Bernstein Column

[Marty34]

What Bernstein needs is to be rid of Boers, because he needs a strong voice on the other side that will keep him in check.

 

Agreed, but his ego has reached Mike North proportions where he will never allow it. Too bad because Bernstein was very good when he first started.

[Kyyle23]

Agreed, but his ego has reached Mike North proportions where he will never allow it. Too bad because Bernstein was very good when he first started.

 

I dont know that he wouldnt allow it now. Maybe a few years more of him and Boers will give him balls to call the shots, but I still think if you got Goff in there, you would see a different Bernstein immediately. I would like to say Abbattacola would be there too, but MA really falls in line with Bernstein when it comes to callers and opinions when they are together.

 

 

[winninguglyin83]

Not familiar with this Rizzo fellow.

[ptatc]

Maybe YOU did, but the RBI total lied to you about it, and many mainstream media pundits and fans were calling for a huge contract extension for Brandon Phillips now that he had "evolved his game to become a run producer." Further, Phillips himself famously lambasted fan pressure to improve his game citing that his RBI totals spoke for themselves, as if better productivity wouldn't lead to more RBIs as a by-product.

 

I guess what I'm saying is that if you have to ignore a stat in certain situations because you "just know better," what use does that stat have? If it's right except when it's wrong, and you already know when it's right or wrong, you really don't need the stat. It's not telling you anything in terms of player evaluation.

This is true. I don't think that any one stat should be used in all situations. I think each case is individual and no one thing can tell me everything about a player or that player's performance. This is why I advocate for the use of all of them and not not placing too much focus on any one of them. You need to use the eye ball test, advanced metrics and traditional stats together to get a true evaluation of any player.

Maybe this is just from my doing research for admission to physical therapy graduate school. I think if I look at a variety of grades, tests, interviews, I get a better idea of the potential for this applicant to get through school, pass the license exam and become a quality physical therapist.

[Eminor3rd]

This is true. I don't think that any one stat should be used in all situations. I think each case is individual and no one thing can tell me everything about a player or that player's performance. This is why I advocate for the use of all of them and not not placing too much focus on any one of them. You need to use the eye ball test, advanced metrics and traditional stats together to get a true evaluation of any player.

Maybe this is just from my doing research for admission to physical therapy graduate school. I think if I look at a variety of grades, tests, interviews, I get a better idea of the potential for this applicant to get through school, pass the license exam and become a quality physical therapist.

 

100% troof

[IlliniKrush]

How many really intelligent people are calling into radio talk shows though?

 

Dan Bernstein is obsessed with telling people what they have to do and how they have to watch when it comes to sports.

 

I like watching college basketball more than pro as well as college football over pro. In the world of Dan Bernstein that makes me a moron because pro is inherently better than college.

 

In reality I like watching my kids succeed in sports more than I do any athlete on the plant.

Oh I disagree with his take on that 100%. I enjoy both college games more as well.

 

Terry Boers should never be included on any discussion of high level sports discussion. The guy is a lapdog with no actual opinion of his own. That's from someone who listens everyday. There isn't high level discussion because there is 0 discourse on the show.

Well Bernstein carries the discussion on that show when it's there. Problem is that it doesn't happen as much as it used to. But, again, I enjoy B and B more now for their hilariousness when talking non-sports stuff than anything else. Anyone who can't get some laughs out of some of the Friday Fun stuff doesn't have a pulse.

[PorkChopExpress]

With regard to RBIs and Runs being dependent on the other guys around you in the lineup, why can't you just look at the splits:

 

With no one on base, Rizzo has 83 PA, and has .278 BA, .373 OBP, .486 SLG, and .860 OPS.

With no one on base, Abreu has 78 PA, and has .247 BA, .295 OBP, .575 SLG, and .870 OPS.

 

Fairly equal.

 

With men on base, Rizzo has 52 PA, and has .316 BA, .481 OBP, .500 SLG, and .981 OPS.

