Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    In response to BOSOX1941's comment:

    Way back in the 50s, fans liked to insinuate that Yogi Berra was a better clutch hitter than Ted Williams.  A sports writer did a study and found that, in the "clutch", Yogi batted .285 and Williams batted .343. He thought that people took more notice when Williams failed than they did when Yogi failed. By the way, those averages are their lifetime batting averages.  Everybody remembered when Ted one hopped a ball right back to the pitcher with men on second and third and 2 outs. It was unusual.


    The best defense is a good offense.



    But unfortunately for his legacy, Williams did not produce in the biggest games of his career - the 1946 World Series, the 1948 playoff game and the final 2, season-deciding games in 1949.  In those 10 games he had no homers and only one RBI.

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Other than a hit or sacrifice, which are both measured by stats, how often does a ball put in play vs a strike out leads to a run? My guess is very few. When you subtract DPs vs a K, the difference is lessened slightly.

    In a vacumn, of course a ball put in play for an out is more likely to help than a K, but not by that much. Yes, there is the pychological effect of a K to consider as well, but I have always thought the whole K thing is overblown.

    If you are getting on base or have a high slugging percent, then Ks hardly matter. If you are stinking up the place and never advancing players on the basepaths due to a high K rate, then those Ks really seem to stand out.

    Sox4ever

     



     

    Other than a hit or sacrifice, which are both measured by stats, how often does a ball put in play vs a strike out leads to a run? My guess is very few. When you subtract DPs vs a K, the difference is lessened slightly.      

                                                                                                      This makes no sense  at all. A ball put in play may or may not lead to a run.  How does one get a hit without putting the ball in play ?  How can you say " other than a hit " .  What sense does that make?  How can you separate a hit from an out on a ball in play ? You have to put the ball in play first.  When you put the ball in play , it may result in a hit. Or not. When you strike out, it cannot lead to a run. How much simpler can it be?  Hit the ball , you have a chance. Strike out , you have no chance.  This has reached the point of absurdity. I have to give up. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You missed my point entirely, then give up trying to understand it.

    I said, as long as a person gets on base at a good rate or has a good slugging percent (this implies he is putting the ball in play enough to get on base or is walking a lot), then I don't care how much he K's vs making outs by grounders or pop ups.

    I'd rather have a guy hitting .300 with a .350 OBP and .450 SLG%, but who Ks 60% of the time, than a guy who hits .280 with a .330 OBP and .420 Slg% who Ks only 5% of the time. That's my point. People on this site are overly critical of high K rate players who are producing. If you are not producing, then a high K rate really stands out.

    Still give up?

    I'm not defending the K by saying people overblow its importance.

    Get it?

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to Joebreidey's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    That is not really a counterpoint to my post. Some hitters and some pitchers consistently perform better under pressure than do others. This also applies to place kickers , free throw shooters and just about anything else in life.   Do you dispute that ? 

    I assume there would almost have to be some differences, but it hard to find.  I just checked 3 guys I thought would be interesting.  Reggie, because I think he is a clutch player, and Jeter and Nomar because of the rivalry.  I was surprised at the results.

    • Reggie career was .846 and late and close was .804.
    • Jeter was .829/.794
    • Nomar was .882 and .892
    • ARod was .945/.895.
    • Manny had a career .996 and L&C of .894, a huge negative.
    • Papi was .930 and .886

    I'd have expected Reggie to be much better, not much worse.  Jeter and Nomar were the reverse of what I expected.  I'd have expected Manny and Papi to be better, and particularly surprised at Manny.

     



    I think if you look at the playoff numbers, they might tell a different tale, but I'm not sure where to find late and close or high leverage numbers for just the playoffs.

     

    Hitting is not like basketball, where you seemingly can "rise to the occasion" by just willing it to be (and having the skill).

    I expected to find guys like Reggie, Manny, Papi and Eddie Murray much better in the clutch, but it is just not something that easlily done, and even more difficult to do on a consistent basis. You see players go on a season or two stretch where they seemingly can do no wrong when it counts, but it is never sustained over years and years.

