Fangraphs is hosting a new fantasy baseball service this year. The game is unique in many aspects, including the fact that it's essentially a year-round game. The service retails at $19.99, but if you sign up before March 1, 2011, it will cost only $9.99 to join or create a league.
To that end, Fangraphs was nice enough to set me up as one of the "guest commissioners" for Ottoneu (you may have noticed my league idly existing on the mainpage by now), and I am officially opening my league, on a first-come, first-served basis, to Hardball Times readers who want to participate in what I hope will be a very competitive league. Because I am a traditionalist, my league will be "Old School" format, meaning that it will use the standard 5x5 categories. The league, titled Jeffrey Gross—Hardball Times, will also include Hardball Times fantasy writer Brad Johnson. You can sign-up by clicking here, though you will need to register a login and username first. The password for my league is genius. Do not delay, as space is limited.
Showing posts with label Fangraphs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fangraphs. Show all posts
Monumental Comeback By The Colorado Rockies
Colorado overcomes a 9 run deficit by scoring 11 unanswered runs including 3 in the 5th, 6th and 4 in the 8th inning. This is the 3rd greatest comeback I have ever witnessed.
Number 2 on my list is the time the Pirates scored 8 runs in the bottom of the 9th inning off of Billy Wagner. It was capped off by a walk off grand slam off the bat of Brian Giles down by 3
And at number 1, the greatest game I have ever seen, drumrolllllllllllllll, Cleveland Indians over the Seattle Mariners 15-14 in 11 innings. Indians were down by 12 runs to the Mariners, who would go on to win 116 games that year, and scored 3 in the 7th, 4 in the 8th, and 5 in the 9th to tie the game. Yes, it went into extras, but there was no doubt who was winning that game. I was merely 14 years old at the time, but I can still remember watching the game on ESPN Sunday Night Baseball with Kenny Lofton jumping for joy and Jeff Nelson in disbelief of what was happening. Here is the marvelous WPA graph of the memorable night
You may be asking yourselves how I could possibly remember such instances, well I am The 'Bright' One so nothing should be all that surprising. Expect to see the exact same post on fangraphs tomorrow morning - they tend to do that kind of stuff
Who Was Better: Babe Ruth Or Barry Bonds?
A few years ago, Baseball Prospectus wrote a book in which the first chapter asked the question of who was better in their career: Babe Ruth or Barry Bonds. The book was written while Bonds was still playing and concluded that it was a close call that would depend on what Bonds did in the final years of his career.
Fast forward to today. Fangraphs has added historical WAR (Wins Above Replacement) data to their database and with both players retired, the verdict is in. According to Fangraphs' WAR data, Ruth (177.6 career WAR) beat out Bonds (1702 career WAR) by ~7 WAR for his career, or about ~3.2 runs per season.
To put their greatness in perspective, consider the following:
Fast forward to today. Fangraphs has added historical WAR (Wins Above Replacement) data to their database and with both players retired, the verdict is in. According to Fangraphs' WAR data, Ruth (177.6 career WAR) beat out Bonds (1702 career WAR) by ~7 WAR for his career, or about ~3.2 runs per season.
To put their greatness in perspective, consider the following:
- Bonds and Ruth are the only major league players to even accumulate 165 WAR.
- Only five major league players (Ruth, Bonds, Mays, Cobb, Aaron) eclipsed 150 WAR in their career, while only six (the sixth being Honus Wagner) reached the 150 WAR plateau.
- Ted Williams "only" accumulated 139.7 WAR (blame the war).
- Alex Rodriguez has amassed 105.2 WAR in his career. Will he last (and be effective) long enough to challenge Bonds and Ruth?
