whitem0nkey Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 Recently, Sports Illustrated polled 470 major leaguers and asked them who the most overrated player in baseball was. Their results: Derek Jeter 9%, Carlos Beltran 7%, Alex Rodriguez 6%, and J.D. Drew 5%. Some national commentators said that these stats prove one thing: that these 470 players are jealous of New Yorkers whom make a ton of dough. who is the most overrated player in the majors? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegFuJohnson Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 Where these the top 10 guys from the survey? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitem0nkey Posted May 8, 2006 Author Share Posted May 8, 2006 Derek Jeter, Yankees .....9% Carlos Beltran, Mets .....7% Alex Rodriguez, Yankees .....6% J.D. Drew, Dodgers .....5% Nomar Garciaparra, Dodgers .....4% A.J. Burnett, Blue Jays.....4% Jason Kendall, A's .....3% Kerry Wood, Cubs .....3% Josh Beckett, Red Sox .....3% Johnny Damon, Yankees .....3% let me PM BJ and have him change the poll. with these choices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitem0nkey Posted May 8, 2006 Author Share Posted May 8, 2006 also that same poll listed the most underrated player Michael Young, Rangers .....11% Bobby Abreu, Phillies.....6% Garret Anderson, Angels .....5% Mark Loretta, Red Sox .....5% David Eckstein, Cardinals .....4% Bill Mueller, Dodgers .....4% Chone Figgins, Angels .....3% Vernon Wells, Blue Jays .....2% Raul Ibanez, Mariners .....2% Melvin Mora, Orioles .....2% Based on a survey of 470 MLB players Link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegFuJohnson Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 You don't have to change the survey, just curious. Wondering how someone like Joe Mauer (a relative newcomer) was in there with all the veterans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildcat2334 Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 From your list- I see a 3 way tie between........ Kendall Nomah Damon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cherni Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 I need to know who voted for Jeter and what his/her reasoning was? I can't figure it out for the life of me, besides flat out jealousy. I voted JD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted May 8, 2006 Share Posted May 8, 2006 I'm a Cubs fan, and if you guys don't vote Wood, you need to pay better attention. DJeter? What's his BA with RISP again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitem0nkey Posted May 8, 2006 Author Share Posted May 8, 2006 Im surprised that Suzuki has a vote also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cherni Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 (edited) I'm a Cubs fan, and if you guys don't vote Wood, you need to pay better attention. DJeter? What's his BA with RISP again? 1457835[/snapback] EDIT: Kerry Wood is way overrated I agree with that. I hate to open up a can of worms with this one, but let me start off by saying that his RISP is .353. Last year it was .281. Many baseball theorists will agree that RISP is a BS stat and that it's purely luck. That is of course if you buy into Sabremetrics. I'm a firm believer in numbers, which don't lie. Numbers are objective and it's pure math. I know people will disagree but check this out, it's worth the read: Clutch Hitting Study By David Grabiner I posted a previous article on my clutch study; I have now re-done it, with everything properly weighted. The basic conclusion didn't change; I still don't have evidence that clutch hitters exist, and if they do, they cannot be very important. I have 245 player-seasons to work with: every player who had at least 250 AB in the late innings of close games before the year in question (either 1991 or 1992), and was listed as a regular in the Great American Baseball Stat Book in that year. The correlation between past and current clutch performance is .01, with a standard deviation of .07. In other words, there isn't a significant ability in clutch hitting; if there were, the same players would be good clutch hitters every year. The GABSB's definition of the late innings of close games is the seventh inning or later with a one-run lead, a tie score, or the tying run on base, at bat, or on deck. The average player in my study lost 26 points of OBP in the clutch in 1991 and 1992, with a standard deviation of 116. 