MLB 2013 Thread

[powerhour24]

It should be Peavy going in game 7.

Look I like Peavy's attitude, but no, it really shouldn't. Doubront should have started for him or Buchholz in their first starts, he's locked in where one is a dead arm and the other just implodes in playoff starts. Plus, the Cardinals have real trouble with lefty starters.

 

[gump]

My issue with the clutchiness argument is that it basically contains two of my most disdained perceptions in baseball:

- Clutchiness is really, in the end, a narrative. And narratives are usually quite selective in their usage of data. Derek Jeter? Clutch. A-Rod? Choke artist. These narratives fuel page views and talk radio, and are pushed down people’s throats, when most of the times they are basically fiction. Players are clutch until they aren’t anymore. They choke until they don’t anymore. And the thing is, narratives adapt to these changes. A-Rod was clutch in 2009 because he had come clean about steroids, or because Kate Hudson was there, or because it was a half moon or something. I would go for Occam’s Razor here.

- It reflects an under-appreciation of randomness. We tend to associate success and failure with ability (mental and physical, I guess), and that’s true to some extent, but randomness plays a bigger role than any other variable in a game like baseball. Line drives are hit at fielders, ground balls find holes. Fly balls die at the warning track. Over two weeks-worth of games, lots of random things can happen, and these are things that say very little about a hitter’s true skill level. I mean, look at David Freese now and compare him to the 2011 version. If clutchiness is a skill, what the hell happened to him?

It’s hard to have a conversation about things like clutchiness because people disagree at a more basic level, in their very understanding of how things work, and who has control over them. In the end, it doesn’t really matter. It’s just sports.

 

[Hewson]

Plus, the Cardinals have real trouble with lefty starters.

This to me should be the deciding factor, but hopefully it'll be a moot point and the series ends in 6.

 

[the tourist]

As for the Arod thing, again the eyeball test has shown him with some spectacular failures in the postseason (no need to label it choking), and can you dismiss the seasons where he spent some time on the DL during the season, he was supposedly healthy in 2 of those 3 yrs during the playoffs if I recall.

Some spectacular failures and some spectacular successes. All of this comes down to small sample sizes and standard deviation. A-Rod became known for the choking thing in, what, 2005 and 2006? And for some reason, despite his mammoth 2009, it's stuck. Despite the fact that at that point, his post-season numbers and his regular season numbers matched up pretty evenly.

Fans love a narrative. Fans will do anything to create a narrative. Fans dislike random hot streaks because there's no narrative. Fans like to call that clutch when it's in the post-season. If it's in the regular season? Meh, streaky. But if it's in the post-season? Clutch. And what is this clutch then? Performing to your own career standard, which is above average?

Is Robinson Cano clutch because he OPS'd 1.175 in 2007, 1.133 in 2010, and 1.057 in 2011? Or is he a choke artist because he OPS'd .519 in 2005/2006, .538 in 2009, and .223 in 2012?

Neither. He simply had a few hot streaks and a few cold streaks. Just like David Ortiz. 2003. 2008. 2009.

Heck, even this year, when he's being called clutch or whatever, his line is .360/.476/.720. Which is less than A-Rod's 2009.

 

[the tourist]

My issue with the clutchiness argument is that it basically contains two of my most disdained perceptions in baseball:

- Clutchiness is really, in the end, a narrative. And narratives are usually quite selective in their usage of data. Derek Jeter? Clutch. A-Rod? Choke artist. These narratives fuel page views and talk radio, and are pushed down people’s throats, when most of the times they are basically fiction. Players are clutch until they aren’t anymore. They choke until they don’t anymore. And the thing is, narratives adapt to these changes. A-Rod was clutch in 2009 because he had come clean about steroids, or because Kate Hudson was there, or because it was a half moon or something. I would go for Occam’s Razor here.

- It reflects an under-appreciation of randomness. We tend to associate success and failure with ability (mental and physical, I guess), and that’s true to some extent, but randomness plays a bigger role than any other variable in a game like baseball. Line drives are hit at fielders, ground balls find holes. Fly balls die at the warning track. Over two weeks-worth of games, lots of random things can happen, and these are things that say very little about a hitter’s true skill level. I mean, look at David Freese now and compare him to the 2011 version. If clutchiness is a skill, what the hell happened to him?

It’s hard to have a conversation about things like clutchiness because people disagree at a more basic level, in their very understanding of how things work, and who has control over them. In the end, it doesn’t really matter. It’s just sports.