Win Probability
DME and I went to the Cubs game today against the Milwaukee Brewers. Things were looking bleak in the bottom of the 8th inning with 2 out and no one on base. Fangraphs had the Win Probability for the Cubs as a measly 2%. But that's when Latroy Hawkins entered the game and did what Latroy does. Couple walks. Couple hits. And the Cubs put up a 4 spot in the inning and increased their Win Probaility to 70%. Marmol struck out the side and all 40,000 in attendance went home happy. Oh, and I got a wicked tan. Great day
Stolen Goods: The Myth Of Defensive Diminishing Returns
Most of you probably know him from Fangraphs, but others will know Dave Cameron from U.S.S. Mariner. Recently, in defense of Jack Zduriencik and his defensive posture this offseason, Cameron wrote one of the most insightful pieces on team construction which I have read in a long time. The article, titled The Myth Of Defensive Diminishing Returns, explains why the law of diminishing marginal returns does not apply to defense:
"Put simply, almost every single ball in play that matters is only catchable by one player. On a line drive to left field, the quality of the defender at second base is completely irrelevant. That the team already has Franklin Gutierrez and Jack Wilson doesn’t matter when the hitter smashes a line drive down the first base line – the only variable on the defensive side is the quality of the first baseman. If he’s lousy, then the play isn’t getting made, regardless of how good his teammates are defensively."There is much more meat to Cameron's thesis in the article itself and I highly recommend giving it a thorough reading. Perhaps even a forwarding or two.
Overpaid bums of 2009 (Cubs Edition)
DME provided the overpaid bums of 2008 (cubs edition) in the early days of GOI, so let's see how Jim Hendry's team fared this last season. Clearly, the Cubs had a massive profit on their investment in 2008 thanks to a 97 win season. The same cannot be said about the 2009 club. The biggest losers of the season were Kevin Gregg, Aramis Ramirez, Aaron Miles, MIcah Hoffpauir, and the grand champion...Alfonso Soriano with a startling -19.3 million net loss. Despite my criticism of the value system on fangraphs, which I believe overvalues the production of players, the net production was still nearly 19 million dollars below the team payroll. That takes some serious skill on the part of Jim Hendry.
Click on the image to get a sharp view. Maybe one day we'll afford our own domain and be able to post readable data, but that day is not today
Finally science invented something of use
I'm just going to steal..errr..barrow fangraphs article:
I'm pleased to announce that FanGraphs has arrived on the iPhone & iPod Touch!
This initial version of the FanGraphs Baseball iPhone App includes:
- Live win probability and win probability graphs.
- Live box score and play-by-play data.
- Basic/Advanced/Value stats for any baseball player.
- Minor league stats.
- Historical game data going back to 1974.
Here are the screenshots:
The app is currently priced at $2.99 and is available now. You can either click here to take you directly to the app store page, or search for FanGraphs in iTunes.
Be sure to leave us feedback so we can start adding additional features to the next version!
I'm pleased to announce that FanGraphs has arrived on the iPhone & iPod Touch!
This initial version of the FanGraphs Baseball iPhone App includes:
- Live win probability and win probability graphs.
- Live box score and play-by-play data.
- Basic/Advanced/Value stats for any baseball player.
- Minor league stats.
- Historical game data going back to 1974.
Here are the screenshots:
The app is currently priced at $2.99 and is available now. You can either click here to take you directly to the app store page, or search for FanGraphs in iTunes.
Be sure to leave us feedback so we can start adding additional features to the next version!
LD rates by park
It's an older article that we've reference a few times on the blog, but check out how different parks categorize batted balls over at fangraphs.
The Slutter
Fangraphs.com did an analysis on the success of Cubs rookie starter Randy Wells. Although Randy is a touch old for a top prospect at 26 year of age, he was actually a catcher in the minors until 2005 at which time he was converted to a pitcher. Considering he has only been pitching for 3 years, it is actually shocking he made it to the big leagues so quickly. Imagine if the 2 Indian brothers signed by the Pirates made it to the bigs in 3 years, that would be absurd.
But here's the biggest kicker. Wells' slider has ranked the 3rd best slider in all of baseball among win shares behind Greinke and Dempster. However, his slider tends to cut as opposed to sink down and away like most other sliders. Hence, the guys at fangraphs gave the pitch a brand new name that I will hold near and dear to my heart forever. It's a combo of the slider and cutter - The Slutter. In the words of Hawk Harrelson, YES!
Urban Dictionary defines slutter as drunk muttering, but I will add the new definition shorty!
But here's the biggest kicker. Wells' slider has ranked the 3rd best slider in all of baseball among win shares behind Greinke and Dempster. However, his slider tends to cut as opposed to sink down and away like most other sliders. Hence, the guys at fangraphs gave the pitch a brand new name that I will hold near and dear to my heart forever. It's a combo of the slider and cutter - The Slutter. In the words of Hawk Harrelson, YES!
Urban Dictionary defines slutter as drunk muttering, but I will add the new definition shorty!
Sample Size! Sample Size! Sample Size!
