Bernstein Column

[Feeky Magee]

"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

George Brett career without runners in scoring position:

.304/.353/.490

 

George Brett career with runners in scoring position:

.294/.410/.481

[Eminor3rd]

George Brett career without runners in scoring position:

.304/.353/.490

 

George Brett career with runners in scoring position:

.294/.410/.481

 

And there you have it.

[Dick Allen]

And there you have it.

What does that prove? He gets on base .056 more with runners in scoring postion, yet has a lower batting average and slugging percentage. Seems when there are RISP, George wasn't pitched to very much. And not all AB with RISP are really clutch, and there are some clutch hits when runners are not in scoring position. Like a runner at 1b, when they really can't or won't pitch around him.

Edited May 8, 2014 by Dick Allen

[caulfield12]

And there you have it.

 

 

Does that also incorporate post-season and 7th inning and beyond numbers?

[Kyyle23]

Does it include or disallow his pine tar incident?

[LittleHurt05]

How many WAR is pooping your pants worth because Brett was an all-time great in that department. Just ask him.

[Eminor3rd]

What does that prove? He gets on base .056 more with runners in scoring postion, yet has a lower batting average and slugging percentage. Seems when there are RISP, George wasn't pitched to very much. And not all AB with RISP are really clutch, and there are some clutch hits when runners are not in scoring position. Like a runner at 1b, when they really can't or won't pitch around him.

 

It proves he hit worse, but got walked more. If that's your definition of an ultimate clutch hitter, then I guess that's what he was.

 

The George Brett example doesn't prove anything league-wide, but the reams of large-scale studies I referenced and/or linked do, and that wasn't convincing anyone.

 

The George Brett example does prove that just because 15 random people are quoted as saying George Brett was clutch doesn't mean it was actually the case.

[Dick Allen]

It proves he hit worse, but got walked more. If that's your definition of an ultimate clutch hitter, then I guess that's what he was.

 

The George Brett example doesn't prove anything league-wide, but the reams of large-scale studies I referenced and/or linked do, and that wasn't convincing anyone.

 

The George Brett example does prove that just because 15 random people are quoted as saying George Brett was clutch doesn't mean it was actually the case.

No. BA with RISP vs. BA vs. runners not is scoring position does not show clutch vs. non clutch. You are assuming every AB with RISP is clutch and zero AB with no runners in scoring position is not. For a guy who needs these advanced stats to show who is better than who, it does seem odd you will take an old school random stat, which really doesn't jive with the argument, and say that shows George Brett really wasn't as clutch as some think.

 

How do you explain Nick Swisher's failure in the playoffs? The guy has almost 200 postseason plate appearances and has been brutal. He's been a pretty good offensive player during his career.

Edited May 8, 2014 by Dick Allen

[Eminor3rd]

No. BA with RISP vs. BA vs. runners not is scoring position does not show clutch vs. non clutch. For a guy who needs these advanced stats to show who is better than who, it does seem odd you will take an old school random stat, which really doesn't jive with the argument, and say that shows George Brett really wasn't as clutch as some think.

 

If I use an advanced stat, you say it's a bulls*** stat. If I use and "old school" stat, you ignore the argument and make fun of me for not using an advanced stat. lol

 

Since when was career triple slash an "old school advanced stat" anyway?

 

It seems we've reached the part of the argument where you start making s*** up and dodging the actual topic. How about this: show me that George Brett has been a better clutch hitter than a non-clutch hitter.

 

How do you explain Nick Swisher's failure in the playoffs? The guy has almost 200 postseason plate appearances and has been brutal. He's been a pretty good offensive player during his career.

 

You said it:

 

That's the problem with postseason data, very few guys ever get enough PA to have predictive performances. The few that have had enough don't show significant difference from their career lines. It's true that Swisher has been brutal in the postseason, but if he gets there again, his track record doesn't make it more likely he'll continue to be brutal.

[Dick Allen]

If I use an advanced stat, you say it's a bulls*** stat. If I use and "old school" stat, you ignore the argument and make fun of me for not using an advanced stat. lol

 

Since when was career triple slash an "old school advanced stat" anyway?

 

It seems we've reached the part of the argument where you start making s*** up and dodging the actual topic. How about this: show me that George Brett has been a better clutch hitter than a non-clutch hitter.

 

 

 

You said it:

 

That's the problem with postseason data, very few guys ever get enough PA to have predictive performances. The few that have had enough don't show significant difference from their career lines. It's true that Swisher has been brutal in the postseason, but if he gets there again, his track record doesn't make it more likely he'll continue to be brutal.

I think any reasonable person would conclude that it is crazy to think players who are normally good hitters don't ever choke and guys who are normally average hitters, seem to bear down and step up in certain situations.

 

I don't have to prove Brett was clutch. I never brought him up. Someone just posted his stats with RISP and without. You were the one that said that proved your point. It doesn't.