I agree with pretty much everything here.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Some spectacular failures and some spectacular successes. All of this comes down to small sample sizes and standard deviation. A-Rod became known for the choking thing in, what, 2005 and 2006? And for some reason, despite his mammoth 2009, it's stuck. Despite the fact that at that point, his post-season numbers and his regular season numbers matched up pretty evenly.

Fans love a narrative. Fans will do anything to create a narrative. Fans dislike random hot streaks because there's no narrative. Fans like to call that clutch when it's in the post-season. If it's in the regular season? Meh, streaky. But if it's in the post-season? Clutch. And what is this clutch then? Performing to your own career standard, which is above average?

Is Robinson Cano clutch because he OPS'd 1.175 in 2007, 1.133 in 2010, and 1.057 in 2011? Or is he a choke artist because he OPS'd .519 in 2005/2006, .538 in 2009, and .223 in 2012?

Neither. He simply had a few hot streaks and a few cold streaks. Just like David Ortiz. 2003. 2008. 2009.

Heck, even this year, when he's being called clutch or whatever, his line is .360/.476/.720. Which is less than A-Rod's 2009.

Okay... allow me to put it this way. Fuck fans.

Have you played sports at any sort of level beyond recreational? If you did then you would absolutely without a shadow of a doubt know that there are those who rise to the occasion and those who shrink in the moment.

And further yet... fuck sports. Anyone with even a shred of interaction with homosapiens knows that there are those who when things go bad stay calm and composed, and there are those who lose their shit.

These are basic human emotions that exist in every single walk of life.

The soldier who shows incredible bravery in the face of unbelievable adversity? Sometimes he still dies. And the guy cowering in the corner who froze sometimes lives, or sometimes volleys off some random shot that kills the enemy and saves the day.

Some human beings react better to adversity than others. Period. That doesn't mean that sometimes it's a simple random act, or that sometimes it's simply a player being hot or cold at the right time. Those things still very much exist as well... the NHL goalie who all of a sudden stops everything for 4 weeks and helpa his team win a Stanley Cup and then can never repeat that same success again...

But that does not change the very simple human fact that some people respond better to adversity than others, and some people respond very poorly to adversity.

You wouldn't deny that fact in the business world, or within your own family life... but you completely dismiss it in the world of sports to just a statistical anomaly?

Stats are a great tool for measuring success. The person you're arguing with is a junkie for every stat I can find that can help me make things more efficient, in business and in coaching. I don't mock those who subscribe to modern satistics. Anyone who doesn't is a damn fool.

But there are some things that simply are not, can not be measured by a statistic. Period. Sometimes you need to use your own damn eyes to figure out what is going on.

 

[BoMac]

I'm a little wary of relying too much on statistics because, as Shannon said, people tend to sort of forget about the human element.

 

[Hewson]

But there are some things that simply are not, can not be measured by a statistic. Period. Sometimes you need to use your own damn eyes to figure out what is going on.

In a nutshell.

 

[the tourist]

Okay... allow me to put it this way. Fuck fans.

Have you played sports at any sort of level beyond recreational? If you did then you would absolutely without a shadow of a doubt know that there are those who rise to the occasion and those who shrink in the moment.

And further yet... fuck sports. Anyone with even a shred of interaction with homosapiens knows that there are those who when things go bad stay calm and composed, and there are those who lose their shit.

These are basic human emotions that exist in every single walk of life.

The soldier who shows incredible bravery in the face of unbelievable adversity? Sometimes he still dies. And the guy cowering in the corner who froze sometimes lives, or sometimes volleys off some random shot that kills the enemy and saves the day.

Some human beings react better to adversity than others. Period. That doesn't mean that sometimes it's a simple random act, or that sometimes it's simply a player being hot or cold at the right time. Those things still very much exist as well... the NHL goalie who all of a sudden stops everything for 4 weeks and helpa his team win a Stanley Cup and then can never repeat that same success again...

But that does not change the very simple human fact that some people respond better to adversity than others, and some people respond very poorly to adversity.

You wouldn't deny that fact in the business world, or within your own family life... but you completely dismiss it in the world of sports to just a statistical anomaly?

Stats are a great tool for measuring success. The person you're arguing with is a junkie for every stat I can find that can help me make things more efficient, in business and in coaching. I don't mock those who subscribe to modern satistics. Anyone who doesn't is a damn fool.

