Clutch Hitting

[JOSEPHKENDALL]

I don't know if this has been posted before, but it is an interesting article on clutch hitting. Basically the conclusion is that a great clutch hitter adds about .6 wins to a team in a season. The thought is that clutch is there and measurable, but it is very insignificant.

http://www.tangotiger.net/clutch.html

[MARCPELLETIER]

As much as the subject is interesting, it is almost irrelevant to Strat, because Strat is no real baseball.

In Strat, the effect of clutch is real, AND heavy. Having a +8 clutch hitter is worth almost 5 runs. Bradley's -15 clutch costs his team at least on win per season. That's no small effect.

This said, TSN does factor clutch pretty heavily too in their pricetag, so someone could basically ignore the clutch element and follow TSN pricetag and not suffer too much from this ignorance, except perhaps when it comes to lineup effect. Putting bad clutch hitters to the second and third lineup spots and nice clutch hitters to the #4-#5 is the best way to maximize one's lineup. But then again, ignoring those basic rules would only have a limited effect (in the range of 1 win per season, I would guess).

[kab105]

[quote="marcus wilby"]As much as the subject is interesting, it is almost irrelevant to Strat, because Strat is no real baseball.

In Strat, the effect of clutch is real, AND heavy. Having a +8 clutch hitter is worth almost 5 runs. Bradley's -15 clutch costs his team at least on win per season. That's no small effect.



Now I am confused. In your first paragraph you say clutch is almost irrelevant to Strat. In the second paragraph you said the effect of clutch is real, and heavy.

I am very interested in your take on this. Please explain. You lost me.

[MARCPELLETIER]

Well, in circles of baseball analysts, one big issue is whether players are subjected to a clutch effect. Many believe that there is no clutch effect. Under this view, players who have a big clutch reputation are, roughly speaking, luckier than their normal self, no more no less. Tangotiger denies this view, and takes the other part of the issue and proves that some players do indeed get better.

THAT issue is irrelevant in Strat. In Strat, clutch exist. Period.

[Ninersphan]

Don't forget too, that clutch in Strat isn't the same as in real baseball. No one would argue that Albert Pujols isn't a great clutch hitter, yet he "losses in the clutch" on his strat card every year, why???

Simple, clutch in Strat is simply a mechanism for controlling rbi's for a given player not a measure of how good a hitter he is in clutch situations. Never forget that the true goal of the Strat game is to be able to recreate the season from the cards as closely as possible. In other words, if you used Albert's cards and replayed the Cardinal's season just as it occured, the cards results should be very close to his actual stats. That's why he has to lose in the clutch, if he didn't he drive in significantly more runs in a recreated season than he did in real life.

[Valen]

[quote:d4a5d712dd]Many believe that there is no clutch effect. Under this view, players who have a big clutch reputation are, roughly speaking, luckier than their normal self, no more no less.[/quote:d4a5d712dd]

This has been one of the debates among baseball people for years now. Many indeed as stated here believe that what we perceive as clutch really is just luck or small sample size. Those taking this position for example would point to Arod's apparent lack of clutch during early years with NY as just bad luck or sample size. They would argue that given more time and larger sample size his "clutch" stats would move toward the norm of his overall stats. Ditto playoff numbers. They would claim the reverse for Ortiz in Boston. They would point to last year as proof of their assertion when Ortiz was terrible in "clutch" situations and over half of Arod's homers either tied or put the yankees ahead. They would argue Arod was neither clutch or non-clutch, just depends on which small sample size you select.

Strat however is different. The definition of a clutch situation is very specific, 2 outs runner in scoring position. For a given card the adjustment in those situation is specific. You can count the $s on his card and whether they are positive or negative. There will be no progression toward the mean over time as the effect for a given card is constant and known.

And as Marcus points out the $ on the card is not related to a player's actual performance with 2 outs and runners in scoring position but related to strat's evaluation of need to adjust regarding RBIs.

Thus one can say clutch is irrelevant in strat while at the same time noting that the $ on a specific card is very important.