My take on Clutch/Non-Clutch Hitters

[ryan_wadington]

When I draft a team, I try and limit the number of non-clutch hitters I pick up. Of course, sometimes you don't get who you want and you are potentially stuck with that player. I think the best way to manage a lineup with a mixture of clutch/non-clutch players is to bat the non-clutch hitters either one, two or three. This way, you guarantee at least one at bat where their lack of hitting in the clutch will not affect you. In contrast, it is prudent to bat your clutch hitters down in the order (I.E. 4th through 9th). By doing this, you guarantee a potential clutch hit opportunity every at bat.

Although this sounds good on paper, you need to make sure the non-clutch hitters have high OBP's to justify batting high in the order. The clutch hitters you buy can have lower batting averages and OBP's but they should be your best sluggers (at least the guys batting 4th through 6th).

Does anybody else deploy a similar strategy when making their teams?

Ryan

[Whamo]

Someone blogged a study of clutch hitting opportunities, and surprisingly, the 1,2,3 slots had a lot of chances. I think batting a great hitter, first, with high OBP, and zero injury rating is a great idea sometimes. McCovey, in the '69 league, in an HR park, goes berserk batting first. Sure, you want guys batting 3,4, and 5th that will knock in your table-setters. Your idea has some logic to it.

[RICHARDMILTER]

I like to have a clutch guy 5th.

[Larryrickenbacker]

Howdy,

As for reading a hitter's card, how does one determine whether a guy is a good clutch hitter or not? My team seems to hit the ball great with nobody on base!

Larry

[RICHARDMILTER]

If there is a money symbol like this; $, next to a base hit on the player's card, that means with two outs and runners in scoring position, the base hit is turned into an out! Now the reverse of that is; if there is a $ next to an out on he batters card, that means in the same circumstance that; the out is turned into a base hit! I believe I explained this correctly. However, if I am wrong, or someone can explain it better,....please help out. Good luck with those clutch hits.

Side note: I read somewhere that; a batter is only in a so called, "Clutch", situation about 12 percent of the time. I would think it might even be lower than that. Has anyone done the numbers on this?

[durantjerry]

[quote:abee8ea01b]I think the best way to manage a lineup with a mixture of clutch/non-clutch players is to bat the non-clutch hitters either one, two or three. This way, you guarantee at least one at bat where their lack of hitting in the clutch will not affect you.[/quote:abee8ea01b]
I think what you are saying is obvious and most try to do it that way. Also, many times the reason someone has poor clutch is that he did bat second(or first), thus limiting his RBI opportunities resulting in a poor clutch rating and making him a natural choice to bat second. As for getting clutch hitters, I agree with RMilter that I don't think it is a big factor percentagewise, but it is of course better to be clutch than not be clutch. I have had some very good offensive teams when all or almost all of my hitters could run and had to be held on base. Maybe the same would be true if you had eight or nine hitters that were very clutch. I know guys in ATG have tried it. As for drafting clutch players, I don't think it's a big deal. Again, it's nice to have, but you don't throw Arod back if his clutch is poor.

[PotKettleBlack]

Very late to discussion, but here's a take.
From 2000-2005, 12.6% of MLB AB's were in what Stat defines as a "clutch" opportunity (2 out, man in scoring).
Here's your breakdown of two out situations:
---
1--
-2-
--3
12-
1-3
-23
123

Of these, two (the most common) are not clutch situations (to my understanding). So, 12.6%, from 2000-2005. Maybe generalizable to ATG, probably mostly. The two out ABs have to come one way or another, right?

Here's a fun question. Given two very good hitters, say Bagwell and Connor in ATGIV, would you rather have Bagwell (big negative clutch, but reasonable advantage the other 87.4% of the time) or Connor (still pretty good, but large positive clutch). I suppose you'd have to look at the leverage of the situations. If I'm already ahead (more likely with a team of 9 Bagwells than 9 Connors), I won't need clutch hitting, and we're in low leverage. If I'm close and late, you'd rather have Connors, but doesn't having Connors cause you to be in more close and lates in the first place?

I think, ultimately, clutch becomes a question not entirely different from the resource allocation discussion between starters and relief pitchers. If you have shut down starters and a banging offense, you'll have less close and late for your Narleski to Eckersley to pitch. On the flip side, you might believe (as many do) that close and late is inevitable (you are shutdown pitchers, very good offense, you come up against your mirror image team... shutdown pitchers with very good offense). Then clutch and bullpen are worthwhile investments, maybe.

Probably needs some analysis to back up the thinking, but if two guys are the same, I'll take the guy with the better clutch (why not... if everything else is the same, the guy with the better clutch is some bit better 12.6% of the time... in a Bagwell to Connor comparison, Clutch Connor becomes better than Normal Bagwell, and Clutch Bagwell becomes worse than Regular Connor... all at a $1M extra cost for Bags).

[apolivka]

I think I've posted this several times, but if I had one request for Bernie that is most important to me it would be for them to make "Clutch hitting" optional here.

There have been study after study done in this area and the consensus is that clutch hitting is an ILLUSION based on tiny samples that vary greatly from year to year.

So, it does matter (a bit) in this simulation, but it shouldn't. :)

[RICHARDMILTER]

I agree that is is a very tiny sample indeed. But I do not think they will make a change. That does not mean you should not voice your opinion, and I happen to agree with it.

[PotKettleBlack]

[quote:b655094b10="apolivka"]I think I've posted this several times, but if I had one request for Bernie that is most important to me it would be for them to make "Clutch hitting" optional here.

There have been study after study done in this area and the consensus is that clutch hitting is an ILLUSION based on tiny samples that vary greatly from year to year.

So, it does matter (a bit) in this simulation, but it shouldn't. :)[/quote:b655094b10]
I need to revise previous comment. With the 50/50 system, clutch will matter only on about 6.25% of plate appearances. Considering that the largest clutch swing in the game is something like 30 hits (out of 216 PA), we're not talking a lot of opportunities. Let's see... 700 PA? * .0625 = 44 PAs. We're talking at maximum, a 15 hit swing on 108 possible rolls, about a 14% improvement in BA, so, your ultra clutch guy is getting 10-14% better on 44 PAs a season, compared with your 0 clutch guy.

On the flip side, most guys are minus clutch. So, Clutch VORP is higher than that 10-14% improvement over 0. Call it maybe 20% better.

I think you take Bagwell over Connor, if the money is the same and the park is neutral.

As to the SABR take on clutch, yes, they probably should give you the option of turning it off, and reflecting that in the card, by giving the clutch guys something extra and taking something off the negative-clutch guys. The rebalancing of the cards to reflect some measure of real performance is probably an obstacle to realizing the "dream" as it were.