But there are some things that simply are not, can not be measured by a statistic. Period. Sometimes you need to use your own damn eyes to figure out what is going on.

So what you're saying is that guys who are at the highest level of baseball in the world that have a better one to three week sample size than some other guys have balls and rise to the occasion, while the guys who simply have a cold streak do not?

One year of "clutch" outweighs one year of "not clutch" when two years of "not clutch" creates a narrative of "choke"?

You're saying the guys who, under the spotlight and scrutiny of the world rip apart pitchers and hitters throughout a 162 game season and get cold for at the very, very most 20 games have a mental disadvantage? Hypothetical player A, who one year OPS's 1.200 and another year OPS's .600 in the playoffs while having a career regular season OPS of .950 is at a disadvantage over player B, who one year has a 1.000 OPS and another year has an .700 OPS with a career OPS of .900 just because hit got a couple timely hits at the end of a game/series?

I don't buy that at all. These guys are the elite in both physical ability and mental toughness. If they weren't, they wouldn't be where they are.

 

[Hewson]

Some spectacular failures and some spectacular successes. All of this comes down to small sample sizes and standard deviation. A-Rod became known for the choking thing in, what, 2005 and 2006? And for some reason, despite his mammoth 2009, it's stuck. Despite the fact that at that point, his post-season numbers and his regular season numbers matched up pretty evenly.

And you continue to ignore everything from him post 2009. When his career as a whole is examined, he's less effective in the playoffs than the regular season. Is he a choke artist... I never said that, DB said that, but he as a whole has performed below expectation in the playoffs.

One more shining example of playoff type pressure affecting a player in a negative way...

I know he was still a college kid, but this is an example of a player letting the pressure of the situation get to him. (Better to post a picture of this than a picture of Bobby Hurley literally shitting his pants at the Final Four )

 

[Hewson]

I don't buy that at all. These guys are the elite in both physical ability and mental toughness. If they weren't, they wouldn't be where they are.

The thing is how can you be sure of ther elite mental toghness until they hit the biggest stage? There is a difference in playing a game in Kansas City on a June Wednesday night in front of 12,000 disniterested midwesterners and playing in front of a ravenous enemy crowd in a World Series game and knowing you're being watched by over a hundred milion folks on TV worldwide.

You seriously think every professional player has the same level of mental toughness and ability to handle these situations just because they've become professionals?? Really??

 

[the tourist]

And you continue to ignore everything from him post 2009. When his career as a whole is examined, he's less effective in the playoffs than the regular season. Is he a choke artist... I never said that, DB said that, but he as a whole has performed below expectation in the playoffs.

And I'm sure there are many, many guys who perform poorly in, I don't know, April. Year in and year out. Does that mean they are choking? Baseball, being a marathon, usually means a team has to start relatively hot to have a chance. There aren't many examples of teams that start slowly that make the playoffs. Does that mean that the hypothetical slow-starter is a choke artist? What about a guy who is streaky and sometimes OPS's 1.250 for a month, followed closely by a .600 month? Is he a choke artist, or is he just seeing his hot and cold streaks happen to the norm?

Again, calling A-Rod less effective over a ~175 plate appearance sample size when he's got ~10,000 career regular season plate appearances seems pretty darn silly.

 

[gump]

One thing we can be sure is that GMs in baseball don't buy the clutchiness argument. Year after year we see them disregard postseason performance and focus instead on regular season performance.

 

[the tourist]

The thing is how can you be sure of ther elite mental toghness until they hit the biggest stage? There is a difference in playing a game in Kansas City on a June Wednesday night in front of 12,000 disniterested midwesterners and playing in front of a ravenous enemy crowd in a World Series game and knowing you're being watched by over a hundred milion folks on TV worldwide.

You seriously think every professional player has the same level of mental toughness and ability to handle these situations just because they've become professionals?? Really??

So the guy who nightly played in front of millions in 2009 in the World Series has a lesser amount of mental toughness because he, like Ortiz, has had some bad playoff series'? And screw the world series for that matter: the guy who has played before, what, dozens of millions of fans in New York City alone after getting the largest contract in history twice in a rowdoesn't show mental toughness?

 

[the tourist]

One thing we can be sure is that GMs in baseball don't buy the clutchiness argument. Year after year we see them disregard postseason performance and focus instead on regular season performance.