When does the "Sample Size" argument become moot for various aspects of a player's hitting line? According to data summarized on Fangraphs.com (originally from this website),
50 PA: Swing %Cool stuff.
100 PA: Contact Rate
150 PA: Strikeout Rate, Line Drive Rate, Pitches/PA
200 PA: Walk Rate, Groundball Rate, GB/FB
250 PA: Flyball Rate
300 PA: Home Run Rate, HR/FB
500 PA: OBP, SLG, OPS, 1B Rate, Popup Rate
550 PA: ISO
Fangraphs: How Many Pitches Does It Take?
Fangraphs has a very interesting article out titled "How Many Pitches Does It Take? (Part One)" in which they look analyze the number of pitches various pitchers over the past three years, minimum 150 IP, have and break down ERA, FIP, K/9, BB/9, etc. per each number of pitch grouping.
Among the data, Fangraphs determined that:
Things to note:
o Pitchers who have less pitches seem to strike out more batters than pitchers with more pitches.
o Taking Ryan Franklin's numbers (sample size) out of the equation, it seems that there is a somewhat negligible difference in both walk rates and BABIP (although BABIP, for pitchers, has been proven to largely be the result of luck/statistical noise, not skill) between pitchers based on how many pitches they throw.
o Both HR/9 rates and FIP seem to improve as the of pitches a pitcher throws declines
What these three observations seems to indicate is that despite a "clear advantage in game theory" among pitchers with more pitches, pitchers who refine and maximize what they are best at seem to succeed more than pitchers who simply have more options at their disposal.
Finally, with regard to the chart, Fangraphs poses the following question:
Among the data, Fangraphs determined that:
"Franklin was the only pitcher with six pitches and 28 pitchers had five pitches qualify. Tradition has most starters throwing 3-4 pitches and most relievers having one or two. Tradition holds true here. 119 pitchers had four pitches qualify, 134 had three, and 39 had two. Franklin failed to make a start over the last three years meanwhile pitchers with 5 pitches saw 64% of their games come as starters, 60.2% for four pitch qualifiers, 32.2% for three pitches, and 11.7% for two pitches."Very cool stuff. The article also presents the following chart, breaking pitchers into groupings based on how many pitches they have (a pitch qualifies if thrown >5% of the time):
Things to note:
o Pitchers who have less pitches seem to strike out more batters than pitchers with more pitches.
o Taking Ryan Franklin's numbers (sample size) out of the equation, it seems that there is a somewhat negligible difference in both walk rates and BABIP (although BABIP, for pitchers, has been proven to largely be the result of luck/statistical noise, not skill) between pitchers based on how many pitches they throw.
o Both HR/9 rates and FIP seem to improve as the of pitches a pitcher throws declines
What these three observations seems to indicate is that despite a "clear advantage in game theory" among pitchers with more pitches, pitchers who refine and maximize what they are best at seem to succeed more than pitchers who simply have more options at their disposal.
Finally, with regard to the chart, Fangraphs poses the following question:
"Are the relievers skewing the two and three pitch numbers?"They plan to answer it tomorrow.
Is John Danks For Real?
Kenny Williams seems to have developed a knack at acquiring young guys with great potential that other teams have given up on (Jenks, Quentin). If it weren't for his sexual affinity for being sodomized by Billy Beane and signing old people to long contracts, the Sox would have a quality young team in the works. However, you have to wonder how much of some player's production is luck and how much is talent.
In particular, let's look at '08 Sox ace John Danks. Is John Danks a true-phenom like Carlos Quentin, who posted +.225 ISOs at every level except with the D-backs in 2007 due to an early season labrum injury, or a lucky guy like Gavin Floyd, the flyball pitcher at the cell who posted a 3.84 ERA and 4.77 FIP?
John Danks took a huge step forward in 2008. After posting FIPs of 3.94, 4.67 and 5.54 between AA, AAA and his first major league season (respectively), Danks posted a 3.44 FIP in 195 IP. His 3.32 ERA, 3.00 BABIP and 2.8 K/BB seem to indicate that the season wasn't luck. However, despite Dank's earned success in 2008, there are some looming question for 2009.