    [/QUOTE]

    The playoffs become a much smaller sample size.

    Beckett was a renowned playoff warrior with 14 ERs in 72.2 IPs.

    Then he wasn't, with 18 ERs in 21 IPs.

    Bonds was one of the worst non-ARod clutch players in history, until he hit 8 HRs in 2002.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    In response to patrickford's comment:

    Clutch and late stats might be distorted by the fact there is often a relief pitcher involved. I assume on most teams the closer has a lower ERA than the teams best starting pitcher. 



    Yes, but that's why I chose several players.  Just to see how much they went up or down.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    In response to dannycater's comment:

    Strikeouts are horrible outs, whether they are 10-pitch at bats or not, they are useless to  your team. As for putting the ball in play, you just increase the odds of reaching base by a number of ways...error being one of them.



    Most major leaguers can always get the bat on the ball and hit a meek grounder or fly ball.  Why do you think players strike out as often as they do?  If all player was responsibile for was to get the bat on the ball, they would do so 98% of the time, and hit about .125 with 4 HRs.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Other than a hit or sacrifice, which are both measured by stats, how often does a ball put in play vs a strike out leads to a run? My guess is very few. When you subtract DPs vs a K, the difference is lessened slightly.

    In a vacumn, of course a ball put in play for an out is more likely to help than a K, but not by that much. Yes, there is the pychological effect of a K to consider as well, but I have always thought the whole K thing is overblown.

    If you are getting on base or have a high slugging percent, then Ks hardly matter. If you are stinking up the place and never advancing players on the basepaths due to a high K rate, then those Ks really seem to stand out.

    Sox4ever

     

     



     

     

    Other than a hit or sacrifice, which are both measured by stats, how often does a ball put in play vs a strike out leads to a run? My guess is very few. When you subtract DPs vs a K, the difference is lessened slightly.      

                                                                                                      This makes no sense  at all. A ball put in play may or may not lead to a run.  How does one get a hit without putting the ball in play ?  How can you say " other than a hit " .  What sense does that make?  How can you separate a hit from an out on a ball in play ? You have to put the ball in play first.  When you put the ball in play , it may result in a hit. Or not. When you strike out, it cannot lead to a run. How much simpler can it be?  Hit the ball , you have a chance. Strike out , you have no chance.  This has reached the point of absurdity. I have to give up. 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You missed my point entirely, then give up trying to understand it.

     

    I said, as long as a person gets on base at a good rate or has a good slugging percent (this implies he is putting the ball in play enough to get on base or is walking a lot), then I don't care how much he K's vs making outs by grounders or pop ups.

    I'd rather have a guy hitting .300 with a .350 OBP and .450 SLG%, but who Ks 60% of the time, than a guy who hits .280 with a .330 OBP and .420 Slg% who Ks only 5% of the time. That's my point. People on this site are overly critical of high K rate players who are producing. If you are not producing, then a high K rate really stands out.

    Still give up?

    I'm not defending the K by saying people overblow its importance.

    Get it?

    [/QUOTE]


    Okay. I get your point. Here is mine:  When a ball is put in play, a number of things can happen.  It can be a routine out ( no more harmful than a strikeout ) , a double play ( worse than a strikeout) , or it can be a base hit , even an extra base hit, it could result in an error or be a productive out. Any of those things can happen , but will not unless the ball is first put into play. A strikeout is the only sure out.  How about we leave it at this:  There are times when a strikeout is overrated. There are other times when it can be a huge rally killer.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    I'd rather have a guy hitting .300 with a .350 OBP and .450 SLG%, but who Ks 60% of the time, than a guy who hits .280 with a .330 OBP and .420 Slg% who Ks only 5% of the time. That's my point.

    Parts of the discussion have completely left the rails.  I think everyone will agree that  HR is good and a strikeout is bad.  The discussion, as you point out, should be the overall stats.  If someone has a 150/125 K/W, then I couldn't care less about the Ks.  A 125/25 is far, far worse than 150/125.  If a guy has 92 career HRs, but a .328, he's going to the HOF (Carew).  If he hits 442 HRs, but only .236, then he isn't (Kingman).

