Where does Bernie Williams fall?

[Stax]

Last night's festivities around the last game at Yankee Stadium, and the long standing ovation for Bernie Williams as he came out, made me think a bit about his time in New York. He was a guy who peaked almost perfectly, his age 25 to 33 seasons (probably just about the definition of his prime period of play) came from 1995-2002 with the Yankees making oh-so-many playoff runs. Beyond his obvious reputation as a 'clutch' guy or a nice guy, even his more tangible numbers suggest he was really pretty darn good (my image of him, as I imagine some others, was colored by his rather sad last few years where he really had no business playing CF any more).

Compare Bernie, for example, to Hall of Famer Kirby Puckett.

Intangibles: I think it's safe to say they were both beloved by their teams, seen as incredibly 'clutch', etc, etc
Offensively:
-Bernie: .297/.381/.477 (125 OPS+) with 287 career HR
-Kirby: .318/.360/.477 (124 OPS+) with 207 career HR (in 4 fewer seasons, they both averaged right about 20 per 162 games)
Defensively: Bernie looks slightly better by BP's FRAR/FRAA system, with a few more outstanding years (though his last couple abysmal ones dragging things down). Both with a fantastic .990 fielding %age in CF. Similar range factors, Kirby maybe slightly better (B-Ref doesn't seem to list his RF9).

The Hall of Fame has been cautious with its CF votes in recent years. Not counting Negro Leaguers/Old timers getting recent elections, Puckett is the only really modern elected CF in the hall. I think this HBT article gets it right (http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/rating-the-bbwaa-part-2/) on the Hall's perhaps unfortunate voting theory:

What's going on? Simple—it's the logic of the baseball card. Center, right, left—it's all the same thing, right? They all play outfield. There's no difference. In reality, that's clearly not the case. You would never put Babe Ruth or Reggie Jackson in center. If you look up the splits at Baseball Reference, center fielders on the whole generate considerably less offense than right or left fielders. Yet if you want induction as a center fielder, you have to compare favorably to the best corner men.

Also, by the baseball card logic, center field gets no credit for defense when it comes time for election. Sure Mays had a fantastic reputation with the glove, but that ain't what put him over the 75 percent hump. Instead, look at Ashburn. In his long career he was not only a terrific hitter but also one of the greatest defensive center fielders of all time. It took him seven years on the ballot to break 10 percent.

But we are unconnected to the Hall and free to make our own determinations. So, where would you put Bernie?

(assume this process builds, so if he's in the Hall the Yanks would also retire his number)

[ADD]

Great Yankee who came up big in big spots. Not a HOFer. He could go in monument park. I say Yanks retire his number at some point.

[marquis]

I think he gets his number retired by the Yanks for what he meant to the team for so many years. And while I would vote for him for the hall, I don't think he actually gets in. He came up big in so many big spots (many in the playoffs) but he really doesn't have any of the individual honors, or numbers to validate being in the hall. I love the guy, and his last 2 seasons not withstanding, he will be in "My Hall of Fame" but I am more than a little bias.

[ShitBreak]

He is in the same vain for the Yankees as Jimmy Edmonds is for the Cardinals.

Belonging to the "HOF" for the Cardinals? Hell yes. HOF for MLB? Close, but no.

[CrazyCarl]

I don't think Williams gets in, but it makes me wonder which CF's will get in from this era.

[ShitBreak]

If Bernie makes it in, then Edmonds should make it in too.

It ain't gonna happen.

[ADD]

I don't think Williams gets in, but it makes me wonder which CF's will get in from this era.

Junior

[ShitBreak]

Is Junior the only one? I can't really think of another. I think besides him, Bernie and Edmonds are really the only other ones remotely close.

[CrazyCarl]

yeah, I was looking back to see who else there is. I think Beltran and Sizemore could make it in eventually, and Andruw Jones might've had a shot if he hadn't shit the bed these past 2 seasons.

[NOTKyle]

Edmonds will be in, probably 2nd or 3rd time around. I feel like Bernie will, on the last possible ballot.

[ShitBreak]

It, once again (unfortunately) brings up the fact that most voters will literally have to have a Griffey-type player to vote for...because everyone from this gneration gets knocked down a peg because of the Roid issue.

[goldsoundz]

he doesn't get in. i'd compare him to someone like garrett anderson.

[ADD]

It, once again (unfortunately) brings up the fact that most voters will literally have to have a Griffey-type player to vote for...because everyone from this gneration gets knocked down a peg because of the Roid issue.

I'd say beyond 'roids, some of these guys just haven't had great careers. They've had 2-5 monster seasons, but in the long run, meh. Doesn't wow the voters.

[Swurgen]

He is in the same vain for the Yankees as Jimmy Edmonds is for the Cardinals.

Belonging to the "HOF" for the Cardinals? Hell yes. HOF for MLB? Close, but no.

Edmonds is a home grown talent who played his entire career for only 1 team and was a cornerstone for a dynasty worth of championship teams? Turned down more money from a division rival to stay 'home'? Not so sure about that...

[TheImpossibleMan]

I want to vote for Bernie really, really badly but I don't think he should get in. He's got four great, easily-HOF-caliber seasons, but was clearly always the second best CF in baseball (behind Junior) and the wheels came off the cart so quickly that he hasn't accrued a ton of counting stats (which, while less important than short-term dominance, still matters; besides, the voters eat that shit up). His defensive stats are good, but even during his prime he was all over the place, he has seasons of +22 and -17, and that hurts him. I don't think he's a HOFer.

[Mustard]

Depending on where he is I'd imagine somewhere on the ground.

[Hawk the Slayer]

His number will get retired by the Yankees, but I'd be shocked if he makes it in the Hall. Career totals just aren't impressive enough (.297 BA, 287 HR, 1257 RBI, 2336 hits). And, yes, I'm aware that the counting stats aren't the best indicator of HOF-worthiness. Unfortunately, a very large portion of those who actually HAVE A VOTE aren't going to put a guy in unless he hits several "benchmarks"... 3,000 hits, 400 homers, 1500 RBI, etc.
...
Very good player with multiple WS rings - but not a HOF'er.