20 points was the average loss for the 1984-1990 and 1984-1991 data, with a standard deviation of 50. I'm perfectly willing to accept that the correlation of .01 is real, even if it isn't close to statistically significant. The linear regression coefficient is .02, with a standard error of .15. That means that Darren Daulton, the biggest choker in the major leagues over the 1984-1992 period (he lost 200 points of OPS), is expected to lose 24 points next year in the clutch instead of the normal 20. But that's too small a difference even to measure; if he stretches a single into a double in 100 AB, that would add 10 points to his clutch OPS, and 8 points to the difference. If the correlation coefficient is actually .01, that means there is an ability to hit in the clutch, with a standard deviation of about 8 points of OPS. I'm certainly willing to believe this, because there are clear reasons why it should happen. For example, Darryl Strawberry might be -16, one of the 2% of players who are two standard deviations below the mean. He is a left-handed hitter with a platoon split of 150 points of OPS; thus, if he faces 10% more left-handed pitchers in the clutch than normal, that will cost him 15 points. For this to happen in 100 clutch at-bats, the opposing manager would have to bring in a spot lefty to face him ten times. Likewise, Mariano Duncan might be +16. He is a right-handed hitter (formerly a switch-hitter who couldn't hit lefty) with a 200-point platoon split in OPS. If he is due up to the plate 80 times in the late innings of close games, which might normally be 48 times against righties and 32 times against lefties, then he would gain 20 points if he leaves for a pinch-hitter twelve times against righties and pinch-hits four times against lefties. And this is only one factor which affects clutch ability but has nothing to do with bearing down in the clutch. Boggs, McGriff, and Strawberry have 5 of the 14 worst choking numbers. All three are excellent left-handed hitters with large platoon differentials; this makes them vulnerable to spot lefties, because they do not leave for pinch-hitters. Other possible factors include an ability to hit one-pitch fastballers, who are often relief aces; an ability to hit the same pitcher better when you see him for the third or fourth time in a game; and difficulty seeing the ball in twilight. Edited May 9, 2006 by Cherni Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cherni Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 Another article explaining why clutch hitting is BS. The concept of "clutch" is one of the clearest dividing lines between traditional coverage of baseball and what you'll find here at Baseball Prospectus. In the mainstream, performance in important situations is often attributed to some wealth or deficit of character that causes a particular outcome. Here, we're more likely to recognize that when the best baseball players in the world go head-to-head, someone has to win and someone has to lose, and it doesn't mean that one side has better people than the other. Clutch performances exist, to be sure; you can't watch a day of baseball without seeing a well-timed hit, a big defensive play or a key strikeout that pushes a team towards victory. The biggest moments in baseball history are almost all examples of players doing extraordinary things in extraordinary circumstances. Those moments make the game great and the players responsible for them deserve credit, and even adulation, for their heroics. In trying to get across the notion that no players possess a special ability to perform in particular situations, the usual line we use is that clutch performances exist, not clutch players. That's wrong. The correct idea is that clutch performances exist, and clutch players exist: every last one of them. All major-league players have a demonstrated ability to perform under pressure. They've proven that by rising to the top of an enormous pyramid of players, tens of thousands of them, all trying to be one of the top 0.1% that gets to call themselves "major leaguers." Within this group of elite, who have proven themselves to be the best in the world at their jobs, there is no discernable change in their abilities when runners are on base, or when the game is tied in extra innings, or when candy and costumes and pumpkins decorate the local GigaMart. The guys who are good enough to be in the majors are all capable of succeeding and failing in these situations, and they're as likely to do one or the other in the clutch as they are at any other time. Over the course of a game, a month, a season or a career, there is virtually no evidence that any player or group of players possesses an ability to outperform his established level of ability in clutch situations, however defined. The statistical studies of clutch have supported this point. David Grabiner did the seminal work more than a decade ago, defining clutch as performance in the late innings of close games. From the article: The correlation between past and current clutch performance is .01, with a standard deviation of .07. In other words, there isn't a significant ability in clutch hitting; if there were, the same players would be good clutch