First and foremost, is Danks' HR/9 rate, which had never been below 1.4 at any level prior to last season, where he posted a .7 HR/9. In the offense friendly Cell, you have to wonder how much of Danks' HR/9 improvement from 2008 can translate over to 2009. Do we expect him to continue at a rate 1/2 his career norms or do we expect some regression? The law of averages (and logic) says to me that even if Danks doesn't entirely revert back to his 1.4 HR/9 days (let's say Danks' success in the HR dept had to do with a GB% that rose by 8% due to the introduction of a Cutter and less use of a fastball, which would continue in 2009) that some regression towards the mean is still in order. If John Danks were to exactly repeat his numbers from 2008 in 2009, but have a 1.0 HR/9 rate, his FIP would rise to 4.05. Thus, we should expect some regression in the ERA (and WHIP, maybe even Ws) department in 2009, even if Danks' improvements are for real.
We make this 2009 FIP increase with the assumption that all else from 2008 remains constant. How much of it should we expect to remain constant, however? Let's say the K/9 and BB/9 are for real. Danks has always posted good control (>2), so this is reasonable assumption. However, my concern is in the injury (and thus IP) department. John Danks, soon to be 24, pitched 55 innings (not including the playoffs) above his previous season total (139) and 55 more innings than his career high (140 IP, 2006). As Baseball Prospectus has shown, pitchers are most brittle before the age of 24 and after the age of 35. Tom Verducci observed that pitchers under the age of 25 who increase their seasonal workload by more than 25-30 innings in a single season are the most susceptible to injury the following year.
From a fantasy prospective, all signs point to John Danks being overvalued in 2009. Between the low HR/9 rate at the cell and the potential for injury, Danks is just not worth the risk. Much of his upside was reached in 2008 and it's not worth paying a premium for his services when you expect some regression and looming health concerns. If Danks comes your way, I'd pass (or at the very most aggressively package him in a lucrative trade before the season starts). With an ADP of 157, you're better off with Max Scherzer (higher upside, similar innings potential if you factor in injury concern), Erik Bedard (you might as well pick the better K/ERA guy with injury problems) or Kevin Slowey (stay away from him Sexy Rexy, he's mine). Hell, why not just wait a few rounds and grab the extremely comparable (similar FIP, similar control, similar HR rate), but less injury prone, Gil Meche (ADP 207)?
And that's my professional opinion as a fantasy baseball player, not a Cubs fan.
In particular, let's look at '08 Sox ace John Danks. Is John Danks a true-phenom like Carlos Quentin, who posted +.225 ISOs at every level except with the D-backs in 2007 due to an early season labrum injury, or a lucky guy like Gavin Floyd, the flyball pitcher at the cell who posted a 3.84 ERA and 4.77 FIP?
John Danks took a huge step forward in 2008. After posting FIPs of 3.94, 4.67 and 5.54 between AA, AAA and his first major league season (respectively), Danks posted a 3.44 FIP in 195 IP. His 3.32 ERA, 3.00 BABIP and 2.8 K/BB seem to indicate that the season wasn't luck. However, despite Dank's earned success in 2008, there are some looming question for 2009.
First and foremost, is Danks' HR/9 rate, which had never been below 1.4 at any level prior to last season, where he posted a .7 HR/9. In the offense friendly Cell, you have to wonder how much of Danks' HR/9 improvement from 2008 can translate over to 2009. Do we expect him to continue at a rate 1/2 his career norms or do we expect some regression? The law of averages (and logic) says to me that even if Danks doesn't entirely revert back to his 1.4 HR/9 days (let's say Danks' success in the HR dept had to do with a GB% that rose by 8% due to the introduction of a Cutter and less use of a fastball, which would continue in 2009) that some regression towards the mean is still in order. If John Danks were to exactly repeat his numbers from 2008 in 2009, but have a 1.0 HR/9 rate, his FIP would rise to 4.05. Thus, we should expect some regression in the ERA (and WHIP, maybe even Ws) department in 2009, even if Danks' improvements are for real.
We make this 2009 FIP increase with the assumption that all else from 2008 remains constant. How much of it should we expect to remain constant, however? Let's say the K/9 and BB/9 are for real. Danks has always posted good control (>2), so this is reasonable assumption. However, my concern is in the injury (and thus IP) department. John Danks, soon to be 24, pitched 55 innings (not including the playoffs) above his previous season total (139) and 55 more innings than his career high (140 IP, 2006). As Baseball Prospectus has shown, pitchers are most brittle before the age of 24 and after the age of 35. Tom Verducci observed that pitchers under the age of 25 who increase their seasonal workload by more than 25-30 innings in a single season are the most susceptible to injury the following year.