[Stax]

yeah, I was looking back to see who else there is. I think Beltran and Sizemore could make it in eventually, and Andruw Jones might've had a shot if he hadn't shit the bed these past 2 seasons.

I think this is about right, someone like Grady will probably get in eventually (along obviously with Junior).

But this I think speaks to the fundamental difficulty of more defensive minded positions, you need to be more of an all-around absolute stud-monkey for voters to notice you since defense carries so little weight.

I don't think this is a roids issue. Traditional sluggers with traditional numbers like a Jim Thome will almost certainly make the HoF. The issue is I think a more fundamental way people approach numbers. Things like HRs and split stats of AVG/OBP/SLG are 'normal' that people accept. Using that method of voting is simply unfair to some positions, however, where putting up #s even close to (for example) a 1B or corner OF would be crazy good. CF may be the worst of all, for the reason cited in the original post, that people see CFs just as "OFs" when in fact their position is very very different. Outside of a bit of prose attached to someone's resume about how good they were defensively (or the ugly measuring stick of Gold Gloves) defense is almost completely ignored.

[Hawk the Slayer]

That's true - but the flip side is that many think that defense is vastly overrated when it comes to winning and losing games. For instance, which shortstop would help you win more games: (a) a guy who's fantastic with the glove, but an average hitter, or (b) a guy who's mediocre in the field, but hits .320 with 40 HR and 130 RBI? It's an extreme example, but I'd rather have the slugger. A great defensive center fielder might make 10 plays over the course of a season that a good CF wouldn't, and maybe 20 plays more than an average CF. Some of those plays would end up saving runs, and some wouldn't. The vast majority of balls in play are either (a) easy plays for anyone, or (b) unfieldable by anyone. A great hitter is simply more valuable than a great fielder, no matter what position he plays.

[CrazyCarl]

who has the better season?

Carlos Guillen .286/.376/.436 10 HR 54 RBI or
Evan Longoria .278/.348./.540 25 HR 82 RBI

Mike Aviles .318/.349/.463 8 HR 46 RBI or
Marco Scutaro .264/.340/.355 7 HR 58 RBI

[Stax]

That's true - but the flip side is that many think that defense is vastly overrated when it comes to winning and losing games. For instance, which shortstop would help you win more games: (a) a guy who's fantastic with the glove, but an average hitter, or (b) a guy who's mediocre in the field, but hits .320 with 40 HR and 130 RBI? It's an extreme example, but I'd rather have the slugger. A great defensive center fielder might make 10 plays over the course of a season that a good CF wouldn't, and maybe 20 plays more than an average CF. Some of those plays would end up saving runs, and some wouldn't. The vast majority of balls in play are either (a) easy plays for anyone, or (b) unfieldable by anyone. A great hitter is simply more valuable than a great fielder, no matter what position he plays.

See but you're falling into the classic trap of fielding, Fielding Percentage. The idea that all that matters is 'making a play' or 'not making it'. A CF with good range can get to dozens of balls a leaden-footed CF couldn't. In Bernie Williams 2 best fielding seasons (by BP's measure):

1993: Created 17 runs above a replacement hitter, but saved 40 runs above a replacement CFer
1995: Created 44 runs above a replacement hitter, and saved nearly as many with 34 runs above a replacement CF

Now he wasn't Willie Mays or Tris Speaker, but the ability to reach more balls than the average Joe can provide massive value, putting fewer men on base and allow those that get on base to advance less.

Beyond that was my more general point, that positions like CF or SS may get unfairly evaluated. Of course you'd rather have a guy creating 100+ runs with his bat (as I bet that slugger you presented would) than saving 40 or 50 with his glove, but that's not a fair comparison. If the HoF is meant to represent, say, the top 0.001% of baseball players you have to make those judgements WITHIN positions, ie the top 0.001% of 1B, 2B, 3B, etc. Otherwise, given the ease of measuring the value of offense, you'd have nothing but 1B, corner OF, a few 3B, and the absolute most crazy good at other positions that have a more difficult time producing offense.

[Stax]

who has the better season?

Carlos Guillen .286/.376/.436 10 HR 54 RBI or
Evan Longoria .278/.348./.540 25 HR 82 RBI

Evan Longoria. He is far better offensively (as shown by those #s) and also better defensively.

Mike Aviles .318/.349/.463 8 HR 46 RBI or
Marco Scutaro .264/.340/.355 7 HR 58 RBI

Aviles, better offensively (though it's a slighter difference) and defensively.

[CrazyCarl]

Guillen Carlos DET 3B 9.34 10.46 19.80
Longoria Evan TBR 3B 0.12 19.60 19.72

Scutaro Marco TOR SS 12.38 7.11 19.49
Aviles Mike KCR SS 2.85 14.24 17.10

[Stax]

Guillen Carlos DET 3B 9.34 10.46 19.80
Longoria Evan TBR 3B 0.12 19.60 19.72

Scutaro Marco TOR SS 12.38 7.11 19.49
Aviles Mike KCR SS 2.85 14.24 17.10

What are those #s?

[CrazyCarl]

Defensive runs saved and Extrapolated runs and their sum

[Stax]

Interesting, where are they from? Are they some Hardball Times # I just missed or from somewhere else?

[ShitBreak]

Carl...did you just fucking out-stat Stax?

NOMG UBER-PWNAGE

[Stax]

Carl...did you just fucking out-stat Stax?

NOMG UBER-PWNAGE

This is true.

I am ashamed, I'm gonna' go run some regression analysis over here in the corner by myself.

[Celtickliq]

The Bern should have some HoF votes taken away for his wife always banging on that fucking drum during his World Series run.

Still think he is a HoFer. He was a big a part of the 90's World Series wins.

[CrazyCarl]

it's from Chris Dial over at BaseballThinkFactory

reading through the thread, he admits that the Scutaro #'s are off because of his multiple positions.

[Genius]

No Top-5 MVP years.
5 AS selections, 1 start.
No 300 HR, no 3000 hits, no 1500 RBI, no career .300 BA.
4 rings, but was never even in the discussion of best player on the team.
4 Gold Gloves.
1 Batting Title.
Most comparable overall numbers: Paul O'Neill, Bobby Bonilla, Will Clark.