hitters every year. A study by Ron Johnson, which is not currently online but is quoted here, covered a 15-year period and concluded that just two players, Paul Molitor and Tony Fernandez met the statistical criteria to be considered clutch hitters. (Johnson didn't argue that the two had this trait, just that of the players in the study, they were the only two whose performance with runners in scoring position showed a statistically significant improvement.) You can see this yourself if you like, and you don't need to understand correlations to do it. Pick any five players at random, and check out their splits for the last few seasons (you can do this fairly easily at any of the major sports portals). You'll find that their statistics from year to year in the various clutch situations (RISP, late-inning pressure, September) can vary widely, with no rhyme or reason to the splits. But over a large enough sample, players will hit in given situations pretty much as they do overall. Of course, these statistical arguments assume both numeracy and a quest for the truth. Too often, neither of these things is in play. The notion of clutch persists because it allows for a storyline with a hero and a goat, and that's both an easy tale to write and an easy one to read. While it's a facile concept, players buy into it because it's flattering. No one wants to believe that they're successful just because they hit the genetic lottery and that, on a particular day, they performed better than the other, equally-gifted guys. It's much more enjoyable to extrapolate a certain moral superiority from on-field success, to attribute that game-winning double to your heart and desire, rather than to your fast-twitch muscles and hitting the fastball at just the right angle to push it past the diving center fielder. It's this need to turn physics and physicality into a statement about the character of people--to stick labels on them based on their day at work and the bounce of a ball--that is the most darning thing about the myth of clutch. The idea that players' abilities do not change in the clutch is one of those things that gets the anti-stathead crowd riled up, gets them talking about pocket protectors and people who take the fun out of the game. I don't buy it; the fun is the game, in the performances and the competition and the talent that we get to watch. When you have that, who needs a myth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 Interesting stuff, but when he does it consistently, and ARod consistently DOESN'T, then you've got one of those beautiful baseball myths, "as so often happens." Compare Jeter's regular season average with the years he made the postseason. If that doesn't describe clutch, then I don't understand the meaning of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cherni Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 Interesting stuff, but when he does it consistently, and ARod consistently DOESN'T, then you've got one of those beautiful baseball myths, "as so often happens." Compare Jeter's regular season average with the years he made the postseason. If that doesn't describe clutch, then I don't understand the meaning of it. 1457995[/snapback] It is definitely an interesting topic. Well you pretty much proved that clutch hitting is a myth. Jeter's postseason numbers: 10 LDS appearances his avg is: .358 7 LCS: .262 6 WS: .307 If that doesn't prove that clutch hitting is a myth, I don't know what does. It's a numbers game that evens out over time. I'll bet that some of the greatest hitters of all time performed poorly in "clutch" situations. Also some of the worst hitters in baseball have performed well in the same situations. It's a complete crap shoot IMO and in the opinion of most Sabermetricians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cherni Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 (edited) whats up whitemonkey!!! another solid poll. Edited May 9, 2006 by Cherni Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cherni Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 Interesting stuff, but when he does it consistently, and ARod consistently DOESN'T, then you've got one of those beautiful baseball myths, "as so often happens." Compare Jeter's regular season average with the years he made the postseason. If that doesn't describe clutch, then I don't understand the meaning of it. 1457995[/snapback] Here's Arod's 2004 "Clutch" situations: G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB K SB CS AVG OBP SLG OPS Bases Empty 155 311 18 86 15 1 18 18 42 69 0 0 .277 .373 .505 .878 Runners On 150 290 94 86 9 1 18 88 38 62 28 4 .297 .378 .521 .898 RISP 131 157 79 39 4 1 8 66 24 33 10 2 .248 .346 .439 .785 RISP w/2 Outs 73 68 25 14 3 1 4 23 9 17 3 0 .206 .308 .456 .764 Bases Loaded 32 12 20 2 1 0 0 10 1 2 0 0 .167 .188 .250 .438 Here's 2005: G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB K SB CS AVG OBP SLG OPS Bases Empty 162 300 27 101 17 1 27 27 45 65 0 0 .337 .436 .670 1.106 Runners On 157 305 97 93 12 0 21 103 46 74 21 6 .305 .406 .551 .957 RISP 139 186 80 54 9 0 9 77 34 52 5 1 .290 .410 .484 .894 RISP w/2 Outs 088 86 22 26 3 0 5 38 17 26 1 0 .302 .429 .512 .940 Bases Loaded 029 016 13 7 2 0 1 20 4 2 0 0 .438 .571 .750 1.321 You can clearly see that from year to year his performance in clutch situations vary. I love this chit. Baseball is the bomb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitem0nkey Posted May 9, 2006 Author Share Posted May 9, 2006 whats up whitemonkey!!! another solid poll. 1458008[/snapback] I listed too many choices, I won’t list more than 10 next time, this is too much. But thanks man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted May 9, 2006 Share Posted May 9, 2006 After that stellar rookie year, Carrie Wood has spent more time on the DL than the mound. Perhaps not so much nationally, but he is WAY overrated in Chicago. Nomar and Kendall are pretty much washed-up as well. Burnett was only overrated by the idiots in the Jays front office. I don't see why Jeter was included on that list. He's lost a little range at SS over the past couple years, but he's still a bad-ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 It is definitely an interesting topic. Well you pretty much proved that clutch hitting is a myth. Jeter's postseason numbers: 10 LDS appearances his avg is: .358 7 LCS: .262 6 WS: .307 If that doesn't prove that clutch hitting is a myth, I don't know what does. It's a numbers game that evens out over time. I'll bet that some of the greatest hitters of all time performed poorly in "clutch" situations. Also some of the worst hitters in baseball have performed well in the same situations. It's a complete crap shoot IMO and in the opinion of most Sabermetricians. 1458001[/snapback] Break it down and this is what you get, found here. Every year Jeter has made the playoffs, he has at least one series where he hits for better than his regular season average from that year. 10 years! Of his 23 posteseason series (10 LDs, 7 LCS and 6 WS): 9 he's had BA's of .350 or more, with 5 of those at .400 or better. That's a clutch 39.1% which is ridiculous in a sport where .333 much better than average. His 2 worst postseason starts were '98 and '00. Both LDS and LCS he hit below his average, but when he made the WS he hit .353 and .409 respectively. That's clutch. Since and including 2001, he hits for better than his RS average in all LDS's - 5 in a row. Tht's PROVES he's clutch because his record befroe 2001 was that he started cold in LDS and heated up. he's fixed that. So, I don't how you seay these numbers prove 'clutch hitting is a myth' because IMO it isn't in Jeter's case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cherni Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 Break it down and this is what you get, found here. Every year Jeter has made the playoffs, he has at least one series where he hits for better than his regular season average from that year. 10 years! Of his 23 posteseason series (10 LDs, 7 LCS and 6 WS): 9 he's had BA's of .350 or more, with 5 of those at .400 or better. That's a clutch 39.1% which is ridiculous in a sport where .333 much better than average. His 2 worst postseason starts were '98 and '00. Both LDS and LCS he hit below his average, but when he made the WS he hit .353 and .409 respectively. That's clutch. Since and including 2001, he hits for better than his RS average in all LDS's - 5 in a row. Tht's PROVES he's clutch because his record befroe 2001 was that he started cold in LDS and heated up. he's fixed that. So, I don't how you seay these numbers prove 'clutch hitting is a myth' because IMO it isn't in Jeter's case. 1460879[/snapback] His lifetime batting average is .315, his postseason average is .307 that's the bottom line, numbers don't lie. Sure, he has had one series where his batting average was higher than his RS, but you didn't mention he also had a series where his numbers were lower: 96 WS: .250 98 DC: .111 98 CS: .200 99: great post season, every series 2K DS: .211 01 CS: .118 01 WS: .148 03 CS: .233 04 CS: .200 You can't say that he "fixed" his numbers as it's all about the law of averages, which is IMO the physics of baseball. The cream rises to the top, anomolies work themselves out over the course of time. Jeter is a winner, I would build a team around him without a doubt. I don't think he's over-rated, I think he's one of the best players in the history of the game. However IMO (and most baseball theorists opinion) there is no such thing as clutch hitting. The numbers do not and have never supported this myth. I like talking baseball so get back to me with numbers that prove