From a fantasy prospective, all signs point to John Danks being overvalued in 2009. Between the low HR/9 rate at the cell and the potential for injury, Danks is just not worth the risk. Much of his upside was reached in 2008 and it's not worth paying a premium for his services when you expect some regression and looming health concerns. If Danks comes your way, I'd pass (or at the very most aggressively package him in a lucrative trade before the season starts). With an ADP of 157, you're better off with Max Scherzer (higher upside, similar innings potential if you factor in injury concern), Erik Bedard (you might as well pick the better K/ERA guy with injury problems) or Kevin Slowey (stay away from him Sexy Rexy, he's mine). Hell, why not just wait a few rounds and grab the extremely comparable (similar FIP, similar control, similar HR rate), but less injury prone, Gil Meche (ADP 207)?
And that's my professional opinion as a fantasy baseball player, not a Cubs fan.
Clutch Factor (Part 2)
Below is an 8 year analysis of 10 player's "Clutch" rating, courtesy of Fangraphs. I've provided a raw, unadjusted 8 year total, a weighted career total (which adjusts the cumulative total to be proportional to PA/Season) and a postseason Clutch cumulative total to bench mark overall performance.
As should be relatively obvious from the data of these notoriously "clutch" players, the ability to be "clutch" from year to year is highly variable. There seems to be little, if any consistency from one-year to the next. Having looked at much data on Fangraphs, I found that across most player's careers, their cumulative weighted Clutch factor oscillated somewhere around 0 -- this, of course, seems to indicate that as a player's sample size of clutch-situation AB's increases, that player's performance numbers in such situations converges to reflect their average career performance.
However, there were several notable exceptions to this trend, a few of which are documented here.
The big name on the list is A-Rod, who over the course of his career has been incredulously unclutch. Throughout his career, his clutch-situation numbers have been consistently lower than his overall performance numbers. There is a clear statistical trend that seems to point to A-Rod being unable, for whatever reason, to perform well in clutch situations. The reason could be anything from simple sample size to simple psychological factors. Regardless of the cause, a trend does exist; you might even say that booing him has some statistical justification.
On the other end of the spectrum are Beltran, Ortiz and Captain Clutch himself, Derek Jeter. Each of these players have accumulated slightly positive clutch numbers over the course of their careers. Each has arguable statistically earned their label as "clutch players", even if it has been a byproduct of situational luck rather than skill.
Speaking of situational luck vs skill, it would seem that the former is most likely the cause of "clutchiness", as most player's weighted cumulative career clutch numbers fail to translate in the post season. Excluding Ryan Howard, of the remaining 9 players listed here, there is much variability between post season play and career averages. If clutchiness was truly a skill rather than a byproduct of situational luck, you would imagine more consistency between the two figures.
(also, Jermaine Dye -- whose numbers I didn't include is this analysis -- has a cumulative career clutch factor of -8.33, almost as bad as A-Rod!)
As should be relatively obvious from the data of these notoriously "clutch" players, the ability to be "clutch" from year to year is highly variable. There seems to be little, if any consistency from one-year to the next. Having looked at much data on Fangraphs, I found that across most player's careers, their cumulative weighted Clutch factor oscillated somewhere around 0 -- this, of course, seems to indicate that as a player's sample size of clutch-situation AB's increases, that player's performance numbers in such situations converges to reflect their average career performance.
However, there were several notable exceptions to this trend, a few of which are documented here.
The big name on the list is A-Rod, who over the course of his career has been incredulously unclutch. Throughout his career, his clutch-situation numbers have been consistently lower than his overall performance numbers. There is a clear statistical trend that seems to point to A-Rod being unable, for whatever reason, to perform well in clutch situations. The reason could be anything from simple sample size to simple psychological factors. Regardless of the cause, a trend does exist; you might even say that booing him has some statistical justification.
On the other end of the spectrum are Beltran, Ortiz and Captain Clutch himself, Derek Jeter. Each of these players have accumulated slightly positive clutch numbers over the course of their careers. Each has arguable statistically earned their label as "clutch players", even if it has been a byproduct of situational luck rather than skill.