     And for those that don't like strikeouts, do you want a list of the top-30 alltime?  13 of them are or will be HOFers, several more kept out on PEDs, and almost all the rest have or will have HOF votes.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    Hitting in the clutch is really not a sustainable skill, in my opinion. That's one reason I have to chuckle when posters blame the GM for not acquiring clutch hitters. How can you obtain clutch hitters when it is not something one can project.

    I haven't done any in depth studies on pitching, but I do think there are certain pitchers that almost always rise to the occasion.



    I think you're right and this is kind of an interesting question in itself.  Maybe it's only possible for pitchers to be clutch, because they are the ones who have the most control over how they perform. 

    There are certain players who have overperformed or underperformed in the postseason vs. the regular season, but of course the sample size thing comes in with the postseason. 

    Overperformers:

    Curt Schilling

    Dave Henderson

    Underperformers:

    Jeff Bagwell

    Nick Swisher

     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    Okay. I get your point. Here is mine:  When a ball is put in play, a number of things can happen.  It can be a routine out ( no more harmful than a strikeout ) , a double play ( worse than a strikeout) , or it can be a base hit , even an extra base hit, it could result in an error or be a productive out. Any of those things can happen , but will not unless the ball is first put into play. A strikeout is the only sure out.  How about we leave it at this:  There are times when a strikeout is overrated. There are other times when it can be a huge rally killer.

    I get your point, and of course player continually attempt to put the ball in play rather than strike out. I should have worded my statement better. (see added in red)

    Other than a hit or sacrifice, which are both measured by stats, how often does a ball put in play for an out vs a strike out leads to a run?

    I'm just talking about outs- not how putting the ball in play lead to more better things than a K.

    Think about it this way, any out kills a rally, unless it is a sac fly, sac bunt, or a runner advances on an out and ends up scoring as a result of that advancement. In my opinion, other than the pychological impact of a K vs a ground out, pop out or line out, those are the only 3 things that make putting the ball in play FOR AN OUT better than a K. 

    How many times do posters complain about how a guy always grounds out in the clutch or otherwise? I've seen many a rally killed by a weak grounder, a pop up, or a fly ball to the wall. To me, there isn't much difference. Some, but not much.

    Sox4ever

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    In response to royf19's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     


    A strikeout is a totally non- productive at bat. A ground ball may result in a double play, but also may result in a base hit or a productive out. The point is , if you don't put the ball in play you accomplish nothing. 

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That's actually not true. Striking out on eight or nine pitches is a much more productive at-bat than grounding out on one pitch. The batter who struck out accomplished a lot more than the guy whou grounded out in this example.

     

    Again, you need context -- what is the situation?

    [/QUOTE]


    A strikeout is never productive. You are really reaching.  The ground ball could have been a base hit.  You can never have a chance for success unless you put the ball in play. 

    [/QUOTE]

    We're not talking about ground balls in general. We're talking about ground ball outs. You posted that a strikeout is never productive, and I gave you a specific example when a strikeout was a more productive at-bat. An eight-pitch strikeout is more productive than a one-pitch groundout.

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    In response to royf19's comment:

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to royf19's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

     


    A strikeout is a totally non- productive at bat. A ground ball may result in a double play, but also may result in a base hit or a productive out. The point is , if you don't put the ball in play you accomplish nothing. 

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That's actually not true. Striking out on eight or nine pitches is a much more productive at-bat than grounding out on one pitch. The batter who struck out accomplished a lot more than the guy whou grounded out in this example.