it, but it's not going to be easy Pope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted May 10, 2006 Share Posted May 10, 2006 His lifetime batting average is .315, his postseason average is .307 that's the bottom line, numbers don't lie. Sure, he has had one series where his batting average was higher than his RS, but you didn't mention he also had a series where his numbers were lower: 96 WS: .250 98 DC: .111 98 CS: .200 99: great post season, every series 2K DS: .211 01 CS: .118 01 WS: .148 03 CS: .233 04 CS: .200 You can't say that he "fixed" his numbers as it's all about the law of averages, which is IMO the physics of baseball. The cream rises to the top, anomolies work themselves out over the course of time. Jeter is a winner, I would build a team around him without a doubt. I don't think he's over-rated, I think he's one of the best players in the history of the game. However IMO (and most baseball theorists opinion) there is no such thing as clutch hitting. The numbers do not and have never supported this myth. I like talking baseball so get back to me with numbers that prove it, but it's not going to be easy Pope. 1461011[/snapback] Well, I think we're talking about the same thing, we just define it differently. It's unrealistic to expect someone who is a 'clutch hitter' to ALWAYS hit better in the postseason. Or rather, perhaps it is to you but not to me. I think Jeter's trends show that he is, in fact, a clutch hitter in part because 40% of the time he hits better in a postseason series than he has during an entire season. In what may be a 3 game series you ahve to take the good with the bad: he goes 4-4 in one game and hits his avg in the rest it's going to be higher. Likewise he goes 0-4 it drops more than it should otherwise because of the small sample size. I DID mention his lower than RS postseason avgs, as something the #'s show he has put in the past. How about this stat: in 4 of his 5 WS his avg is higher than RS and the lowest of those 4 he hit .346. If you don't think that's shows he's clutch then no amount of number crunching on my part will change your mind, especially that fact which I consider a clincher to his ability to be a 'clutch hitter' as defined by someone who can hit better when the pressure is on. You don't believe it exists, apparently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cherni Posted May 11, 2006 Share Posted May 11, 2006 Well, I think we're talking about the same thing, we just define it differently. It's unrealistic to expect someone who is a 'clutch hitter' to ALWAYS hit better in the postseason. Or rather, perhaps it is to you but not to me. I think Jeter's trends show that he is, in fact, a clutch hitter in part because 40% of the time he hits better in a postseason series than he has during an entire season. In what may be a 3 game series you ahve to take the good with the bad: he goes 4-4 in one game and hits his avg in the rest it's going to be higher. Likewise he goes 0-4 it drops more than it should otherwise because of the small sample size. I DID mention his lower than RS postseason avgs, as something the #'s show he has put in the past. How about this stat: in 4 of his 5 WS his avg is higher than RS and the lowest of those 4 he hit .346. If you don't think that's shows he's clutch then no amount of number crunching on my part will change your mind, especially that fact which I consider a clincher to his ability to be a 'clutch hitter' as defined by someone who can hit better when the pressure is on. You don't believe it exists, apparently. 1461017[/snapback] OK so 40% of the time he hits better, 40% he hits lower, and 20% he hits the same. See what I'm getting at? It all evens out. If Jeter played in 100 WS, obviously impossible, my opinion is that he would wind up hitting roughly .315, his lifetime average. We can agree to disagree, but I love the debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted May 11, 2006 Share Posted May 11, 2006 (edited) OK so 40% of the time he hits better, 40% he hits lower, and 20% he hits the same. See what I'm getting at? It all evens out. If Jeter played in 100 WS, obviously impossible, my opinion is that he would wind up hitting roughly .315, his lifetime average. We can agree to disagree, but I love the debate. 