Edited May 8, 2014 by Dick Allen

[bmags]

So fun with small sample sizes. Rizzo's great series has led to Abreu having an OPS of nearly 100 points better.

 

Abreu's 12 HRs and 11 doubles is really kinda reminding me of a certain player in 98.

[caulfield12]

For what it's worth, Brett has played 43 post-season games and has a career OPS in those games of well over 1.000, compared to lower numbers for regular season play. Is that "clutch"?

 

Of course, when you compare it to Tulowitzki or some of the numbers from the past 15 years, it's not so amazing...we all have selective memories to reinforce what we already believe to be true.

 

 

[Kyyle23]

So fun with small sample sizes. Rizzo's great series has led to Abreu having an OPS of nearly 100 points better.

Abreu's 12 HRs and 11 doubles is really kinda reminding me of a certain player in 98.

 

*Bernstein thanks lucky stars that he disables comments on his articles*

[Eminor3rd]

I think any reasonable person would conclude that it is crazy to think players who are normally good hitters don't ever choke

 

They do choke.

 

and guys who are normally average hitters, seem to bear down and step up in certain situations.

 

They do step up and bear down sometimes.

 

But neither group does it with enough consistency to make it predictive.

 

Marcus Semien has been clutch so far, but there isn't reason to believe he'll continue to be clutch going forward. Swisher has been s*** in the playoffs, but there isn't reason to believe he'll be s*** going forward.

 

It's like A Rod, right? World famous playoff choker with the Yankees in the mid-2000's, assuming you ignore his excellent 2004 postseason, of course. 2005? .133/.435/.200 Boo! 2006? .071/.133/.071 BOO! 2007? .267/.353/.467 Ok maybe not super bad but not worth $30m/yr! BOO!

 

He's a bum! He can't cut it when the pressure's on! Three years of suck in the postseason. He'll never... wait...

 

2009: .365/.500/.808

 

HERO! What changed? Nothing. His postseason appearances from 2005-2007 combined sum 13 games. The 2009 postseason alone was 15 games, which means that over the course of that whole CHOKE PERIOD, he actually had more games as awesome than he did as bad. If you include the 11 games in 2004, he had exactly TWICE as many games as awesome than as bad.

 

He earned those s*** games. He choked for sure. But it didn't mean he wasn't capable of stepping up, just that he hadn't -- until he did. I mean think about it: Flowers can be a monster for a whole MONTH. Why do we think we can judge a guy's true talent/disposition/whatever over 13 select games through 3 seasons?

 

You don't make the MLB if you can't play in front of thousands of people when the game is on the line. Sometimes you fail, sometimes you win, but if an average hitter steps up to the plate, there's an average chance he's going to come through for you. Historical data confirms this.

 

The whole point is this: If the game is on the line, I want Jose Abreu up, not Marcus Semien.

 

[Dick Allen]

Updated numbers, looks like Bernstein will have to edit his article (just like last time), and it looks like now the Abreu love is justified:

 

Abreu 150 wRC+ 1.2 WAR

Rizzo 143 wRC+ 1.0 WAR

Edited May 8, 2014 by Dick Allen

[Eminor3rd]

I don't have to prove Brett was clutch. I never brought him up. Someone just posted his stats with RISP and without. You were the one that said that proved your point. It doesn't.

 

It proved the point that simply claiming that something is true doesn't make it true.

[shakes]

If I use an advanced stat, you say it's a bulls*** stat. If I use and "old school" stat, you ignore the argument and make fun of me for not using an advanced stat. lol

 

Since when was career triple slash an "old school advanced stat" anyway?

 

It seems we've reached the part of the argument where you start making s*** up and dodging the actual topic. How about this: show me that George Brett has been a better clutch hitter than a non-clutch hitter.

 

 

 

You said it:

 

That's the problem with postseason data, very few guys ever get enough PA to have predictive performances. The few that have had enough don't show significant difference from their career lines. It's true that Swisher has been brutal in the postseason, but if he gets there again, his track record doesn't make it more likely he'll continue to be brutal.

 

 

Let's not forget that in the postseason hitters are usually facing better pitchers in these small sample sizes than through the course of a season, or career. To some extent it applies to high leverage situations, as well. There are a lot of factors that make 'clutch' hard to quantify.

[Kyyle23]

we should twitter bomb Bernstein, lol.

 

 

Rizzo is better than Abreu this week so GMs should want Rizzo forever

 

#bernsteinsamplesizes

[Eminor3rd]

For what it's worth, Brett has played 43 post-season games and has a career OPS in those games of well over 1.000, compared to lower numbers for regular season play. Is that "clutch"?

 

Of course, when you compare it to Tulowitzki or some of the numbers from the past 15 years, it's not so amazing...we all have selective memories to reinforce what we already believe to be true.