     

     

    Again, you need context -- what is the situation?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    A strikeout is never productive. You are really reaching.  The ground ball could have been a base hit.  You can never have a chance for success unless you put the ball in play. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    We're not talking about ground balls in general. We're talking about ground ball outs. You posted that a strikeout is never productive, and I gave you a specific example when a strikeout was a more productive at-bat. An eight-pitch strikeout is more productive than a one-pitch groundout.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    You are isolating ground ball outs.  The fact remains that any ground ball has a chance of being a hit. A strikeout does not.  You can't defend a strikeout by saying that a batted ball might also become an out.  Of course it might. Or might not. The only sure out is the strikeout.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    In response to moonslav59's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Hitting in the clutch is really not a sustainable skill, in my opinion. That's one reason I have to chuckle when posters blame the GM for not acquiring clutch hitters. How can you obtain clutch hitters when it is not something one can project.

    I haven't done any in depth studies on pitching, but I do think there are certain pitchers that almost always rise to the occasion.

     



    I think you're right and this is kind of an interesting question in itself.  Maybe it's only possible for pitchers to be clutch, because they are the ones who have the most control over how they perform. 

     

    There are certain players who have overperformed or underperformed in the postseason vs. the regular season, but of course the sample size thing comes in with the postseason. 

    Overperformers:

    Curt Schilling

    Dave Henderson

    Underperformers:

    Jeff Bagwell

    Nick Swisher

     

    [/QUOTE]

    One point about hitters almost all having worse numbers in the clutch or playoffs than there career numbers has to be attributed to the strength of the pitcher they are facing. If you are in the playofss, you are probably facing better pitching than the season/career average you have seen. If you are batting in a late & close situation, you may be facing the closer of top set-up man rather than a lowly starter or middle releif guy. 

    Maybe a better way to measure "being clutch" might be to take a player's career OPS vs a particular pitcher in clutch vs nonclutch situations. How did players do vs Schilling in their career vs in the playoffs or late and close?

    It does seem that a pitcher can "rise to the occasion" on a more consistent basis than a hitter. I think you are right about having more control of all of the factors involved in a player getting a hit or making an out.

    It is an interesting debate.

    Back to the K thing, what bothers me most is how someone complains about a guy striking out too much, even if he has a .380 OBP and decent Slg% or a decent OBP and a .500+ Slg%. To me, it's the marginal players that it seems to matter more if they K or make an out another way. You look for the weak hitter to at least be able to make contact and move a runner over, bunt, or sac fly when you need it. It's like it's the least they can do. And, when you are totally frustrated with a player in a slump or a player who is never a good hitter, those Ks just seem to drive home that point that he is no good.

     

    Look at a guy like Adam Dunn.  His 222 Ks in 2012 was second most ever (to Mark Reynold's 223), but even more amazing is the fact that on the top season K list of the top 89 player in the history of MLB, you will see Adam Dunn's name 10 times! He has struck out over 164 times in a season 10 times! He holds 4 of the top 13 slots! He must stink, right? Then how has he been allowed to play 13 seasons in MLB? I'll tell you why:

    .367 career OBP

    .498 career SLG%

    .865 career OPS

    427 career HRs

    7 of 8 straight years with 100+ RBIs

    Who cares about the career .238 BA and 2126 Ks?

    Yes, it would be nicer if he hit .285 and had only 500 Ks, but the rest of his body of work makes up for this.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    In response to Sheriff-Rojas' comment:

    In response to dannycater's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Strikeouts are horrible outs, whether they are 10-pitch at bats or not, they are useless to  your team. As for putting the ball in play, you just increase the odds of reaching base by a number of ways...error being one of them.

     



    If the first 11 or 12 batters struck out but had 10-pitch at bats, the starter would be removed at the end of the 4th inning unless he were a knuckler.  This is not so much a justification of a strike out, but a reason not to overlook the residual benefit of a long at bat.  

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Exactly. 

    Obviously, putting the ball in play there's a chance for an error. But it's not like we're playing little league and that chance for an error is high.

    I'm not defending strikeouts. But there's a context to everything. If my leadoff batter gets out, I'd rather it be by a 10-pitch strikeout than a one-pitch groundout or flyout. Of course, I'd rather see a 10-pitch at-bat where he puts the ball in play on what looks to be a routine out because yes, there is that slight chance for an error.