With men on base, Abreu has 71 PA, and has .262 BA, .338 OBP, .639 SLG, and .977 OPS.

 

Abreu has nearly 20 more PA with men on base, possibly accounting for higher RBI totals, but the OPS differences are almost negligible. However, when the men on base are in scoring position:

 

With RISP, Rizzo has 34 PA, and has .280 BA, .441 OBP, .320 SLG, and .761 OPS.

With RISP, Abreu has 46 PA, and has .316 BA, .391 OBP, .763 SLG, and 1.154 OPS.

 

Again, Abreu has a dozen more PA than Rizzo, but has also clearly outperformed Rizzo in those situations. He earned the RBI's when Rizzo didn't.

 

As for Runs, without relying on the times a teammate got a hit to drive you in, neither player has stolen home this year, and Abreu has 12 HRs while Rizzo has 6.

[Jake]

This article is one of the primary problems I have with "advanced" stats. Both of these players are being paid to produce runs. You can determine the probable value of this all you want but Abreu has scored 22 and driven in 35 for 57 runs minus the HR as you don't want to count the run twice for a total of 45. Rizzo has 19 scored and 16 driven in for 35 minus the 6 HR for a total of 29.

There is always the comment of RBI being useless because it depends on the teammates getting on base for the opportunity. In that case the percentage of runs driven in by opportunity works.

Don't flame me because I know many of you like the +RC stat and all but when it comes down to it, I think it is all about producing runs from these guys and I really don't care what his weighted on base percentage is. It's great to debate and discuss but it's not as relevant.

 

First of all, I think it's good that you approach it this way and do it without the "this newfangled stuff is terrible, you nerds are ruining everything." It allows the SABR folks to answer the primary criticism of what they advocate, which is that sometimes sabermetrics seem to be at odds with what is observed (I should say that sometimes sabermetrics do a better job at explaining what it is we see).

 

Obviously, if Abreu finishes with a 110 wRC+ and knocks in 150 RBI, I'm probably going to want to say he was a better run producer than just 10% above average. If he were to do that, though, it would suggest something that these kinds of statistics don't really take into consideration (and for good reason) - it would mean that the hits, walks, and outs that led to 150 RBI happened in a way that was biased towards runs being scored. Generally speaking, the assumption that underlies these statistics is that most of your at-bats are no different than any other at-bats; not on the micro level, but on the macro level. Over time, few people seem especially clutch or especially not clutch. When a guy looks awesome in some aspects of the classic, counting stats and not so great with SABR stats, there might be some reason to believe that this particular player is better or worse in the most pivotal situations than what is statistically typical.

 

For instance, let's take two pitchers.

 

Tom Glavine was criticized by many as a first-ballot HOFer, including myself, for his not-amazing FIP over his career (3.95). It would suggest that his accomplishments were more about longevity than ever being truly dominant. His xFIP (same stat, but assuming league average HR per fly ball) was worse at 4.59. First of all, it's obvious that Glavine didn't luck into not giving up homers to that large of an extent for 19 years. He was just better than we assume at suppressing homers. There's more than that, though. I'll let FanGraphs explain some more:

 

Glavine finished with well over 4,000 innings, all as a starter, and his run prevention was 14% better than average, which is another way of saying he had an 86 ERA-. Between 1991 and 2006, he had two years in which his ERA started with a four. That same span saw him start 530 games, plus extra time in the playoffs. Glavine allowed a good but unremarkable career batting average. He was much better in the area of slugging percentage, particularly when there were runners on base. What Glavine did, basically, was make an entire career out of beating his own peripherals.

 

Which is how he finished with a WAR of 64, but an RA9-WAR of 88. Leo Mazzone referred to Glavine as a modern-day Whitey Ford. Ford finished with a WAR of 55, but an RA9-WAR of 81. Fans today are always looking for pitchers who might be capable of sustainably beating their own indicators. Most of the time, there’s nothing there. Glavine did it for two decades. He did it by genuinely inducing worse contact, and he did it by genuinely changing his game in certain situations.