 

Yes, true. But this is 160 at bats. He deserves credit for his performance in those 160 ABs, but they don't tell us that he'll continue to perform that way in the future.

[Dick Allen]

They do choke.

 

 

 

They do step up and bear down sometimes.

 

But neither group does it with enough consistency to make it predictive.

 

Marcus Semien has been clutch so far, but there isn't reason to believe he'll continue to be clutch going forward. Swisher has been s*** in the playoffs, but there isn't reason to believe he'll be s*** going forward.

 

It's like A Rod, right? World famous playoff choker with the Yankees in the mid-2000's, assuming you ignore his excellent 2004 postseason, of course. 2005? .133/.435/.200 Boo! 2006? .071/.133/.071 BOO! 2007? .267/.353/.467 Ok maybe not super bad but not worth $30m/yr! BOO!

 

He's a bum! He can't cut it when the pressure's on! Three years of suck in the postseason. He'll never... wait...

 

2009: .365/.500/.808

 

HERO! What changed? Nothing. His postseason appearances from 2005-2007 combined sum 13 games. The 2009 postseason alone was 15 games, which means that over the course of that whole CHOKE PERIOD, he actually had more games as awesome than he did as bad. If you include the 11 games in 2004, he had exactly TWICE as many games as awesome than as bad.

 

He earned those s*** games. He choked for sure. But it didn't mean he wasn't capable of stepping up, just that he hadn't -- until he did. I mean think about it: Flowers can be a monster for a whole MONTH. Why do we think we can judge a guy's true talent/disposition/whatever over 13 select games through 3 seasons?

 

You don't make the MLB if you can't play in front of thousands of people when the game is on the line. Sometimes you fail, sometimes you win, but if an average hitter steps up to the plate, there's an average chance he's going to come through for you. Historical data confirms this.

 

The whole point is this: If the game is on the line, I want Jose Abreu up, not Marcus Semien.

 

Again, I disagree. Your argument when some data is pointed out not to show your position is correct is sample size. Your argument to me is given enough of a sample a good hitter will be a good clutch player. (I still disagree with that, but OK) The argument I have is that sample isn't going to be available. In order to be a good clutch player, you are going to have to do it with a small sample size. If you do not, you aren't a clutch player. Your clutch opportunities are limited.

 

 

Edited May 8, 2014 by Dick Allen

[StrangeSox]

Stats teachers everywhere weep at that last post

[Hawkfan]

This is a good thread, can't wait to read it all during lunch. After reading the article, I particularly liked the part where he dismissed the failure of Theo & Jed's campaign, solely based on the fact that anthony rizzo is good.

[ptatc]

Again, I disagree. Your argument when some data is pointed out not to show your position is correct is sample size. Your argument to me is given enough of a sample a good hitter will be a good clutch player. (I still disagree with that, but OK) The argument I have is that sample isn't going to be available. In order to be a good clutch player, you are going to have to do it with a small sample size. If you do not, you aren't a clutch player. Your clutch opportunities are limited.

This is true but I also think it is for a different reason. All SABR stats are based on the averages over time. For hitters this means your stats are based on facing all pitchers during a season, good and bad. Guess what the good hitter feast on bad pitchers and are only average against really good pitchers. This is part of the problem with basing a hitter's performance on averages. Same thing the post season. Hitters are no longer facing alot of bad pitchers. The teams that made it to the post season have better than most players. This was the problem with teams like the A's and Beane. They looked like geniuses in the regular season but the OBP based players couldn't get the same OBP in the playoffs and they never really did anything on the low budget hitters.

[ptatc]

This is a good thread, can't wait to read it all during lunch. After reading the article, I particularly liked the part where he dismissed the failure of Theo & Jed's campaign, solely based on the fact that anthony rizzo is good.

Of course because like him, Theo and Jed are smarter than everyone else and how to properly use the stats.

[Eminor3rd]

Again, I disagree. Your argument when some data is pointed out not to show your position is correct is sample size. Your argument to me is given enough of a sample a good hitter will be a good clutch player. (I still disagree with that, but OK) The argument I have is that sample isn't going to be available. In order to be a good clutch player, you are going to have to do it with a small sample size. If you do not, you aren't a clutch player. Your clutch opportunities are limited.

 

Right. And since the samples are necessarily limited, they don't accurately predict future performance, which means they don't accurately identify players who are "clutch enough" to be expected to perform better in clutch situations. And so small sample numbers of players in clutch situations are not useful identifiers of good clutch players.

 

You can use clutch score, leverage index, raw WPA/LI, RISP, postseason, or whatever. The bottom line is that for any given player, his career batting line is a more accurate predictor of his situational performance than his past performance in the same situation. So there is no player, anywhere, who you can point to and accurately say, "this guy is probably going to do well in this situation because he has a history of doing well in this situation."