Sorry, Bernabe, you'll get around 50-60% of the vote, and you might get your number retired, when all of these other Yankees do too. But if Jim Rice ain't getting in, you ain't getting in either.

[ShitBreak]

Bernie Williams is the Robert Horry of Baseball.

[Genius]

If he'd hit eight walk off grand slams.

[Stax]

it's from Chris Dial over at BaseballThinkFactory

reading through the thread, he admits that the Scutaro #'s are off because of his multiple positions.

Oh yeah, I read that article. I'd be interested to see some happy median because (for example) FRAA has Evan Longoria as a crazy excellent fielder (I know FRAA has it's problems, but it can't be THAT bad) while Defensive Runs Saved has him barely above average.

[Celtickliq]

No Top-5 MVP years.
5 AS selections, 1 start.
No 300 HR, no 3000 hits, no 1500 RBI, no career .300 BA.
4 rings, but was never even in the discussion of best player on the team.
4 Gold Gloves.
1 Batting Title.
Most comparable overall numbers: Paul O'Neill, Bobby Bonilla, Will Clark.

Sorry, Bernabe, you'll get around 50-60% of the vote, and you might get your number retired, when all of these other Yankees do too. But if Jim Rice ain't getting in, you ain't getting in either.

Ozzie Smith career average is like .260 and he is a HoFer. edit Bill Mazeroski too.

Doesnt Williams hold post season records? Like most hits, RBI and HR's?

[Stax]

Ozzie Smith career average is like .260 and he is a HoFer. edit Bill Mazeroski too.

Tris Speaker/Willie Mays are the defensive comparisons to those guys. Bernie Williams was reasonably good.

Doesnt Williams hold post season records? Like most hits, RBI and HR's?

Mostly because he went to the postseason every year, most years went to every round, and played entirely in the Wildcard era?

[Celtickliq]

Mostly because he went to the postseason every year, most years went to every round, and played entirely in the Wildcard era?


I dont know. I would think that Jeter is the better player and an instant Hofer and played the same years as Williams but yet Williams still has better numbers.

[CrazyCarl]

Jeter has more hits and runs, and a higher BA and OBP. Williams has more HR's and RBI, and a higher SLG.

Jeter's edge in runs and Williams' edge in RBI can mostly be attributed to their spots in the batting order

[Draven X 23]

Good player, remembered as such, but no unique honors

Bernie was a good player who had some great seasons. But in the end his numbers don't match many of those he will be judged against.

[Stax]

Good player, remembered as such, but no unique honors

Bernie was a good player who had some great seasons. But in the end his numbers don't match many of those he will be judged against.

I think the Kirby Puckett comparison is interesting. Far as I can find from what little digging I did they were near clones.

[Swurgen]

You have to compare eras too. Even taking juice out of the equation. I think Puckett's offense stood out a lot more in his era than Bernie's did in his (I'm a die hard Yankee fan and no fan of Puckett's).

[Draven X 23]

They also played n different eras. Kirby retired after 1995. Bernie played in the Steroid Era.

Statistically I think Bernie is more like Paul O'Neill. Except Bernie has 500 more ABs.

[Stax]

You have to compare eras too. Even taking juice out of the equation. I think Puckett's offense stood out a lot more in his era than Bernie's did in his (I'm a die hard Yankee fan and no fan of Puckett's).

I did. Puckett's OPS+ was 124, he was 24% above league average for his career (and that included nothing but a peak, he retired before he got his late-Bernie bad years). Bernie's was 125, 25% above average, including his bad years.

[Genius]

I know it sucks, but to me Puckett has a signature postseason moment, and while I know Bernie was great in the postseason, I can't think of one specific thing that he did. Totally subjective I know, but I wasn't really a fan of Puckett getting in anyway.

[Genius]

And seriously, if the Yankees retired the number of every Bernie Williams, they'd be forced to pick triple digits by now.

[Stax]

And seriously, if the Yankees retired the number of every Bernie Williams, they'd be forced to pick triple digits by now.

How many well-above average, fan favorites at tough positions with 4 rings to his name have there been, even in Yankee history?

[Phil Theehor]

Bernie was a great player and one of the last guys I would ever want the Sox to face in a big spot (along with O'Neill & Posada. The Great Yankee teams had a lot of that kind of player).

I would take a team of Bernie's and O'Neills all day long over a team of Sheffields and A-Rods. Numbers be damned, that guy was a winner.

That said, HOF recognizes career individual achievements. Bernie's legacy will be as a huge part of a string of great teams. If I were a Yankee fan <spits>, I would want to see #51 out in the new monument park.

[TheImpossibleMan]

I would take a team of Bernie's and O'Neills all day long over a team of Sheffields and A-Rods. Numbers be damned, that guy was a winner.
And you would lose all day to the A-Rods and Sheffields.

[UNC]

This thread needs more Cubs

[CrazyCarl]

it depends on their pitching

[Stax]

There'd have to be a lot of pitching to make up for the difference between 9 Sheffs/ARods and 9 O'Neills/Bernies.

[TheImpossibleMan]

Sheffield would pitch, A-Rod would catch.

You see what I did there?

[Stax]

Sheffield would pitch, A-Rod would catch.

You see what I did there?

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay

[Phil Theehor]

And you would lose all day to the A-Rods and Sheffields.

You would lose all day in fantasy baseball, perhaps.

I'd like a Yankee fan to answer that question. Who do you take?

(apologies to Mr. Crash if you are one and I don't know it).

[Stax]

You would lose all day in fantasy baseball, perhaps.

I'd like a Yankee fan to answer that question. Who do you take?

(apologies to Mr. Crash if you are one and I don't know it).

I'm a Yankee fan and I would take ARod 100 times out of 100.