 

[speedracer]

Crossing over sports for a moment:

There was a study done on NBA free throw shooting in the last minutes of close games. They took all free throws taken in the last minute of close games over three seasons, and found that the shooters' FT% varied quite a bit as a function of the lead: (right column is the difference between player's FT% in that situation and his career average)

-5 points: -3%
-4 points: -1%
-3 points: -1%
-2 points: -5%
-1 points: -7%
+0 points: +2%
+1 points: -5%
+2 points: +0%
+3 points: -1%
+4 points: +1%
+5 points: -1%

Now for the cases where the player's team is down, you could probably explain away part of the dip in FT% by citing fatigue. But why the sharp dip at a 2-point or 1-point deficit, then the spike in a tie game, then another dip at a 1-point lead? It seems very plausible that in a tie game, players perceive themselves in a freerolling situation, whereas with a 2 or 1 point deficit, they feel pressure to tie the game or take the lead, and with a 1 point lead they feel pressure not to blow the opportunity and allow the other team to take the lead. It's not a particularly rational train of thought for players to follow, but it seems very plausible that they might do this.

 

[PhilsFan]

i find it hilarious when otherwise intelligent sports fans completely rule out the human element and focus merely on a number, which is just as stupid a thing to do as those who ignore all the tremendous advancements in statistical evaluation that have been made over the past decade.

Certain people are simply wired differently. To the point where nothing phases them. That doesn't mean they succeed everytime, but the next time they are in the same situation, they're equally unphased.

Equally, there are those people who let their nerves take over in big spots. Their legs get heavy, their hearts beat faster, their minds race. They are uncomfortable in the big spot. That doesn't mean they don't sometimes succeed, but the next time they're in that situation, they shit their pants all over again.

Anyone who's played sports beyond little league and rec ball knows this is absolutely true.

Hardcore stat heads, who ignore all human elements and base all evaluation strictly on statistics, which can be incredibly misleading, are idiots.

Dinosaurs who ignore all of the advanced statistics and base their evaluations on feel and gut instinct, too, are idiots.

Those who understand that you need BOTH to make a proper and valid evaluation? They're the smart ones.

I don't know any "stathead" who thinks you should throw out the human element. That's a strawman argument that people who get all pissy about stats make up. You're doing it right now.

All this "what did he get on his LSATs???" stuff might be cute in your mind, but it just gets an eyeroll from me every time.

One of the things I've noticed is that it's often people with coaching experience who hate on stats the most. My father is one of these people. Excellent at talent evaluation and noticing the little things players seem to lack in understanding. But can willfully blind themselves to certain things (in baseball, it's my father's subtle lack of interest in defensive range which advanced stats often credit a lot more) because it's often coaches who feel they don't need to be educated, especially not by nerds who don't bother to watch the game and ignore the human element.

 

[the tourist]

(in baseball, it's my father's subtle lack of interest in defensive range which advanced stats often credit a lot more)

My dad and two of my older brothers was the same way until, after 5 years of going round on range and error percentage and what makes a defender good, they finally opened their eyes to my way of thinking after watching multiple games with Michael Morse and Raul Ibanez in corner outfield positions and watching them gallop down the easy outs that fell in for doubles with all the grace of a 3-legged rhino. Before the season, they talked about how the Mariners were going to be .500 with all the dingers and veteran grit. I said they'd be lucky to be .450 with such shitty defense and on-base skills.

 

[Hewson]

So the guy who nightly played in front of millions in 2009 in the World Series has a lesser amount of mental toughness because he, like Ortiz, has had some bad playoff series'? And screw the world series for that matter: the guy who has played before, what, dozens of millions of fans in New York City alone after getting the largest contract in history twice in a rowdoesn't show mental toughness?

I wasn't making that point about Arod specifically, you seem to think I'm here calling him out as a choke artist, I'll reiterate, I never used the word choke, Danny Boy did, I just countered your points that he had a better than the average player OPS in playoffs with the fact that comparing Arod to Arod his OPS dips by more than 100 points in the playoffs and its actually quite a large sample size for playoff baseball, more games than the average player gets in postseason by a fair amount.

But my point you countered here with another Arod example was my retort to your point that all professionals have the same mental toughness because they've managed to make it to the majors (or NBA, NFL NHL etc.) and I asked how can they possibly all be similarly mentally tough and how can anyone know how a player will react to the crucible of playoffs/championship events until we see them perform there.
If all the guys who become pros are equally mentally tough and there's no such thing as either elevated or decreased performance in pressure situations, and its all just coincedental as you seem to think, explain for me one Rick Ankiel please.

