posted by: studes at December 11, 2007 03:46 PM

Just as there are people who are less tense when giving a speech than others, I am sure there are players who are less affected by the potentially stressful nature of certain at bats. However, clutch hitting is nearly impossible to quantify for a couple reasons. First is the obvious small sample size being considered (whichever AB's you decide qualify as clutch situations. The bigger issue that affects a hitters performance is of course the pitcher. The small sample size of at bats in "clutch" situations are of course against a wide variety of pitchers. Because of that a batter may be considered to be a superb clutch hitter because several of his keys at bats were against pitcher he happens to hit well off of normally.

Posted by: largebill at December 12, 2007 07:50 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?