 

Basically, peripheral stats tend to be better at predicting future performance than counting stats. Furthermore, these "peripherals" are better at saying how well a pitcher truly pitched in a smaller sample. David Purcey threw something like 10-15 innings last year and had a low ERA but he walked a batter per inning and hardly struck anyone out. We know he was just a lucky SOB, especially since his walks weren't clustered in one outlier appearance.

 

Rarely, you get a guy like Glavine who is an exception.

 

Then we have Javier Vasquez, who is the opposite sort of exception. His career FIP was 3.91, better than that POS Glavine! His xFIP was even better, 3.75. His ERA? 4.22 (Glavine's was 3.54). An FIP-based WAR suggests that Javy was a good season or two away from matching Glavine for career WAR. His RA9-WAR for his career was 43.3, though, compared to Glavine's 88. That looks a little better, Glavine being twice the pitcher. It turns out that sabermetricians tend to agree that RA9 (which is based simply on the amount of runs surrendered) is much better for long-term evaluation of pitchers than FIP, which is better for evaluating small samples.

 

We know what was wrong with Javy - his bad outcomes weren't randomly distributed. He liked to cluster all his walks, hits, and homers in the 5th-6th inning. This means he'll give up more runs than the accumulation of walks, hits, homers, strikeouts, etc. would suggest.

 

FWIW, we see this kind of variability much more often with pitchers, who are more difficult to evaluate in ways beyond measuring runs allowed. Batters are easier to measure. We have a clearer idea of what every batting outcome is worth, run-wise. There is just a bunch of research that repeatedly demonstrates that players performing better in clutch or run-producing scenarios than other players do is a fiction - that is, they do it, but it is not because they are better in those situations. It's just random variation.

[Dick Allen]

First of all, I think it's good that you approach it this way and do it without the "this newfangled stuff is terrible, you nerds are ruining everything." It allows the SABR folks to answer the primary criticism of what they advocate, which is that sometimes sabermetrics seem to be at odds with what is observed (I should say that sometimes sabermetrics do a better job at explaining what it is we see).

 

Obviously, if Abreu finishes with a 110 wRC+ and knocks in 150 RBI, I'm probably going to want to say he was a better run producer than just 10% above average. If he were to do that, though, it would suggest something that these kinds of statistics don't really take into consideration (and for good reason) - it would mean that the hits, walks, and outs that led to 150 RBI happened in a way that was biased towards runs being scored. Generally speaking, the assumption that underlies these statistics is that most of your at-bats are no different than any other at-bats; not on the micro level, but on the macro level. Over time, few people seem especially clutch or especially not clutch. When a guy looks awesome in some aspects of the classic, counting stats and not so great with SABR stats, there might be some reason to believe that this particular player is better or worse in the most pivotal situations than what is statistically typical.

 

For instance, let's take two pitchers.

 

Tom Glavine was criticized by many as a first-ballot HOFer, including myself, for his not-amazing FIP over his career (3.95). It would suggest that his accomplishments were more about longevity than ever being truly dominant. His xFIP (same stat, but assuming league average HR per fly ball) was worse at 4.59. First of all, it's obvious that Glavine didn't luck into not giving up homers to that large of an extent for 19 years. He was just better than we assume at suppressing homers. There's more than that, though. I'll let FanGraphs explain some more:

 

 

 

Basically, peripheral stats tend to be better at predicting future performance than counting stats. Furthermore, these "peripherals" are better at saying how well a pitcher truly pitched in a smaller sample. David Purcey threw something like 10-15 innings last year and had a low ERA but he walked a batter per inning and hardly struck anyone out. We know he was just a lucky SOB, especially since his walks weren't clustered in one outlier appearance.

 

Rarely, you get a guy like Glavine who is an exception.