    If there's a runner on first, I'd rather a strikeout than a double play groundout. Yes, there's the chance or an error in that situation, but I would bet there is more of a chance for a douple play than there is for an error.

    But if there is a runner on second or third, then the last thing I want is a strikeout.

    Like everything, you look at the situation. I do think there are too many strikeouts and too many batters who don't know how to protect the plate or adjust their swing with two strikes.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    In response to royf19's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to royf19's comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

     

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     


    A strikeout is a totally non- productive at bat. A ground ball may result in a double play, but also may result in a base hit or a productive out. The point is , if you don't put the ball in play you accomplish nothing. 

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That's actually not true. Striking out on eight or nine pitches is a much more productive at-bat than grounding out on one pitch. The batter who struck out accomplished a lot more than the guy whou grounded out in this example.

     

     

     

    Again, you need context -- what is the situation?

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    A strikeout is never productive. You are really reaching.  The ground ball could have been a base hit.  You can never have a chance for success unless you put the ball in play. 

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

     

    We're not talking about ground balls in general. We're talking about ground ball outs. You posted that a strikeout is never productive, and I gave you a specific example when a strikeout was a more productive at-bat. An eight-pitch strikeout is more productive than a one-pitch groundout.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    You are isolating ground ball outs.  The fact remains that any ground ball has a chance of being a hit. A strikeout does not.  You can't defend a strikeout by saying that a batted ball might also become an out.  Of course it might. Or might not. The only sure out is the strikeout.

    [/QUOTE]

    We're coming at it from different directions. You're looking at it from WHAT COULD HAPPEN at the beginning of an at-bat. Yes, from that viewpoint, if you say the only sure out is a strikeout and putting the ball in play, anything can happen, then of course, you want the ball put in play.

    I'm looking at it as WHAT HAPPENED after the at-bat. I gave you an example where a strikeout was a more-productive at-bat than an out. In other posts, I pointed out that there are situations where a strikeout was a better result than putting the ball in play and hitting into a double play.

    In general, of course putting the ball in play (and of coure we're taking walks out the equation) is preferable. However, in reality, a baseball player is going to make outs 60 to 70 percent of the time. So there are times and situations when how the out was made doesn't matter: nobody on, flyout, groundout, strikeout -- no difference. And times when how the out was made does matter: ground into double play is bad (striking out would have been a better out); striking out with a runner on second is bad; grounding out but moving the runner to third is good.

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    I've been reading quite a few comments this year on the question of whether or not HR's and K's are overrated.  Just look at yesterday's game thread for examples.

    I'm going to add RBI to the mix because that is another stat that is often referred to as being overrated.  I once read a statement by Keith Law that the RBI stat was 'meaningless'.  That really irritated me.  How can RBI be meaningless?  You don't win any games if you don't score any runs.  And based on the current 2013 MLB stats, only 5% of all runs scored do not result in an RBI.

    I still have a problem with Law's statement, but part of the problem is that he didn't expand on exactly what he meant.  I have to assume that what he meant was that a player's RBI total doesn't necessarily reflect his performance. 

    A textbook example of the RBI distortion is the 2007 RBI totals of Lugo and Pedroia.  Lugo had 73 RBI in 630 PA.  Pedroia had 50 RBI in 581 PA.

    But Lugo hit 237/294/349, and Pedroia hit 317/380/442.

    The issues with HR's and K's are a little different, but I think there is a similarity.  It's not so much a question of whether a HR, RBI or K is important in the context of one at-bat, it's a question of how important it is in the context of the whole season.

    Fire away people. Smile

     




    HRs and RBIs certainly have their place, but when it comes to getting the most bang for your buck, I think this is where both fans and GMs overrate these numbers.  GMs and fans are always willing to shell out the big contracts to players like Arod, Pujols, Miggy Cabrera, etc.  For players who are high OBP guys or great defenders, not so much.

    Yes, the HR/RBI guys will add wins to a team, but so will the OBP/defensive guys, and they will usually add wins to a team at a much greater value.