1461025[/snapback] I do. But we're talking about a sport that when you hit .285 it's average, and .400 is unheard of. Applying that difficulty to the fact that he isn't hitting better nearly 30% of the time in the postseason but 40% and you've got yourself someone who is playing above the statistical mean. Where are your links to your nuimbers that say hitting better 40% of the time in the postseason isn't clutch? In fact my breakdowns were done in a misleading way. 40% of the time he's hitting OVER .350, but in 14 of his 23 PS series he's hitting better than his avg from that year. So, WELL OVER half the time in a given PS series he's better than the RS. Edited May 11, 2006 by Pope Flick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cherni Posted May 11, 2006 Share Posted May 11, 2006 I do. But we're talking about a sport that when you hit .285 it's average, and .400 is unheard of. Applying that difficulty to the fact that he isn't hitting better nearly 30% of the time in the postseason but 40% and you've got yourself someone who is playing above the statistical mean. Where are your links to your nuimbers that say hitting better 40% of the time in the postseason isn't clutch? In fact my breakdowns were done in a misleading way. 40% of the time he's hitting OVER .350, but in 14 of his 23 PS series he's hitting better than his avg from that year. So, WELL OVER half the time in a given PS series he's better than the RS. 1461036[/snapback] Personally I like to look at the numbers as a whole, I just broke them down to demostrate my thoughts. Forgetting DS, CD and WS, his lifetime post season average is .307, which is lower than his RS avg of .315. Like I broke down in my last post, he's had 8 PS appearances (out of 23) where he's actually performed below his season avg. So that's around 33%. So like you said, 40% of the time he hits better. He also hits WORSE 33% of the time, and hits the same the remaining appearances. Check this out, it breaks it down in a way that I cannot duplicate. We're talking about numbers here, numbers do not and cannot lie. Math is a concrete science and is objective and fair. If you can find an article that proves clutch hitting, let's see it, I would be very interested in reading it. http://www.dolphinsim.com/ratings/notes/clutch.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted May 11, 2006 Share Posted May 11, 2006 Personally I like to look at the numbers as a whole, I just broke them down to demostrate my thoughts. Forgetting DS, CD and WS, his lifetime post season average is .307, which is lower than his RS avg of .315. Like I broke down in my last post, he's had 8 PS appearances (out of 23) where he's actually performed below his season avg. So that's around 33%. So like you said, 40% of the time he hits better. He also hits WORSE 33% of the time, and hits the same the remaining appearances. Check this out, it breaks it down in a way that I cannot duplicate. We're talking about numbers here, numbers do not and cannot lie. Math is a concrete science and is objective and fair. If you can find an article that proves clutch hitting, let's see it, I would be very interested in reading it. http://www.dolphinsim.com/ratings/notes/clutch.html 1461057[/snapback] If something were to 'prove' there is no clutch hitting, I would put Jeter into the "exception to the rule" category - which is why most people don't understand why he's even a choice in this poll. One way of measuring it would be what is EVERYONE's PS avg compared to their RS average. The fact that he hits .008 worse in the postseason can be attributed to better deeper pitching. I'm willing to bet that a study of the 'modern era' might show that a majority of MLBer's probably do worse BA wise in the playoffs because pitching is so much more dominant, since most #5 starters are put in the bullpen and you have guys like Schilling coming out for relief, etc.... It's like the 'as so often happens' thing. An SI study showed it didn't happen, yet baseball history is replete with examples. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cherni Posted May 11, 2006 Share Posted May 11, 2006 (edited) If something were to 'prove' there is no clutch hitting, I would put Jeter into the "exception to the rule" category - which is why most people don't understand why he's even a choice in this poll. One way of measuring it would be what is EVERYONE's PS avg compared to their RS average. The fact that he hits .008 worse in the postseason can be attributed to better deeper pitching. I'm willing to bet that a study of the 'modern era' might show that a majority of MLBer's probably do worse BA wise in the playoffs because pitching is so much more dominant, since most #5 starters are put in the bullpen and you have guys like Schilling coming out for relief, etc.... It's like the 'as so often happens' thing. An SI study showed it didn't happen, yet baseball history is replete with examples. 1461069[/snapback] I hear what you're saying. I tried to find some stuff to back up your statements and came up with this. It's Bill James of course who has always been against clutch hitting, but check it out, pretty interesting stuff. http://www.salon.com/news/sports/col/kaufm...sday/index.html Another interesting read: http://www.courierpostonline.com/columnists/cxro060304a.htm Edited May 11, 2006 by Cherni Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.