 

Then we have Javier Vasquez, who is the opposite sort of exception. His career FIP was 3.91, better than that POS Glavine! His xFIP was even better, 3.75. His ERA? 4.22 (Glavine's was 3.54). An FIP-based WAR suggests that Javy was a good season or two away from matching Glavine for career WAR. His RA9-WAR for his career was 43.3, though, compared to Glavine's 88. That looks a little better, Glavine being twice the pitcher. It turns out that sabermetricians tend to agree that RA9 (which is based simply on the amount of runs surrendered) is much better for long-term evaluation of pitchers than FIP, which is better for evaluating small samples.

 

We know what was wrong with Javy - his bad outcomes weren't randomly distributed. He liked to cluster all his walks, hits, and homers in the 5th-6th inning. This means he'll give up more runs than the accumulation of walks, hits, homers, strikeouts, etc. would suggest.

 

FWIW, we see this kind of variability much more often with pitchers, who are more difficult to evaluate in ways beyond measuring runs allowed. Batters are easier to measure. We have a clearer idea of what every batting outcome is worth, run-wise. There is just a bunch of research that repeatedly demonstrates that players performing better in clutch or run-producing scenarios than other players do is a fiction - that is, they do it, but it is not because they are better in those situations. It's just random variation.

 

You will never get me to buy the notion there really is no such thing as clutch hitting. Even if you just played in Little League or whatever you do for a living, there is a difference doing something when something is on the line and when it is not. IMO, the problem with the stat is sample size, and I think because of that the saber guys can't accurately measure it, and when that happens, it doesn't exist.it's like saying shooting free throws when the score is 2-2 one minute in the game is the same as shooting 2 free throws down 2 with one second left in an elimination game. Sample size is important in baseball because you can have an awful AB and get a hit, or have great AB and not get the job done.

Edited May 8, 2014 by Dick Allen

[Eminor3rd]

You will never get me to buy the notion there really is no such thing as clutch hitting. Even if you just played in Little League or whatever you do for a living, there is a difference doing something when something is on the line and when it is not. IMO, the problem with the stat is sample size, and I think because of that the saber guys can't accurately measure it, and when that happens, it doesn't exist.it's like saying shooting free throws when the score is 2-2 one minute in the game is the same as shooting 2 free throws down 2 with one second left in an elimination game. Sample size is important in baseball because you can have an awful AB and get a hit, or have great AB and not get the job done.

 

Being able to perform under pressure, in clutch situations, is absolutely real. The problem is that the ones who perform substantially worse in clutch situations tend not to make the big leagues. They are naturally culled. Most everyone will agree that there are still some ML hitters that are better clutch performers than others, but that the difference is so small that it is typically negligible.

 

Indeed, the numbers agree. Whenever you see players with substantially better than average numbers in particular situations (playoffs, specific matchups, RISP with 2 out in the 7th inning in July, etc.), they are occurring at sample sizes that are too small to achieve statistical significance. In the instances where player have received enough PA in particular situations to warrant meaningful trends, the numbers always mirror each player's career numbers very closely. Differences are rarely, if ever statistically significant. There may be some exceptions in some specific situations, but if they exist at all, they are very few and far between.

 

It's not that clutch doesn't exist, it's that at the highest level, the best guys aren't enough better at it than the worst guys to make a meaningful difference. Historically, when a guy gets up in any given situation, the most likely outcome mirrors his career rates.

[Dick Allen]

Being able to perform under pressure, in clutch situations, is absolutely real. The problem is that the ones who perform substantially worse in clutch situations tend not to make the big leagues. They are naturally culled. Most everyone will agree that there are still some ML hitters that are better clutch performers than others, but that the difference is so small that it is typically negligible.

 

Indeed, the numbers agree. Whenever you see players with substantially better than average numbers in particular situations (playoffs, specific matchups, RISP with 2 out in the 7th inning in July, etc.), they are occurring at sample sizes that are too small to achieve statistical significance. In the instances where player have received enough PA in particular situations to warrant meaningful trends, the numbers always mirror each player's career numbers very closely. Differences are rarely, if ever statistically significant. There may be some exceptions in some specific situations, but if they exist at all, they are very few and far between.