 

[phanan]

I like baseball.

 

[the tourist]

I wasn't making that point about Arod specifically, you seem to think I'm here calling him out as a choke artist, I'll reiterate, I never used the word choke, Danny Boy did, I just countered your points that he had a better than the average player OPS in playoffs with the fact that comparing Arod to Arod his OPS dips by more than 100 points in the playoffs and its actually quite a large sample size for playoff baseball, more games than the average player gets in postseason by a fair amount.

But my point you countered here with another Arod example was my retort to your point that all professionals have the same mental toughness because they've managed to make it to the majors (or NBA, NFL NHL etc.) and I asked how can they possibly all be similarly mentally tough and how can anyone know how a player will react to the crucible of playoffs/championship events until we see them perform there.
If all the guys who become pros are equally mentally tough and there's no such thing as either elevated or decreased performance in pressure situations, and its all just coincedental as you seem to think, explain for me one Rick Ankiel please.

In the end it becomes the difference between objective and subjective. One of those is backed by numbers. Lots and lots of numbers. The other is backed by "well maybe"s and "I think"s and narrative. I'll take the numbers.

And you mention A-Rod's sample size in the playoff being large. ~175 plate appearances is tiny. Especially for not being consecutive plate appearances. If they were consecutive, they might hold the tiniest of meanings. Since they aren't, they don't.

Sample sizes 101: Sample Size | FanGraphs Sabermetrics Library

 

[Hewson]

So the numbers on Ankiel say?

 

[speedracer]

I like baseball.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

If your argument is that everyone who makes it to the highest level of their profession has the same level of mental toughness, then you have no argument.. Because that's so incredibly untrue that it's asinine to even debate.

 

[the tourist]

So the numbers on Ankiel say?

Which numbers? There are many.

 

[the tourist]

If your argument is that everyone who makes it to the highest level of their profession has the same level of mental toughness, then you have no argument.. Because that's so incredibly untrue that it's asinine to even debate.

And yet, really my argument is objectivity vs subjectivity and the unprovable. Go ahead and refute numbers with your mental toughness data. Just don't use small sample sizes as they are subject to standard deviation. Good luck.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Crossing over sports for a moment:

There was a study done on NBA free throw shooting in the last minutes of close games. They took all free throws taken in the last minute of close games over three seasons, and found that the shooters' FT% varied quite a bit as a function of the lead: (right column is the difference between player's FT% in that situation and his career average)

-5 points: -3%
-4 points: -1%
-3 points: -1%
-2 points: -5%
-1 points: -7%
+0 points: +2%
+1 points: -5%
+2 points: +0%
+3 points: -1%
+4 points: +1%
+5 points: -1%

Now for the cases where the player's team is down, you could probably explain away part of the dip in FT% by citing fatigue. But why the sharp dip at a 2-point or 1-point deficit, then the spike in a tie game, then another dip at a 1-point lead? It seems very plausible that in a tie game, players perceive themselves in a freerolling situation, whereas with a 2 or 1 point deficit, they feel pressure to tie the game or take the lead, and with a 1 point lead they feel pressure not to blow the opportunity and allow the other team to take the lead. It's not a particularly rational train of thought for players to follow, but it seems very plausible that they might do this.

Statistics to back up the mental effect of pressure on an elite athlete? My stars! What would Bill James think!?

 

[PhilsFan]

Did you buy the shirt that Utley is wearing?

No.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

And yet, really my argument is objectivity vs subjectivity and the unprovable. Go ahead and refute numbers with your mental toughness data. Just don't use small sample sizes as they are subject to standard deviation. Good luck.

So you've never been in a moment in your life where you, or someone you know, has shrunk in the moment? Has gotten in front of a crowd of people to give a speech on a subject they know well and ended up as a blubbering mess? Nothing like this has ever happened to you?

 

[Hewson]

Again, calling A-Rod less effective over a ~175 plate appearance sample size when he's got ~10,000 career regular season plate appearances seems pretty darn silly.

And he had 326 PA in the post season, not 175, perhaps you were looking strictly at his ALDS 173 PA. It still won't fit the formula in your sabremetrics library, but then again no player in MLB has the requisite PA in their post season history to accurately judge their batting average according to those numbers, so there are no players with good or poor batting averages in post season history??