However, a more traditional Yankee fan would probably say he'd rather have Scott Brosius on his team so who the fuck knows (I was talking to a friend of mine about ARod and he at least admitted ARod was a better player, but without any prompting said he'd rather have a guy like Scott Brosius 'in the clutch'. *sigh*)

Hitting the baseball, getting on base, and hitting the baseball for power are 100% measurable events. Taking out the impact of defense on AVG and AVG on SLG you can make those numbers even more accurate (looking at BABIP, line drive rates, and Isolated Power). The ability to do those things is your ability to do those things, period. Any major variation in so-called "clutch" situations is essentially guaranteed to be a product of the small sample size.

[Phil Theehor]

Speaking for the opposition, we're much happier seeing A-Rod up in a big spot than Bernie, young Posada, O'Neill, Jeter (I could keep going).

And true, I know that statgeeks will come back with some sort of clutchness stat that counts all AB's in close-and-late situations (Edit: and tell me A-Rod is as clutch as the next guy.) However, I'll use the colon-meter. My colon is a lot less clenched with A-Rod up in a big spot than it ever was with Bernie. Bernie just fucking killed us.

[Stax]

Speaking for the opposition, we're much happier seeing A-Rod up in a big spot than Bernie, young Posada, O'Neill, Jeter (I could keep going).

And true, I know that statgeeks will come back with some sort of clutchness stat that counts all AB's in close-and-late situations. However, I'll use the colon-meter. My colon is a lot less clenched with A-Rod up in a big spot than it ever was with Bernie. Bernie just fucking killed us.

Explain to me how a player spontaneously gains the ability to do something better?

Bernie Williams regular season: .297/.381/.477
Bernie Williams postseason: .275/.371/.480

Again, to get back on topic, I think Bernie deserves to have his # retired for his long, successful career in NY and maybe even some HoF support if voters took a more position-by-position approach to voting. But he was, like every player, the same person in the postseason he was in the regular season.

[nuclearjew]

The only Hall of Fame Bernie Williams should be inducted to is the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame!

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41TTE92DDGL._SS500_.jpg

[Stax]

The only Hall of Fame Bernie Williams should be inducted to is the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame!

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41TTE92DDGL._SS500_.jpg

Hot


And true, I know that statgeeks will come back with some sort of clutchness stat that counts all AB's in close-and-late situations

Oh, and I didn't respond to this in the easiest way possible. There is a stat that measures close-and-late situations called "Close-and-Late", amazingly enough. It's under ESPN's player Splits, sadly you can't get it for a career so I'll just be lazy and do the past 3 years (05-07). This doesn't include his very bad year this year, but I'm lazy and I'm not adding it up for a career #:

ARod all situations 05-07: .302/.392/.582 .974
ARod 'close and late': .294/.393/.520 .913

Decent drop in SLG, but you're also facing fresh, good relievers in close-and-late situations. *shrug*.

[Genius]

How many well-above average, fan favorites at tough positions with 4 rings to his name have there been, even in Yankee history?
They already have a ton of deservedly retired numbers. Let's say they retire Jeter, Bernie, Posada, Pettitte, Mussina, Rivera, and A-Rod. Just to name a few. I'm just saying that when you are the Yankees, you probably need a higher standard when it comes to retiring numbers.

[Stax]

They already have a ton of deservedly retired numbers. Let's say they retire Jeter, Bernie, Posada, Pettitte, Mussina, Rivera, and A-Rod. Just to name a few. I'm just saying that when you are the Yankees, you probably need a higher standard when it comes to retiring numbers.

I love Moose, but he doesn't need a Yankees retired number, he needs an Orioles one.

[Phil Theehor]

Hot



Oh, and I didn't respond to this in the easiest way possible. There is a stat that measures close-and-late situations called "Close-and-Late", amazingly enough. It's under ESPN's player Splits, sadly you can't get it for a career so I'll just be lazy and do the past 3 years (05-07). This doesn't include his very bad year this year, but I'm lazy and I'm not adding it up for a career #:

ARod all situations 05-07: .302/.392/.582 .974
ARod 'close and late': .294/.393/.520 .913

Decent drop in SLG, but you're also facing fresh, good relievers in close-and-late situations. *shrug*.

Okay, then. I think we're at an impasse. You won't acknowlege the existence of "clutch". We could argue this all day long and not find a common ground. All we would prove is that quals can't productively argue with quants.

And yes, to follow you back on-topic. Bernie Williams was a great player and I am really glad that he is out of our lives. He did not hit into double plays in tie games with two on and one out against the Sox in October.

*I'm sorry for going off-topic here, but it kills me that people don't believe in clutch. Let me ask you this: Look at the career numbers of our respective aces: They are similar. Wang acutally has a much better career winning percentage. So I ask you (and I hope you will answer honestly)... Must-win game, both pitchers 100% healthy, who do you take and why?

[Stax]

Okay, then. I think we're at an impasse. You won't acknowlege the existence of "clutch". We could argue this all day long and not find a common ground. All we would prove is that quals can't productively argue with quants.

Yes, because I can display in every measurable way that it doesn't, and you 'say' it does.

And yes, to follow you back on-topic. Bernie Williams was a great player and I am really glad that he is out of our lives. He did not hit into double plays in tie games with two on and one out against the Sox in October.

Nor did ARod. Who outhit Jeter, another Mr. Clutch, in the only series they've ever played together against the Sox.

*I'm sorry for going off-topic here, but it kills me that people don't believe in clutch. Let me ask you this: Look at the career numbers of our career aces: They are similar. Wang acutally has a much better career winning percentage. So I ask you (and I hope you will answer honestly)... Must-win game, both pitchers 100% healthy, who do you take and why?

The pitcher with the lowest ERA, lowest WHIP, best K/BB and/or FB/GB ratio. The pitcher with the best factors he can control. Pitchers cannot control the offense they recieve, so saying you would pick Wang because he's a pretty darn good pitcher on a crazy good offensive team in silly. Wins are a product of pitchers skill (all of which can be measured more purely through other numbers), offense, defense, and luck (Cliff Lee's run support for this year, for example). They are not special just because they're called wins.

[Phil Theehor]

Yes, because I can display in every measurable way that it doesn't, and you 'say' it does.



