- Posts: 805
- Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 8:00 pm
Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:28 am
I guess we have to regard clutch as just one factor among many to be considered, but a factor that, depending on the mix of players, could have a significant impact. Still, if a player or team has other positives, that can override negative clutch.
Here's an example from one of my teams.
http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/team/misc/804909
At some point I looked at the clutch hitting results for this team and realized that they were headed what turned out to be a horrible 0-26 in clutch situations. That's a lot of lost runs, there! Compared to hitting in 100% of those situations, you've lost a minimum 26 runs and ended 26 potentially big innings. My guess is that I may have lost a net 35 runs or more due to bad clutch. Ouch! I had no idea that ALL the hitters on this team had negative clutch until I saw that stat.
But there's a flip-side. This team was stacked with strong hitters, clutch or no clutch, including Arky, Musial, Bagwell, Larry Walker, Ortiz, Edmunds, and Wade Boggs. Moreover, in a 140M league, it scored 1159 runs vs. top-tier pitching, led the league in runs scored, won 90 regular season games, and won the league championship. So, while clutch hitting can have an important impact, esp. if a lot of your players tip toward strong or negative clutch, it's still just one factor.
http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/team/804909
If I can editorialize for a minute, I think the whole clutch rating thing is pretty dubious. As I understand it, it's designed to maximize the creation of Strat stats that are as close to real life stats as possible. But the ATG environment is so full of extremes that it's statistical mirroring is really an unattainable goal. Also, I have problems with negative clutch for leadoff hitters. My "worst" clutch hitter was Wille Randolph (8 failed opportunities), but his clutch rating is merely a product of being a leadoff man, which will, in real life, naturally lower RBI opportunities. It doesn't mean he "can't hit in the clutch."
Moreover, Musial had a significant negative clutch despite 131 real life RBI's. What's with that? He led the league in RBI that year. Larry Walker, with a significant negative clutch, drove in 130 real life ribbies. That was third in the league. What's with that. I don't get why these outstanding RBI guys should be given significant negative clutch ratings. But those ratings are factored into their cost, so I can live with it.
Here's an example from one of my teams.
http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/team/misc/804909
At some point I looked at the clutch hitting results for this team and realized that they were headed what turned out to be a horrible 0-26 in clutch situations. That's a lot of lost runs, there! Compared to hitting in 100% of those situations, you've lost a minimum 26 runs and ended 26 potentially big innings. My guess is that I may have lost a net 35 runs or more due to bad clutch. Ouch! I had no idea that ALL the hitters on this team had negative clutch until I saw that stat.
But there's a flip-side. This team was stacked with strong hitters, clutch or no clutch, including Arky, Musial, Bagwell, Larry Walker, Ortiz, Edmunds, and Wade Boggs. Moreover, in a 140M league, it scored 1159 runs vs. top-tier pitching, led the league in runs scored, won 90 regular season games, and won the league championship. So, while clutch hitting can have an important impact, esp. if a lot of your players tip toward strong or negative clutch, it's still just one factor.
http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/team/804909
If I can editorialize for a minute, I think the whole clutch rating thing is pretty dubious. As I understand it, it's designed to maximize the creation of Strat stats that are as close to real life stats as possible. But the ATG environment is so full of extremes that it's statistical mirroring is really an unattainable goal. Also, I have problems with negative clutch for leadoff hitters. My "worst" clutch hitter was Wille Randolph (8 failed opportunities), but his clutch rating is merely a product of being a leadoff man, which will, in real life, naturally lower RBI opportunities. It doesn't mean he "can't hit in the clutch."
Moreover, Musial had a significant negative clutch despite 131 real life RBI's. What's with that? He led the league in RBI that year. Larry Walker, with a significant negative clutch, drove in 130 real life ribbies. That was third in the league. What's with that. I don't get why these outstanding RBI guys should be given significant negative clutch ratings. But those ratings are factored into their cost, so I can live with it.