 

It's not that clutch doesn't exist, it's that at the highest level, the best guys aren't enough better at it than the worst guys to make a meaningful difference. Historically, when a guy gets up in any given situation, the most likely outcome mirrors his career rates.

I'm calling bulls*** on that.

[Eminor3rd]

I'm calling bulls*** on that.

 

Ok, well read the studies, tell me why they're bulls***, and I'll take your opinion seriously. It's a fact that past clutch performance does not predict future clutch performance, therefore refuting that some ML players are better than others at clutch performance.

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2656

 

Over the last 30 years hundreds of studies have been done on the topic, and not one proves that clutch hitters exists in any meaningful way -- for the most part, players who come through in clutch situations one year do not replicate the feat in subsequent seasons. "Clutch hits exist, clutch hitters do not," James Click, a former Baseball Prospectus writer and now the head of the Rays' analytics department, wrote in 2005. "There is no statistical evidence to support the idea that some hitters consistently perform better in situations defined as 'clutch' as compared to normal situations. Good hitters are good clutch hitters; bad hitters are bad clutch hitters."

 

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/mlb/news/.../#ixzz315OsVGiD

Edited May 8, 2014 by Eminor3rd

[ptatc]

First of all, I think it's good that you approach it this way and do it without the "this newfangled stuff is terrible, you nerds are ruining everything." It allows the SABR folks to answer the primary criticism of what they advocate, which is that sometimes sabermetrics seem to be at odds with what is observed (I should say that sometimes sabermetrics do a better job at explaining what it is we see).

 

Obviously, if Abreu finishes with a 110 wRC+ and knocks in 150 RBI, I'm probably going to want to say he was a better run producer than just 10% above average. If he were to do that, though, it would suggest something that these kinds of statistics don't really take into consideration (and for good reason) - it would mean that the hits, walks, and outs that led to 150 RBI happened in a way that was biased towards runs being scored. Generally speaking, the assumption that underlies these statistics is that most of your at-bats are no different than any other at-bats; not on the micro level, but on the macro level. Over time, few people seem especially clutch or especially not clutch. When a guy looks awesome in some aspects of the classic, counting stats and not so great with SABR stats, there might be some reason to believe that this particular player is better or worse in the most pivotal situations than what is statistically typical.

 

For instance, let's take two pitchers.

 

Tom Glavine was criticized by many as a first-ballot HOFer, including myself, for his not-amazing FIP over his career (3.95). It would suggest that his accomplishments were more about longevity than ever being truly dominant. His xFIP (same stat, but assuming league average HR per fly ball) was worse at 4.59. First of all, it's obvious that Glavine didn't luck into not giving up homers to that large of an extent for 19 years. He was just better than we assume at suppressing homers. There's more than that, though. I'll let FanGraphs explain some more:

 

 

 

Basically, peripheral stats tend to be better at predicting future performance than counting stats. Furthermore, these "peripherals" are better at saying how well a pitcher truly pitched in a smaller sample. David Purcey threw something like 10-15 innings last year and had a low ERA but he walked a batter per inning and hardly struck anyone out. We know he was just a lucky SOB, especially since his walks weren't clustered in one outlier appearance.

 

Rarely, you get a guy like Glavine who is an exception.

 

Then we have Javier Vasquez, who is the opposite sort of exception. His career FIP was 3.91, better than that POS Glavine! His xFIP was even better, 3.75. His ERA? 4.22 (Glavine's was 3.54). An FIP-based WAR suggests that Javy was a good season or two away from matching Glavine for career WAR. His RA9-WAR for his career was 43.3, though, compared to Glavine's 88. That looks a little better, Glavine being twice the pitcher. It turns out that sabermetricians tend to agree that RA9 (which is based simply on the amount of runs surrendered) is much better for long-term evaluation of pitchers than FIP, which is better for evaluating small samples.