Nor did ARod. Who outhit Jeter, another Mr. Clutch, in the only series they've ever played together against the Sox.



The pitcher with the lowest ERA, lowest WHIP, best K/BB and/or FB/GB ratio. The pitcher with the best factors he can control. Pitchers cannot control the offense they recieve, so saying you would pick Wang because he's a pretty darn good pitcher on a crazy good offensive team in silly. Wins are a product of pitchers skill (all of which can be measured more purely through other numbers), offense, defense, and luck (Cliff Lee's run support for this year, for example). They are not special just because they're called wins.


What you are saying is this:

There's no such thing as a pucker factor
There are no players who play better when all the chips are down and there are no players who shrink in the same situation
You need to get out more, kiddo.

And you didn't answer my question: Beckett or Wang? They've been on peer teams the last three years. Who's it gonna be?

Regardless of your answer, I have a feeling that we're programmed differently and will never see eye to eye on this. I'll stop arguing this.

[Stax]

What you are saying is this:

There's no such thing as a pucker factor
There are no players who play better when all the chips are down and there are no players who shrink in the same situation
You need to get out more, kiddo.

No, I don't (well, I probably do, but its unrelated to this issue). Give me a name of someone. Name me one person who over any reasonable sample size who has shown any improvement or failure in whatever you define as 'clutch' situations (down the stretch in September, close-and-late, postseason, w/e).

There are two possible results of clutchness - either it is a measurable force in statistics or it isn't. If it is, show it to me. If it isn't, who cares, if the effect is so negligible that no measure picks it up then so what?

And you didn't answer my question: Beckett or Wang? They've been on peer teams the last three years. Who's it gonna be?

I didn't answer because you didn't ask... The only name you put out there was Wang. I'd probably lean towards Wang, simply because he has incorporated a bit more of a strikeout pitch making him a bit more versatile, but it's virtually a wash. Similar ERA+ for their career, similar WHIP, similar general effectiveness. I'd probably make my choice based on the team I had. On a team with solid infielders I'd likely take Wang, with weaker ones probably Beckett. Plus they're both coming off injury so it'd be nice if I, imaginary GM man, got to wait a bit and see at least a bit of work to ensure they've both recovered.

[Phil Theehor]

I figured you would know who "our aces" are.

To your request, I'd like to see the October numbers for two guys you know well-- Beckett and Schilling. October numbers versus their career numbers numbers, please. If you have the capability, I'd alao like to see what their numbers look like in post-season games where they face elimination.

[Stax]

I figured you would know who "our aces" are.

Do you, even? Before last year would you have said it was Beckett? Coming off injury and with Daisuke's performance would Beckett still be so this year? *shrug* 'Ace' status is such a fluid thing (Baseball Tonight did some 'ace' themed episode a while back when a bunch of 'aces' were pitching, they really stretched the definition a bit).

To your request, I'd like to see the October numbers for two guys you know well-- Beckett and Schilling. October numbers versus their career numbers numbers, please. If you have the capability, I'd alao like to see what their numbers look like in post-season games where they face elimination.
I could dig through and look at 'elimination' games but:
A. No
B. You'd be cherry picking an already too-small sample of "postseason starts by a pitcher" to an insane level.

Josh Beckett regular season: 3.77 ERA, 1.222 WHIP, 3.04 K/BB. 1182.7 IP.
Josh Beckett postseason: 1.73 ERA, .747, 5.85 K/BB, over the course of 72.2 IP. Hardly a reasonable sample size. 1 ER one way or the other changes his ERA by .10 points.

Curt Schilling regular season: 3.46 ERA, 1.137 WHIP, 4.38 K/BB (anyone who says he isn't a HoFer should probably go ahead and die). 3261.0 IP.
Curt Schilling postseason: 2.23 ERA, .969 WHIP, 4.8 K/BB through 133.1 IP. Still a crazy small sample, but I guess a bit better.

Obviously numerically they come up as better in the postseason. Same holds true for old Mr. Mariano Rivera. But all three of those men share something else in common - They are incredibly good at throwing a baseball professionally, at least two at Hall of Fame levels. Over a small sample size it is far more likely for them to have shiny good performances than bad ones.

[Phil Theehor]

Okay then, it looks like we're making progress here. What do The Wanger's post-season numbers look like?

P.S. "Our Ace" is the one who, if healthy (and Tito gets to set his rotation), gets the ball in game 1. I'll let you take a guess as to who that will be.

[Phil Theehor]

PS. Part of the reason Mariano is the best there ever was is what he did in the post-season. He had two (that I remember) bad hiccups in many many opportunities. During your incredible run of championships, he was lights-fucking-out. If you've watched him for 13 years and won't admit that there is such a thing as a Big Game Pitcher, then I am afraid you are truly lost...

[TheImpossibleMan]

"Clutch" as people traditionally think of it does not exist, in my opinion. Players do not magically gain the ability to hit better when the chips are down. Reggie Jackson was a great hitter who hit 500+ home runs. If he has a three-home run game in July or August, people say "Well he's a great hitter, you know he's capable of that sort of game, and every now and then you know he's going to have a day like that." But if he does it in October people say he's a clutch hitter. Why is he not just a great hitter who had a great day? Why do we have to attribute this mystical element of 'clutchness' to his performance?

In this wildcard era, in which a player can play up to 19 games in a single postseason, we are finally getting reasonably large sample sizes for players in the postseason. Is Jeter really clutch? Well, he has 123 postseason games; he's .316/.387/.458 in the regular season and .309/.377/.469 in the postseason. Not that 123 games is such a huge fucking sample size, but it's close to a full season. And what do you know, his postseason stats are essentially identical to his regular season #s.

The numbers are tougher for pitchers, since they play so little. Smoltz is the all-time leader in IP with 207, but about 20 of those were pitched as a reliever, so I guessed at some other guys with high IP totals. Clemens has 199 IP in the postseason and has a 3.75 ERA and a 1.22 WHIP (3.12/1.17 regular season) while Maddux, in 194 IP is 3.34 and 1.24 postseason (3.16/1.14). Hmmmm....