Speaking of situational luck vs skill, it would seem that the former is most likely the cause of "clutchiness", as most player's weighted cumulative career clutch numbers fail to translate in the post season. Excluding Ryan Howard, of the remaining 9 players listed here, there is much variability between post season play and career averages. If clutchiness was truly a skill rather than a byproduct of situational luck, you would imagine more consistency between the two figures.
(also, Jermaine Dye -- whose numbers I didn't include is this analysis -- has a cumulative career clutch factor of -8.33, almost as bad as A-Rod!)
Clutch Factor (Part 1)
God bless Fangraphs.
They have an intriguing statistic called "Clutch", which measures
Statistically speaking, Clutch is calculated by take the net difference between a player's WPA/pLI and their WPA/LI, or, in other words, Clutch calculates the difference between a player's neutral overall Wins Probability Added (WPA) and his luck neutral WPA in leverage situations (such as when runners are in scoring position). While I can't say that future MVPs should be based on this statistic (because a shitty player who only performs well in "clutch" situations will have a high Clutch, while consistent players like Pujols [whos Clutch is almost 0]), it should be at least referenced for relativity in the conversation (ie, was Howard or Pujols more clutch in 2008). At the very least, it should be consulted when asshole sports writers call a player "clutch." It's a pretty good metric of who "choked" last year (Clutch<0), clutch="0),">0).
Let's take a look at which batters were most/least clutch in 2008 and then later take a look some of the notoriously least clutch active hitters in baseball.
Bottom 15 Clutch Batters in 2008
Alex Roidriguez: -3.16
Jermaine Dye: -2.6
Ryan Ludwick: -2.44
Chase Utley: -2.19
Felipe Lopez: -2.09
Adrian Beltre: -1.85
Garrett Atkins: -1.85
James Loney: -1.64
Brian McCann: -1.62
Jim Thome: -1.48
Aubrey Huff: -1.34
Carlos Gomez: -1.33
Lastings Milledge: -1.29
Corey Hart: -1.28
Conor Jackson: -1.27
Top 15 Clutch Batters in 2008
Stephen Drew: 2.09
Lance Berkman: 1.83
Russell Martin: 1.77
Dustin Pedroia: 1.47
Joe Mauer: 1.42
Kelly Johnson: 1.27
Rickie Weeks: 1.25
Xavier Nady: 1.23
Raul Ibanez: 1.14
David DeJesus: 1.14
Manny Ramirez: 1.11
Kosuke Fukudome: 1.11
Carlos Beltran: 1.10
Jeremy Hermida: 1.10
Nate McLouth: 1.09
What is interesting is this data is that the bottom 15 clutch hitters in 2008 diverged more from their overall production than did the top 15 clutch hitters. I was expecting, at the very least, a neutrally skewed variance (but more realistically a slightly positive one).
Secondly, if we were to expand the data to include all 147 major league hitters with at least 400 ABs from last year, about 50 players had positive Clutch numbers, while approximately 75 players had negative ones. Only a grand total of 42 players had clutch numbers that varied by 1% or more in either direction. This seems to indicate to me that as a whole, players generally produced at the same level in clutch situations as they did in non-clutch situations. Most variances seem negligible.
Unsurprisingly, the least clutch player in 2008 was A-Roid (followed by Dye and Ludwick). There are countless articles by countless know-nothing sports journalists who have chronicled A-Roid's inability to "produce when necessary" throughout his career (more on this later).
Suprisingly, however, is Stephen Drew's name at the top of the clutch list. Drew set a career high for himself in RBI's last year, largely bolstered by his ability to hit when it mattered. Though his numbers were unspectacular, he was a large part of Arizona's minimal offense impact in 2008. As expected, we see MVP-nominated names like Manny, Pedroia (who won the AL MVP) and Berkman at the top of the Clutch board.
Guess who was the 16th most "clutch" hitter in 2008? (answer below the break)
Bet you didn't guess Pat Burrell.
Now that that is established, I will take a look at 10 notoriously clutch/not-clutch players (A-Rod, Pujols, Ryan Howard, Carlos Beltran, David Wright, David Ortiz, David Eckstein, Joe Crede, Aramis Ramirez and Derek Jeter) and verify/disprove their legacies in my next post.