 

We know what was wrong with Javy - his bad outcomes weren't randomly distributed. He liked to cluster all his walks, hits, and homers in the 5th-6th inning. This means he'll give up more runs than the accumulation of walks, hits, homers, strikeouts, etc. would suggest.

 

FWIW, we see this kind of variability much more often with pitchers, who are more difficult to evaluate in ways beyond measuring runs allowed. Batters are easier to measure. We have a clearer idea of what every batting outcome is worth, run-wise. There is just a bunch of research that repeatedly demonstrates that players performing better in clutch or run-producing scenarios than other players do is a fiction - that is, they do it, but it is not because they are better in those situations. It's just random variation.

 

I do think they are more important for pitchers because an individual pitcher can control the outcome of a game more than an individual hitter thus individual stats are more important.

 

[Princess Dye]

Quite simply, the bad thing about Rizzo is that we've already seen him be mediocre. We have never seen Abreu be mediocre.

 

Abreu is more unknown but we've never seen low lows. So really there is no point to this til sample sizes increase.

[Dick Allen]

Ok, well read the studies, tell me why they're bulls***, and I'll take your opinion seriously. It's a fact that past clutch performance does not predict future clutch performance, therefore refuting the existence of the skill at the ML level.

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2656

Because it is something that is not unique to baseball. It isn't unique to sports. Whatever you do, you know someone you can count on when something is on the line! And people you can go to in a normal situation but you really don't trust. Good hitters can be bad clutch hitters. Normally not very good hitters can be good when the game is on the line.

 

Some guys just really bear down during those times, and some guys fold.

[Eminor3rd]

Because it is something that is not unique to baseball. It isn't unique to sports. Whatever you do, you know someone you can count on when something is on the line! And people you can go to in a normal situation but you really don't trust. Good hitters can be bad clutch hitters. Normally not very good hitters can be good when the game is on the line.

 

Some guys just really bear down during those times, and some guys fold.

 

I agree. I have no argument against that. I see it business meetings, I felt it in baseball, I see it in interviews on TV, etc.

 

But in MLB, it doesn't show up in the results. You just don't make the majors unless you can bear down in clutch situations to a certain degree. It turns out that the difference is negligible at that level. If it wasn't, we'd be able to look back at performances historically and identify guys that were better. But they just aren't there. It surprises me too, but it's true.

[Dick Allen]

I agree. I have no argument against that. I see it business meetings, I felt it in baseball, I see it in interviews on TV, etc.

 

But in MLB, it doesn't show up in the results. You just don't make the majors unless you can bear down in clutch situations to a certain degree. It turns out that the difference is negligible at that level. If it wasn't, we'd be able to look back at performances historically and identify guys that were better. But they just aren't there. It surprises me too, but it's true.

There are good and bad hitters in the major leagues. To say every good hitter is a good clutch hitter IMO is coming to a conclusion clutch hitting really doesn't exist or is so small it is irrelevant because you don't have a tool to accurately measure it.

 

 

 

[southsider2k5]

Ok, well read the studies, tell me why they're bulls***, and I'll take your opinion seriously. It's a fact that past clutch performance does not predict future clutch performance, therefore refuting that some ML players are better than others at clutch performance.

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2656

 

I remember reading an actual scientific study years back that equated the ability to be clutch to not consciously thinking about whatever you were trying to do. The more thought process you had in an athletic situation, the more likely you were to fail.

[Eminor3rd]

There are good and bad hitters in the major leagues. To say every good hitter is a good clutch hitter IMO is coming to a conclusion clutch hitting really doesn't exist or is so small it is irrelevant because you don't have a tool to accurately measure it.

 

In the bolded statement, it is the latter that is being argued, but it isn't saying that the difference is irrelevant conceptually, just in MLB.