HOWEVER, after all that said, I do think clutchness exists. Simply, there are players who freeze up and play worse when the chips are down. So I think, if you hit the way you always do, you qualify as a clutch player. But suggesting that certain not-very-good-players like Brosius are somehow more valuable than guys like A-Rod in the postseason is ridiculous.

[TheImpossibleMan]

Arguments like this are so fucking lame. Stax and I are using analysis and real-life data to back up our positions, Theehor is saying shit like "What about the colon factor?"

[Genius]

To suggest that players are "clutch" actually does them a major disservice. It suggests that most of the time, they aren't giving 100% of their abilities, and only step up when it really matters. If T.O. or Randy Moss say that they do that, they get destroyed in the media. But for some reason, if David Ortiz or Derek Jeter come through in the late innings, they are better players. That's stupid. I think reverse clutch exists. I think some players meltdown under pressure. But when Ortiz drills a home run in the ninth? That's just what he does, he hits long home runs, and the stats will show that he fails a lot more than he succeeds in those situations.

[nuclearjew]

What about Adam Vinatieri vs. Scott Norwood?

[Stax]

To suggest that players are "clutch" actually does them a major disservice. It suggests that most of the time, they aren't giving 100% of their abilities, and only step up when it really matters. If T.O. or Randy Moss say that they do that, they get destroyed in the media. But for some reason, if David Ortiz or Derek Jeter come through in the late innings, they are better players. That's stupid. I think reverse clutch exists. I think some players meltdown under pressure. But when Ortiz drills a home run in the ninth? That's just what he does, he hits long home runs, and the stats will show that he fails a lot more than he succeeds in those situations.

Precisely right, this is the argument I've made before. If you can hit a HR when you want, as the idea of being 'clutch' with a HR suggests, then you are hurting your team in the 99% of ABs where you DON'T hit a HR.

[Phil Theehor]

Guys, I'm not diminishing the importance or validity of your statistical analysis. It is a real indicator. In fact, I am very thankful for James and his disciples. Without James, Theo is not the guy that he is today. We probably don't have two fresh rings.

The point I make (and I am sorry, Senor Crash, if my joking attempt to quantify the fear instilled in opposing fans by a specific player offended you) is that by only looking at stats, you are really only looking at one side of the coin. There is a lot of information that we, as thinking beings, process. Not all of it can be quantified. There are reasons that teams will do everything they can to hold on to a Jeter or a Bernie and will let a stat machine like Sheffield walk away.

By only taking into account what can be quantified, you are ignoring your observations. Not every bit of important information in this world can fit into a spreadsheet.

Bringing this back on topic, I think that Bernie Williams was a great player. And from having watched him play around 25 games per year for over ten years, I would say that Bernie was actually better than the back of his baseball card.

[Stax]

How. Seriously. Simple question.

Explain to me how you can do something that has an impact on an aspect of the game of baseball (scoring runs offensively, saving them in the field) that cannot be measured? Even subtle things like how much your simple presence on the basepaths affects pitchers (to measure what you add as a "threat" regardless of what you steal, for example) is measured.

What thing of importance can you do that would not be measured?

[Phil Theehor]

Show me, then, how Derek Jeter's play collecting the offline throw and shovelling it to the dish to nail Giambi (other one, not pornstache) at the end of the playoff game in 2001 is measured in the stats.

To me, it looks like this. Assist: 1.

Now answer this, was it not bigger than just one assist? Did it not carry a much greater impact than just one assist? Many, many players can notch an assist in a baseball game, but it was only someone like a Jeter who could have done that.

What baffles me here is that your marriage to the objective (stats) causes you to completely disregard the subjective (observation).

[TheImpossibleMan]

Your suggestion is paradoxical. If a player had a mythical quality that made him better than his stats...it would show up in his stats. If a player is mysteriously better in the clutch, he'd have better stats when he batted in "clutch" situations, which guys like Bernie and Jeter don't.

[Stax]

What Crash said. Jeter's little famous flip was nice, certainly. It was good presence of mind. But it was also:

1. One event
2. The product of multiple failures leading up to him (that ball missed, what, 2 cutoff men?)

If Jeter had the ability to routinely make heads-up defensive plays, and it wasn't merely a product of luck on a big stage, he would come out as a good defensive player. Instead, however, he's league average in his best years and abysmal in his other ones.

Aaron Boone hit a walkoff home run on a big stage in 2003. That does not make Aaron Boone a home run hitter. Anyone has the ability to do anything on a baseball diamond at any given moment. Barry Bonds can strike out and someone with 0 career HR could single-handedly Mazeroski/Carter style win a WS. But hitting that HR is not more of a skill than hitting any other home run. It is well-conditioned, upper 1% athletes at their craft getting a good result on a big stage.

EDIT - And people disregard the subjective because it is exactly that, subjective. How can you possibly have a subjective skill at a game with precisely two objective goals:

1. Score runs
2. Prevent opponent from scoring runs

? You either have an ability to do one or both of those things or you don't.

[Phil Theehor]

Your point of view is myopic, certainly, but you do put forth your logic well. I'm not going to get you to see over the spreadsheet. So be it. I blame rotisserie baseball and video games for this.

[Stax]

Your point of view is myopic, certainly, but you do put forth your logic well. I'm not going to get you to see over the spreadsheet. So be it. I blame rotisserie baseball and video games for this.

Actually it goes the other way. James thought this stuff up and tried to give it to GMs, but fantasy GMs were the only ones who listened.

The issue with clutch is the issue with Nostradamus. It cannot be used to predict anything, and people only remember the 'clutch' moments. If Derek Jeter truly has an ability to hit home runs or make plays whenever needed in big situations the Yankees would have WS rings in 98, 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, and 07 (and would be going to the playoffs in 08). People remember Mr. November and The Flip and ignore the rest of his work (even just the rest of his postseason work) that shows him to be the same as he is at any time.

[TheImpossibleMan]

It has to do with selective memory. If you think of a friend you haven't seen in ten years, and then they call, is that an example of synchronicity? No, because what about all those times you thought of them and they didn't call? Similarly, people call Jeter "Captain Clutch" and all that - but what about when he batted .200 against the Sox in 2004? You only remember the special occasions, and thereby get "clutch".

