Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
Mike Ulmer of the Sun takes a look at so-called truisms in baseball. This is an enjoyable holiday read, including sharp contrasts -- the insight of Keith Law is juxtaposed with the "traditional wisdom" of Lloyd McClendon:

"Once you consider the fact everyone hits better with men on base, you find that there is no such thing as a clutch hitter," Law said. "You can go back as far as you want. No player has over the course of any real timespan hit better in the clutch."

"I would disagree with that," McClendon said. "Certain guys who I played with tended to bring their game up when something was on the line. Myself for one. If I played as well all the time as I did in the clutch, I'd have been a hell of a player."



Ulmer probably misquoted Law as saying "There are clutch hitters but there are no clutch hits" -- it's actually the other way around -- but he gets the rest of the argument correct:

Everyone, from the lowest scrub to the biggest star, hits better with men on base because countless variables come into play. Pitchers may be less willing to risk a curveball that could get away and advance a runner. Infielders are often on the move to cover the bag.

The article also includes an illustration of the astounding ignorance in many broadcast booths.

"I think what numbers can show you is overrated," TSN's Jays television analyst Pat Tabler said. "You can make numbers say anything. Ask the Enron people."

Sure, Pat. Deliberately altered numbers can prove that P.E.I. is bigger than Ontario, but nobody's fudging the MLB stats to perpetrate an enormous fraud. If you're too dumb, or too lazy, to learn something new, it's always best to attack it with a spurious comparison.

Ulmer examines lots of other fallacies, like the notion that a majority of leadoff walks come around to score. I blame Tim McCarver for keeping that nonsense alive.

Happy Canada Day!

Fact Or Fiction? | 19 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Craig B - Tuesday, July 01 2003 @ 10:50 AM EDT (#98753) #
McClendon is full of shit, as usual. I get so tired of his stream of bull.

I don't have splits for his whole career (I'm missing the last two years)... they are available at Retrosheet. So we have six of his eight seasons.

McClendon, career with the bases empty : .264/.350/.416
McClendon, career with men on base : .234/.315/.361
McClendon, career with men in scoring position : .230/.317/.333

Not only is McClendon worse in these situations, he's much worse. The majority of players are better in these situations. McClendon with runners in scoring position was awful.

McClendon is confusing his "clutch performance" with his 16 postseason at-bats, where he was very good.
Craig B - Tuesday, July 01 2003 @ 11:19 AM EDT (#98754) #
Also, McClendon in September hit .243/.309/.358 for his career, well below his .249/.332/.389 overall for those years. In pennant races in particular, he was particularly bad. His best September (though still not particularly good) was in 1991 (interestingly, his teams during those six years were excellent, always coming first or second), but in 1991 his Pirates weren't really in a race in September, as they were light-years in front of the Cardinals.

He was a good pinch-hitter though.
robertdudek - Tuesday, July 01 2003 @ 11:21 AM EDT (#98755) #
I don't understand the author's analysis of the righty versus lefty argument.

Yes, righties don't see lefties very often, but they do hit them better. What kind of point is he trying to make by writing that "if a righthanded batter could only hit lefties he would never reach the majors"? So what - he still can hit lefties better than righties.

Almost every righthanded batter will, over a large sample perform better against lefthanded pitchers, despite facing them much less often. I think there are a few pitchers who have a reverse platoon split, probably owing to a unique repertoire of pitches.
_Jordan - Tuesday, July 01 2003 @ 11:34 AM EDT (#98756) #
"I think what numbers can show you is overrated," TSN's Jays television analyst Pat Tabler said. "You can make numbers say anything. Ask the Enron people."

This from a guy whose one claim to fame is his career batting average with the bases loaded. Put a cork in it, Pat.

Happy Canada Day, one and all -- we are fortunate beyond imagination to live in this country.
_Shane - Tuesday, July 01 2003 @ 11:54 AM EDT (#98757) #
You want to improve your team and product?, make this trade, Dan Shulman for what-ever it takes.
_Chuck Van Den C - Tuesday, July 01 2003 @ 12:18 PM EDT (#98758) #
From the article: "I don't buy that for a minute," said Canadian Matt Stairs, a member of the Pittsburgh Pirates. "I had four walk-off homers in 2000. I was a clutch hitter that year."