 

Regarding not having a tool to accurately measure it: The tool they use to measure it is simply all offensive statistics of all kinds. It's not some weird SABR stat, it's just numbers. You can look for examples of guys hitting better in clutch situations than not over there career, and you won't find any. My first reaction was also to look for a gap in measurement to conclude that it was just being missed in the numbers they used, but as I read more of these studies, I found there's really nothing subtle about it. You can use wOBA or Batting Average or RBI or whatever, it just doesn't show up.

 

I agree that it seems like there should be a bigger difference, though. I really do. But there just factually isn't at the ML level. It's a mindf***, I know. Huge differences at lower levels, I'm sure.

 

If you can't get your head around it, read up on it. I've tried to find holes in it and I can't. Maybe you can.

Edited May 8, 2014 by Eminor3rd

[Eminor3rd]

I remember reading an actual scientific study years back that equated the ability to be clutch to not consciously thinking about whatever you were trying to do. The more thought process you had in an athletic situation, the more likely you were to fail.

 

Yeah, totally. I bought this book called "The Inner Game of Music" written by some tennis instructor who was an expert on getting high level players/performers to maximize their talents. Apparently his concepts could be applied to pretty much any situation in which you were forced to execute under pressure.

 

The motto that stuck out the most to me was "Trying fails, awareness cures." Essentially, when a hard part of music comes up in a performance, people have a tendency to try extra hard, to mentally acknowledge that the hard part is coming and to step up their game. But the problem is that doing so is a distraction -- any amount of mental resources diverted to the meta-concept of what is being done are resources not used on execution. So even though people might have the right attitude about it, spending any time having an attitude in the first place makes it harder to do it right. Instead, he tried to get performers to never think about "the challenge" or "trying hard" and instead to discipline themselves to put 100% of their mental energy simply into the mechanics of what needed to be done -- immersing themselves in the music at a syntactic level rather than a conceptual level.

 

Sort of like focusing on keeping one's eye on the ball rather than focusing on "getting a hit."

[caulfield12]

"Any time you can play with a Hall of Famer, then it is something special to remember. I've seen great players make great plays many times. But he was the greatest clutch hitter I've played with or against. He was an excellent hitter through hard work and played at the right time against great teams like the Yankees. He hit .390, won three batting titles and always seemed to be there at the right time with clutch hitting." - Frank White

 

"But they're (his hemorrhoids) all behind you now." - Greg Nettles in A Night at the Hot Corner (Yes Network)

 

"George Brett clearly deserves a special place in the annals of major league baseball history." - American League president Gene Budig

 

"George Brett could get good wood on an aspirin." - Jim Frey

 

"George Brett could roll out of bed on Christmas morning and hit a line drive." - John Schuerholz

 

"George Brett has always been a Hall of Famer, both as a player and a person. From the day he started his career at Billings (Montana) through his last game, George's work ethic and determination was second to none. His hard-nosed style, charisma and ability to deliver in clutch moments made him the first superstar in Kansas City. George's accomplishments and contributions during the last 28 years remain everlasting throughout the organization and our community. The Royals organization is proud of the fact that George has been associated with the Royals since the onset of his professional career." - Royals General Manager Herk Robinson

 

"He was always the guy. He was the clutch guy. Not only with the manager, coaches and his teammates, but the fans knew more often than not in a clutch situation he'd come through because he was so mentally tough and he accepted being that guy." - Denny Matthews

 

"He was clearly one of the best players of his generation, but he had a style that spanned the generations. He looked and carried himself like a baseball player and could have been at home in any era. He was the kind of guy who conveyed something to fans thats very important, which was that he thought of himself first and foremost as a baseball player. There was nothing in the world that he would rather be doing than playing baseball every day when he was on the field." - Broadcaster Bob Costas

 