[Genius]

Clutch can be measured. It can be measured by how many times Tim McCarver and Joe Morgan bring it up this postseason, thus proving that it is even more worthless voodoo mysticism than one might otherwise think.

[TheImpossibleMan]

Quick, Theehor, without looking up the numbers - is David Eckstein a clutch hitter?

[Stax]

He has a World Series MVP, of course he is!

[/sarcasm]

[Swurgen]

And you would lose all day to the A-Rods and Sheffields.

Depends on what month it is.

[Stax]

Depends on what month it is.

Name me the month where Jeter/Williams beats ARod/Sheff. Unless recent legislation has expanded Opposite Day to Opposite Month, no.

[TheImpossibleMan]

It really wouldn't.

[Swurgen]

OK but lots of people, some of whom are smart, happen to disagree. Stats are not foolproof. For example, basic BA/OBP/SLG doesn't always tell the story of the at bats. Yankee fans always had more hope when 2 of the guys were up. Maybe in the big spots, Jeter's outs tended to be line drives or hard grounders that gave you hope and 'oooh...just missed' whereas A-Rod's popup or bomb all or nothing techniques left you cursing more frequently. Maybe Jeter and Bernie would work at bats fighting off tough pitches. Who knows? Stats can't quantify everything. There's a reason why 99% of Yankees just felt that Jeter and Bernie gave them a far greater percentage of good AB's than Sheff and particularly A-Rod.

Max Kellerman read some study of clutch seasons a few weeks ago and outside of last year, A-Rod has been really horrific for most of his career and merely average for the rest. That's using statistidal analysis for regular season - not even post season. It's really comical how bad A-Rod looks when he gets in one of his funks and yes - his hot streaks are among the greatest of all time. He is a great player regardless. Yes Jeter does frequently get a pass because of past accomplishments for the team and his home grown status and for some freaky plays (the flip, the dive into the stands, ...) but it goes beyond that. A calculator won't show you that but it's true. Some guys just don't give me much hope for success when they are in the batters box no matter what his statistics are and some are the opposite. I think that may have to do with 'quality of outs' but whatever the reason, that's the case.

[TheImpossibleMan]

You're using utterly anecdotal, undocumented examples to back up your position. The difference between a .300 and .320 hitter, at 500 ABs each in a season, is ten hits. That's a hit every sixteen games. Are you telling me you'd notice that if you didn't document it? Saying "I get a better feeling with Jeter at the plate" is meaningless and based on vague impressions you have, not real evidence.

[Lone Wolf]

Bernie Williams was a good player in the right place at the right time on the right stage

[Titus_Pullo]

You mean he nailed Jessica Alba before Jeter gave her the herps?

[Genius]

There's a reason why 99% of Yankees just felt that Jeter and Bernie gave them a far greater percentage of good AB's than Sheff and particularly A-Rod.
They had monumentally better and more consistent pitching when Jeter and Bernie were winning the World Series, and therefore were much more forgiving of hitters' mistakes?

[Stax]

OK but lots of people, some of whom are smart, happen to disagree. Stats are not foolproof. For example, basic BA/OBP/SLG doesn't always tell the story of the at bats. Yankee fans always had more hope when 2 of the guys were up. Maybe in the big spots, Jeter's outs tended to be line drives or hard grounders that gave you hope and 'oooh...just missed' whereas A-Rod's popup or bomb all or nothing techniques left you cursing more frequently. Maybe Jeter and Bernie would work at bats fighting off tough pitches. Who knows? Stats can't quantify everything.

Actually yes they can. You can look at situational stats. I'm perfectly willing to accept that, for example, for some reason some hitter is just WAY better at picking up the ball from a pitcher's hand in the stretch vs. the windup and thus bats better with men on base. But this would SHOW UP IN NUMBERS. This is the point of numbers, sometimes the more sensitive the better. If something does not show up in any reasonable measurement then it is not being done consistently enough to change those numbers. If it's being done so inconsistently (when the situations, aka "big" ABs, come up so frequently), how can you possibly attribute that to skill and not lucky timing of an event?

Also if you're making outs in the field that are no more productive (as you are suggesting with the "Oh, just missed") who cares? I'll take ARod for the block and the five-square win (fuck yea Hollywood Squares reference) over someone who derives value from 'making pretty outs'.

There's a reason why 99% of Yankees just felt that Jeter and Bernie gave them a far greater percentage of good AB's than Sheff and particularly A-Rod.

Because:

A. The media told them so repeatedly, never ending. If you watched ESPN any day of the Yankees/Cleveland series last year you'd think ARod was bombing and Jeter was old Captain Clutch. In fact ARod was giving a decent (not great, but decent) series and Jeter was stinking up the joint and grounding into a crazy # of DPs.
B. Sheff especially, and ARod somewhat, come off as dicks. Jeter and Bernie are incredibly nice guys. No surprise fans like them better.

Max Kellerman read some study of clutch seasons a few weeks ago and outside of last year, A-Rod has been really horrific for most of his career and merely average for the rest. That's using statistidal analysis for regular season - not even post season. It's really comical how bad A-Rod looks when he gets in one of his funks and yes - his hot streaks are among the greatest of all time. He is a great player regardless.

I assume the study you are referring to was WPA based which, while nice, is hardly statistically valuable for measuring ability. Again, it WPA assigns value to a situation. It's nice for measuring value generated, but not any actual ability. If you flip a coin 100 times sometimes it will flip 60-40 Heads/Tails not 50-50. That doesn't mean it's "better" at flipping heads.

Yes Jeter does frequently get a pass because of past accomplishments for the team and his home grown status and for some freaky plays (the flip, the dive into the stands, ...) but it goes beyond that. A calculator won't show you that but it's true. Some guys just don't give me much hope for success when they are in the batters box no matter what his statistics are and some are the opposite.


That is why fans aren't GMs and why the families of victims don't determine how the death penalty should be applied. Gut feelings and "hope" will never provide as accurate a picture as looking at what happened, measuring it, and developing a model for how that past event helps you predict future ones.