And it's this type of thing that makes difficult the promotion of the position that clutch hitting may exist, but that clutch hitters do not.

Someone should have asked Matt Stairs -- recognizing that he would be answering anecdotally, like McClendon, and not with hard numbers -- whether he was clutch his whole career. Certainly if he were innately a clutch hitter, he would have been able to repeat this skill year after year.

Happy Canada Day, one and all -- we are fortunate beyond imagination to live in this country.

Truer words were never spoken. That we even have to think to acknowledge this speaks volumes.

You want to improve your team and product?, make this trade, Dan Shulman for what-ever it takes.

I heard an interview with Shulman the first year he left TSN (last year? the year before?) and he said that the ESPN gig was preferable not only for financial considerations, but because he actually got to spend more time with his family, despite broadcasting exclusively in the US and not half-time in Canada. He was doing fewer games and despite more flying, got to spend less time away from home (which I believe is Hamilton).

Shulman has that rare combination of a soothing, easy-to-listen-to voice combined with intelligent remarks being issued via said voice. A few broadcasters fulfill the former, very few the latter. Too many in Toronto, neither.
_A - Tuesday, July 01 2003 @ 12:41 PM EDT (#98759) #
Most people who buy the Sun justify their purchase with the «quality» of the paper`s sports section...Now what`s their excuse?
...Acceptable answers could include wanting cheap softcore porn, a rubbish `news`tabloid, had to kill 3 minutes or (and this is the only truly justifiable one) just trying to get ahold of the english language.
_Spicol - Tuesday, July 01 2003 @ 02:45 PM EDT (#98760) #
Hijack: ESPN is reporting that Roberto Alomar was traded to the White Sox for prospects.

They also report that Toronto has inquired about Scott Schoeneweis. Ick. The guy is Mark Hendrickson Part Deux, give 8 or 9 inches. I hope that isn't true.
_Donkit R.K. - Tuesday, July 01 2003 @ 02:49 PM EDT (#98761) #
Yeah, the Score has reported the Alomar trade too. So much for the Tom Gordon aspirations (?). The Schoeneweis mention made me cringe. I'm sure there's better out there.
_Spicol - Tuesday, July 01 2003 @ 03:11 PM EDT (#98762) #
From Today's Star: "Ricciardi was the right choice for Jays"
- By Richard Griffin

Um. Richard Griffin?!? Saying something positive?!? Ah, but you have to take it with a grain of salt. Remember that the Jays don't like The Star very much right now thanks to Whitegate. Still, an interesting read.

Taking a 90 degree turn, I'd like to touch on something else:
Forget about Terrmel Sledge, I think JP should free Colter Bean from the Yankees. That's right, I said: FREE COLTER BEAN!!!

Most of you are probably saying, who's Colter Bean? He's an undrafted, 26 year old sidearming strikeout artist who the Yanks keep overlooking for the Jason Andersons and Randy Choates of the world. He has a 1.83 ERA, 0.86 WHIP, 3.33 K/BB, and 10.16 K/9 in 44 1/3 IP this season. Before this year, he was rotting away in AA and below depsite stellar numbers. Last year, he struck out 87 in 66 IP, leading to a 2.73, 3.22 K/BB and 11.86 K/9. He rarely gives up HR and the consistently low hit totals suggest that hitters can't hit his pitches with authority...he falls through the cracks of DIPS, likely due to his delivery.

FREE COLTER BEAN!
_Craig S - Tuesday, July 01 2003 @ 05:26 PM EDT (#98763) #
Craig B. said it well - McClendon is full of it. For that matter, so is Pat Tabler. And the king of them all may be Joe Morgan, a guy who was a great player but whose greatness doesn't translate to the booth. He still preaches the hit-and-run, and he's convinced that you can't win in the playoffs without bunting and playing smallball.