"His success in the playoffs and World Series in clutch situations really elevated him from the local to national scene. He had that national spotlight and stage to perform on. It's one thing to be in the Post Season and on stage, but it's another to come through. A lot of guys have been on that stage, but few have produced as he did." - Denny Matthews

 

"If God had him no balls and two strikes, he'd still get a hit." - American League umpire Steve Palermo

 

"If he can hit .350, we (Missouri driver's license bureau) figured he could see." - Harley Duncan on why they waived the eye test

Edited May 8, 2014 by caulfield12

[caulfield12]

The Key to Being Clutch When Using Your Procedural Memory

 

To excel under pressure and be clutch with tasks that require procedural memory, you must distract yourself from the task at hand. Instead of over-thinking what you’re doing or are about to do, you must trust that the hours of training and practice you’ve put in before that moment won’t let you down.

 

Distract yourself. If you’re lining up for a golf putt, distract yourself from the mechanics of your putt by counting backwards or singing. Our guitarist above can close his eyes when he starts to feel nervous when playing in front of an audience (as an added bonus, scrunching his eyes shut will make the girls think he’s deep).

 

Develop a mantra. Sports psychologists often counsel their athletes to develop a mantra they can repeat when the pressure is on. Mantras are just another way to keep you from over-thinking what you’re doing in a high-pressure situation. Baseball Hall of Famer George Brett’s mantra when he was up at bat was “Try easier.” A basketball player could use a mantra like “Relaxed and smooth,” for when he steps up to the free throw line. When you’re on the putting green, use the immortal mantra of Chevy Chase in Caddyshack: “Be the ball.”

 

Focus on the target, not your mechanics. Another tactic you can use to avoid paralysis by analysis is to focus on your target, instead of your mechanics. For example, when you’re trying to bowl a strike, you don’t want to think about your approach, so you should focus and aim at an arrow on the lane instead. When firing a gun, focus on getting a clear sight, not on your trigger pull.

 

Don’t slow down. Remember how with tasks that require working memory you should slow down? Well, forget that bit of advice for tasks that require procedural memory. Studies show that the faster you get going, the better you do. Football coaches understand this and will often try to throw off opposing kickers by calling a time-out right before they kick the ball. This technique is called “icing the kicker.” The idea is that giving the kicker more time to think about the kick will increase his analysis and anxiety, thus blocking his procedural memory from guiding the ball through the uprights. If you’ve ever mountain biked, you’ve probably witnessed the truth in this. If you see an obstacle up ahead on the trail and cautiously slow down in anticipation, you will often awkwardly hit the obstacle and fall over. But, if you swallow your fear and keep up a quick pace, more often than not the bike will sail right over the obstacle.

 

 

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2011/07/10/b...ations-part-ii/

 

 

From having watched all of Tiger Woods' major championships, there's no way you're going to convince me there's no such thing as "clutch" putting or performing under pressure in a way that most athletes cannot.

Edited May 8, 2014 by caulfield12

[Eminor3rd]

From having watched all of Tiger Woods' major championships, there's no way you're going to convince me there's no such thing as "clutch" putting or performing under pressure in a way that most athletes cannot.

 

Well no one is trying, so you don't have to worry.

[caulfield12]

Well no one is trying, so you don't have to worry.

 

 

The White Sox-related "clutch" example that always gets thrown out there is Crede...

 

A bit of selective memory, though.

 

I would actually say Uribe, with a runner on 3rd and less than 2 outs...he was the one I wanted up there the most. Even though he would strike out on those low and outside sliders in the LHBB with the best of them with nobody on base.

Edited May 8, 2014 by caulfield12

[Feeky Magee]

For some reason advanced statistics are doing the same thing for me. I can't enjoy Tyler Flowers, why...his BABIP tells me he will suck from now until mid-July. The stats tell me so.

well, Feeky tells you so too

that is where I got the stat from. Ruined all my fun watching Tyler Flowers.

Ha. Nobody told you not to enjoy it. In fact, the knowledge that it won't last should allow you to enjoy it all the more.