    Just take a look at last year's MVP race.  Miggy won largely because of his HR and RBI numbers (even though Trout played fewer games), with little consideration to how terrible he was both defensively and at base running.   Trout was worth 3 more wins to his team than Miggy was.

     

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    That is not really a counterpoint to my post. Some hitters and some pitchers consistently perform better under pressure than do others. This also applies to place kickers , free throw shooters and just about anything else in life.   Do you dispute that ? 





    It is true that some hitters and pitchers do consistently perform better under pressure than do others.  But that is not because of the "skill" to be clutch.  That is because they are just overall better hitters/pitchers than others are.   It's not that they hit well in the clutch, it's that they hit well, period.  It may seem like someone like Jeter is always coming through with the clutch hit (which he often does), but he isn't doing anything in high pressure situations that he doesn't do all the time.

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:

    In response to dgalehouse's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    That is not really a counterpoint to my post. Some hitters and some pitchers consistently perform better under pressure than do others. This also applies to place kickers , free throw shooters and just about anything else in life.   Do you dispute that ? 

     




    It is true that some hitters and pitchers do consistently perform better under pressure than do others.  But that is not because of the "skill" to be clutch.  That is because they are just overall better hitters/pitchers than others are.   It's not that they hit well in the clutch, it's that they hit well, period.  It may seem like someone like Jeter is always coming through with the clutch hit (which he often does), but he isn't doing anything in high pressure situations that he doesn't do all the time.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    True. The difference comes when someone cannot maintain their skills in the clutch.  Call it choking or whatever. Some can perform well in high pressure situations , and some cannot. That is what separates a " clutch " player.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    In response to pinstripezac35's comment:

    thing is

    we are not comparing K's to GB singles

    we are comparing K's to GB outs

    in which case the only times when

    the GB might be more productive

    is when there are base runners with less than 2 outs




    I think this is the point that some people are missing.

    It is two different things comparing strike outs to other types of outs, versus comparing strike outs to putting the ball in play.    Over the course of a season, strike outs do not cost the team any more than any other type of out, even if said out is a productive out. Even if said out is a productive out resulting in a run.

    If two batters have the same batting line, say .270/.340/.470, and one strikes out twice as much at the other, they will have approximately the same offensive value to the team.

    However, if you're comparing strike outs to putting the ball in play, now you're also including hits and errors, and the difference becomes more significant.

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    In response to RedSoxKimmi's comment:

    In response to pinstripezac35's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    thing is

    we are not comparing K's to GB singles

    we are comparing K's to GB outs

    in which case the only times when

    the GB might be more productive

    is when there are base runners with less than 2 outs

     




    I think this is the point that some people are missing.

     

    It is two different things comparing strike outs to other types of outs, versus comparing strike outs to putting the ball in play.    Over the course of a season, strike outs do not cost the team any more than any other type of out, even if said out is a productive out. Even if said out is a productive out resulting in a run.

    If two batters have the same batting line, say .270/.340/.470, and one strikes out twice as much at the other, they will have approximately the same offensive value to the team.

    However, if you're comparing strike outs to putting the ball in play, now you're also including hits and errors, and the difference becomes more significant.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    If two batters have the same batting line, say .270/.340/.470, and one strikes out twice as much at the other, they will have approximately the same offensive value to the team.                 True , but it will be difficult for the one striking out twice as often to to match the batting average and OBP of the other one. Possible , but difficult. 

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Overrated stats - HR's, K's, RBI - truth or fallacy?

    My point on the strikeouts is that a guy who does K in a 10-pitch at-bat is if he does that with bases loaded in the 3rd inning, productive in helping to eventually remove the starter not withstanding, is not doing his job. It's not productive. He K'd. No one had to make a play, no one moved up a base, no one scored, nothing. If I ground out on a 10-pitch at bat, and I ground into a double play, that is not productive either. Absolutely situation dictates things, but defending strikeouts for the overall good is silly. They are great for the defense, they are not for the offense. I love Salty, but when he K's 4 times in a game, he's not productive even if it takes 42 pitches to get him out. That's why they have bullpens.

     

Share