(bonus points go out to anyone who actually takes the time to calculate the statistical variance of the 147 hitter's Clutch WPA's against their seasonal WPA's)
They have an intriguing statistic called "Clutch", which measures
"how much better or worse a player does in high leverage situations than he would have done in a context neutral environment....unlike tradition clutch statistics, Clutch is a much more comprehensive statistic taking into account all situations that may or may not have been high leverage. Additionally, instead of comparing a player to the rest of the field, it compares a player to himself. A player who hits .300 in high leverage situations when he’s an overall .300 hitter is not considered Clutch."
Statistically speaking, Clutch is calculated by take the net difference between a player's WPA/pLI and their WPA/LI, or, in other words, Clutch calculates the difference between a player's neutral overall Wins Probability Added (WPA) and his luck neutral WPA in leverage situations (such as when runners are in scoring position). While I can't say that future MVPs should be based on this statistic (because a shitty player who only performs well in "clutch" situations will have a high Clutch, while consistent players like Pujols [whos Clutch is almost 0]), it should be at least referenced for relativity in the conversation (ie, was Howard or Pujols more clutch in 2008). At the very least, it should be consulted when asshole sports writers call a player "clutch." It's a pretty good metric of who "choked" last year (Clutch<0), clutch="0),">0).
Let's take a look at which batters were most/least clutch in 2008 and then later take a look some of the notoriously least clutch active hitters in baseball.
Bottom 15 Clutch Batters in 2008
Alex Roidriguez: -3.16
Jermaine Dye: -2.6
Ryan Ludwick: -2.44
Chase Utley: -2.19
Felipe Lopez: -2.09
Adrian Beltre: -1.85
Garrett Atkins: -1.85
James Loney: -1.64
Brian McCann: -1.62
Jim Thome: -1.48
Aubrey Huff: -1.34
Carlos Gomez: -1.33
Lastings Milledge: -1.29
Corey Hart: -1.28
Conor Jackson: -1.27
Top 15 Clutch Batters in 2008
Stephen Drew: 2.09
Lance Berkman: 1.83
Russell Martin: 1.77
Dustin Pedroia: 1.47
Joe Mauer: 1.42
Kelly Johnson: 1.27
Rickie Weeks: 1.25
Xavier Nady: 1.23
Raul Ibanez: 1.14
David DeJesus: 1.14
Manny Ramirez: 1.11
Kosuke Fukudome: 1.11
Carlos Beltran: 1.10
Jeremy Hermida: 1.10
Nate McLouth: 1.09
What is interesting is this data is that the bottom 15 clutch hitters in 2008 diverged more from their overall production than did the top 15 clutch hitters. I was expecting, at the very least, a neutrally skewed variance (but more realistically a slightly positive one).
Secondly, if we were to expand the data to include all 147 major league hitters with at least 400 ABs from last year, about 50 players had positive Clutch numbers, while approximately 75 players had negative ones. Only a grand total of 42 players had clutch numbers that varied by 1% or more in either direction. This seems to indicate to me that as a whole, players generally produced at the same level in clutch situations as they did in non-clutch situations. Most variances seem negligible.
Unsurprisingly, the least clutch player in 2008 was A-Roid (followed by Dye and Ludwick). There are countless articles by countless know-nothing sports journalists who have chronicled A-Roid's inability to "produce when necessary" throughout his career (more on this later).
Suprisingly, however, is Stephen Drew's name at the top of the clutch list. Drew set a career high for himself in RBI's last year, largely bolstered by his ability to hit when it mattered. Though his numbers were unspectacular, he was a large part of Arizona's minimal offense impact in 2008. As expected, we see MVP-nominated names like Manny, Pedroia (who won the AL MVP) and Berkman at the top of the Clutch board.
Guess who was the 16th most "clutch" hitter in 2008? (answer below the break)
Bet you didn't guess Pat Burrell.
Now that that is established, I will take a look at 10 notoriously clutch/not-clutch players (A-Rod, Pujols, Ryan Howard, Carlos Beltran, David Wright, David Ortiz, David Eckstein, Joe Crede, Aramis Ramirez and Derek Jeter) and verify/disprove their legacies in my next post.
(bonus points go out to anyone who actually takes the time to calculate the statistical variance of the 147 hitter's Clutch WPA's against their seasonal WPA's)
Undead Pitching
Remember Corey Lidle, the very average pitcher who tragically died in a plane crash in 2006? Take a look at his Fangraphs profile; Marcel's Seasonal Performance Projection System predicts him to pitch 59 innings of 4.65 ERA baseball.
Spooky.
Spooky.