And after visiting Ontario recently, I have to wonder - how do you put up with John Cerutti on the telecasts, and with any of those idiots on TSN? I had to mute the TV in my hotel room.
_Jabonoso - Tuesday, July 01 2003 @ 06:35 PM EDT (#98764) #
In the ESPN chat with Bill James he both defended that there is not any statistical evidence that batting order matters AND also defended that Todd Walker is the perfect number two batter. Conclusion: any numbers playing conclusion is to be checked against the game. And the game precedes its numbers.
Putting McClendon and Morgan in the same stable does not seems correct to me. Actually you can win games in many ways. The infortunate Tosca's phrase everybody has his own philo ( lets group them somehow once you have systematized and ordered concepts ) gives them a chance.
_Craig S. - Tuesday, July 01 2003 @ 06:42 PM EDT (#98765) #
I wasn't grouping Lloyd and Little Joe. I was only stating that they both make many inane comments that aren't backed up by any empirical evidence. If you're going to talk about the importance of the hit-and-run, show me proof of its effectiveness beyond terms like "shaking things up" or "getting the team going."

I don't agree with everything Bill James says, and he's the first to admit that some of his claims will be disproven. However, I do appreciate his fact-based approach more than that of someone who believes they know everything about it simply because they played it.
_Matthew Elmslie - Tuesday, July 01 2003 @ 08:10 PM EDT (#98766) #
From Today's Star: "Ricciardi was the right choice for Jays"
- By Richard Griffin


When I saw that I had to buy a vowel. I was dumbfounded, flabbergasted, and gobsmacked. All those things.

Seriously. I never thought I'd live to see the day.
_Ryan - Tuesday, July 01 2003 @ 09:19 PM EDT (#98767) #
Does this column mean the Star now supports the racist policies of Blue Jays management? :-)

I don't think it's a coincidence that Griffin writes his first positive column about Ricciardi right after he and Baker get universally blasted for their pieces on the "White Jays." I'm hoping this will be a permanent change in attitude for Griffin, but I doubt it'll last more than a week.

I have to admit this was my initial reaction to the column:

_Jordan - Wednesday, July 02 2003 @ 02:18 PM EDT (#98768) #
I just came across Griffin's column, and in particular, this paragraph:

It's time to admit Paul Godfrey made the right choice, although at that time, I strongly supported the candidacy of the former Expos' personnel boss, armed as he was with a much flashier resumé, building a superb Expos farm system on a budget, then guiding the Marlins to a World Series title in the franchise's fifth season. He proved he could go both ways, as buyer or seller. The Jays made the right choice in hiring the man with the plan, instead of going with the track record in Montreal and Florida

I give Richard Griffin a tremendous amount of grief here, so it behooves me to congratulate him on this column. I think he's right, of course, but the congrats are because it takes a lot of guts to basically admit the man you wanted for the job wouldn't have been any good, and the guy you've been criticizng since then was the right choice. To do so unsolicited, in front of this wide a readership, is even more praiseworthy. I'm sure he doesn't care, but Griffin earned a lot of respect from me for this article, and he deserves to be given credit.
_John N. - Wednesday, July 02 2003 @ 03:11 PM EDT (#98769) #
Spicol,

I'll throw my voice into your chorus.

Here are Mr. Bean's stats through 2002.

John
_Jordan - Wednesday, July 02 2003 @ 10:45 PM EDT (#98770) #
Good heavens ... a 6'6", 250-lb sidearmer. That can't be fun to face if you're a right-handed batter. Bean's way too old to be in the Florida State League -- I'm not sure why the Yanks haven't given him an extended tryout at AA; he's struggled there, but only in brief appearances. I'd certainly take a crack at him, but I'd want to see how he does in the multiple-vowel leagues before getting too pumped.
_Spicol - Wednesday, July 02 2003 @ 11:16 PM EDT (#98771) #
Bean's already tearing up AAA Columbus this season. It's not a full season's worth of performance but I've seen enough. Wait too long and he becomes more expensive, even at 26.

He's likely being overlooked because he wasn't drafted and because he has a funky delivery.
Fact Or Fiction? | 19 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.