Clutch is stupid... let's get rid of it

After years of playing ATG, I've come to the conclusion that clutch is just dumb. It adds nothing to the game, and it causes HAL to make really stupid decisions like intentionally walking weak hitters with good clutch ratings to get to good hitters with poor clutch ratings. Yes, it's adds a layer of strategy, but it's a completely arbitrary layer of strategy.

From comments I've read from SOM, clutch is used to force players to closer replicate their real life RBI numbers. It has nothing to do with how players actually performed in clutch situations. At the most basic level, it appears to be some kind of ratio between RBI and either OPS or SLG. Consequently a player with high slugging and low RBI totals gets a poor clutch rating (see 1924 Hornsby), and a player with low slugging and high RBI gets a high clutch rating (see 1945 Dixie Walker).

The end result of this is that Hornsby gets penalized for (in real life) batting 3rd behind a couple guys with a .330 OBP, while a smallball guy like Glenn Wright gets a clutch boost because he batted behind the Waner brothers.

What value does this add to the game? What pitcher in 1924 ever thought "well, even though Rajah is hitting .424, I'm going to pitch to him anyway because he stinks in the clutch." Or, "I've got to pitch around Glenn Wright here with a .300 hitter on deck."

It doesn't make sense that we penalize cards for something that player couldn't control, that being runners getting on base in front of him. SOM doesn't do the reverse for hitters with low OBP and high run totals. Imagine Frank Crosetti getting a positive "tablesetter" roll with less than two outs because he scored a lot of runs batting in front of the Yankee sluggers. It seems stupid, so why do it on the flip side for RBI?

Anyway, consider this my petition to remove clutch settings from ATG.
And if it sounds like I'm bitter because Mantle had two clutch pop outs last night, you're correct...

A good argument for turning clutch off.

While on the subject of penalizing a player because of where they hit in lineup injuries to some extent do the same thing being based on plate appearances. This puts a bias in favor of players who hit at or near the top of their team's lineup. Is a player more durable because they hit leadoff or upper half of lineup than if they hit 8th?

An example is on of my favorites, Ozzie Smith. 86 card is at risk for 15 game injury because he had only 593 Strato plate appearances. Have to differentiate there of course because baseball-reference has him at 615 PAs. In 1987 he played in an additional 5 games coming to the plate an additional 97 times. That is roughly 20 times per game. So the extra plate appearances are either due to batting lower in lineup or having a lineup around him that had lesser seasons. What does that have to do with how durable Ozzie was or was not?

I vote eliminate clutch and I also would like to see a better injury system put in place.

do not remove clutch it is one of the few things that are transparent...if you want to turn something off...dump home field advantage ...it is not transparent

I'd have to agree with Valen on this issue!

Lose the clutch.....and gba is based on what exactly, since to my knowledge (and I could be very wrong) they didn't keep that stat for much of the past? Just asking.

I'm afraid i'm going to have to argue for the gba, Nev. It's a way to make the Tommy John's of the world relevant. It was created for ground ball pitchers who have many more DP's turned per IP than what the X charts and batters cards can produce. And as far as "Clutch" goes - it was originally created as a RBI adjuster. I agree that it has no place in anything except full season replays.

-The Sheik

By just using the ratio of RBI per at bat, all lead off hitters are penalized with being a failure 20% right off the top.
Ichiro has 60 rbi in 750 plate appearances. 1 RBI per 12.5 at bats

If you removed his 1st at bat leading off a game and assuming he hit 2 of his 8 HRs in the first, suddenly he has 58 RBI in 590 plate appearances, much better at 1 RBI per 10 at bats.

A true clutch rating would only take into account at bats with runners in scoring position.

I'm afraid i'm going to have to argue for the gba, Nev. It's a way to make the Tommy John's of the world relevant. It was created for ground ball pitchers who have many more DP's turned per IP than what the X charts and batters cards can produce. And as far as "Clutch" goes - it was originally created as a RBI adjuster. I agree that it has no place in anything except full season replays.

-The Sheik

I hear ya...I love the gba..... I'm just asking how can they come up with a logic that gives Pop Stargell, rated 8 for speed, so few gba, but Sisler 17 for speed has a ton....just another thing that seems random yes?

Better example....Joe Torre 1971 card and actual stats (running 8) in 707 plate appearances he grounded into 18 dps...his gba # vs righties is 15

yet

Pete Rose 1976 card and actual stats (running 16) in 759 plate appearances he grounded into 17 dps (more pa, less dp, much faster runner fwiw) and his gba vs righties is 25.


Based on what?

the card that's puzzles me is the 04 lajoie. seems its either a hit or a gba? for a 1-17 runner that seems far-fetched?