[Pike Bishop]

As a sox fan, I can honestly say, I loved him as a jazz guitarist.

But seriously, I'd put him in the hall of fame for being a good player and a class act. I know that they don't put people in the hall for their qualities as a human being (Ty Cobb being the classic example) but for me it goes a long way. In reality I don't think he'll make the hall just because his numbers are a little borderline and he was never all that flashy (and I don't have a lot of faith in the people who get to vote) but I hope they at least retire his number.

[Swurgen]

You're using utterly anecdotal, undocumented examples to back up your position. The difference between a .300 and .320 hitter, at 500 ABs each in a season, is ten hits. That's a hit every sixteen games. Are you telling me you'd notice that if you didn't document it? Saying "I get a better feeling with Jeter at the plate" is meaningless and based on vague impressions you have, not real evidence.

I didn't claim to be anything other than anecdotal. What I do claim is that stats don't always tell the whole story and I consider myself a stat guy. They just don't always tell the entire story is all. I tend to disagree with announcers 90% of the time so I don't think that's it. I fully know and admit that Jeter and his 'clutchness' is definitely overrated but I'll take him in a big spot where a base hit wins the game over A-Rod every time. Bernie too.

While you guys are ganging up and geeking out on me, can you tell me if there has been any effort to catalog performances vs good pitchers and vs average pitchers? My claim (though not mine alone) is that 90% of sluggers who swing out of their shorts like A-Rod and Sheff tend to feast off of average to below average pitchers while guys like Jeter and Bernie tend to be more consistent across the board due to more controlled swings. This comes to roosst in "clutch situations" where you're facing better teams which usually means better pitching.

I'd like to see each pitcher ranked 1, 2, or 3 based on ability and apply that across MLB and see if they notice any trends that prove or refute this argument.

[Stax]

I didn't claim to be anything other than anecdotal. What I do claim is that stats don't always tell the whole story and I consider myself a stat guy. They just don't always tell the entire story is all. I tend to disagree with announcers 90% of the time so I don't think that's it. I fully know and admit that Jeter and his 'clutchness' is definitely overrated but I'll take him in a big spot where a base hit wins the game over A-Rod every time. Bernie too.

Why. Tell me why.

While you guys are ganging up and geeking out on me, can you tell me if there has been any effort to catalog performances vs good pitchers and vs average pitchers?

...Yes. Like gobs and gobs of work.

My claim (though not mine alone) is that 90% of sluggers who swing out of their shorts like A-Rod and Sheff tend to feast off of average to below average pitchers while guys like Jeter and Bernie tend to be more consistent across the board due to more controlled swings. This comes to roosst in "clutch situations" where you're facing better teams which usually means better pitching.

You are wrong. First off saying ARod and Sheff are the all-or-nothing guys is silly. At least throw that allegation at guys like Adam Dunn or Ryan Howard who are all HR-K-BB.

Beyond that, if this were somehow magically true, show it. You can't, because it's not true.

I'd like to see each pitcher ranked 1, 2, or 3 based on ability and apply that across MLB and see if they notice any trends that prove or refute this argument.

A. Records vs. individual pitchers, even at the extremes, have too small a sample size to be meaningful for any interaction.
B. Data against good pitchers will of course show decreased numbers because they are good pitchers.

EDIT - And here's an article that includes ARods #s for 04-07 (http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/primate_studies/discussion/fun_with_leverage_part_2_leveraged_performance_200 4_2007/) separated by leverage (he really has been 'bad' in 08 by leverage). He's actually better by a tiny amount.

[mongo]

i love bernie, but he is only great due to the teams he was on. he's the yanks steve kerr.

[Stax]

i love bernie, but he is only great due to the teams he was on. he's the yanks steve kerr.

Well, I mean he was a pretty darn amazing CF in his prime, and he had a pretty nice career. But he's definitely magnified thanks to the team around him.

[Phil Theehor]

Can we get the "Does Clutch exist?" part of this thread moved to its own thread? I think this is actually a pretty interesting (and polarizing) question and don't want to sully the discussion of Bernie's legacy (a great player who was feared by 87.462721% of opposing fans in big spots) with something so far off-topic.

With that requested, I'll reneg on my previous pledge to drop this (since nobody else will).

<--------------------------

I would ask the spreadsheet crew to look to their left, please, and tell me how that can be properly reflected by statistics alone-- how it does not require a qualitative narrative to be taken in context-- how it was so much bigger than 7IP, 2ER (I don't recall the exact line, I'm just guessing).

However, I won't ask you that. You'll trot out the same answer (plus a few snide, nerdy remarks) that you gave for the Jeter-flip-play question. You'll tell me that you have a formula that takes the magnitude of a situation into account.

So, you can disregard that. Instead, answer this: You say that 'clutch' doesn't exist. But does "choke" exist?

[Stax]

New thread made.

[TheImpossibleMan]

Can we get the "Does Clutch exist?" part of this thread moved to its own thread? I think this is actually a pretty interesting (and polarizing) question and don't want to sully the discussion of Bernie's legacy (a great player who was feared by 87.462721% of opposing fans in big spots) with something so far off-topic.

With that requested, I'll reneg on my previous pledge to drop this (since nobody else will).

<--------------------------

I would ask the spreadsheet crew to look to their left, please, and tell me how that can be properly reflected by statistics alone-- how it does not require a qualitative narrative to be taken in context-- how it was so much bigger than 7IP, 2ER (I don't recall the exact line, I'm just guessing).

However, I won't ask you that. You'll trot out the same answer (plus a few snide, nerdy remarks) that you gave for the Jeter-flip-play question. You'll tell me that you have a formula that takes the magnitude of a situation into account.

So, you can disregard that. Instead, answer this: You say that 'clutch' doesn't exist. But does "choke" exist?
How the fuck is Schilling's game bigger than 7IP 1ER? You're suggesting that Schilling playing injured somehow magically makes his teammates play better, as though Pedro etc. all threw better the next game because Schilling "showed heart". But "showing heart" does mean shit if you're getting taken deep.