Opening day

Well, I would say that is pretty good evidence that Ortiz has hit well in those clutch situations. I agree with Tom, we need to define clutch situations. I think there are several different kinds of clutch situations - there are RISP, RISP w/ 2 outs, late game situations, come-from-behind scenarios, post-season, etc. I agree that perceptions often override reality, as might be the case with Jeter. Jeter may not be that great with RISP during the regular season, but maybe he is great in the postseason with RISP? If he is, then I would still call him clutch in those situations.

Here you are just looking at one of the clutch situations in Rudi's career - postseason play. What about his RISP stats? What about RISP in postseason? What about his late game stats? I have no opinion either way on Rudi, but I would not discount the fact that he was clutch based simply on his postseason line.

cc, your whole analysis was based on selective stats.

The definition of clutch hitting is to perform significantly better in a clutch situations (which, I mentioned above, can be defined in various ways) than a player normally does in other situations. Your stats with Ortiz gives a great example of that.

 

Miserable. I keep hearing other Pollyanna Tiger fans say that it's not time to panic - it's only 6 games. I agree, it's not time to panic; it's time to resign - resign to the fact that this is a bad team. Mark my word, they will lose at least 90 games this year, and they might finish last in the AL Central. The division is between the Indians and White Sox - those are the two best teams this year.

At least it's an election year, so I will have something else to distract me this season.

 

It may just be my perception that this happens, but it seems to happen quite a bit and it's tiresome. I submit evidence to support my position and you come along and dismiss it without offering evidence of your own. Do you have something to add besides just dismissing what I've posted?

Yeah, they're a bad team. Willis walked 7 and struck out 0 on Saturday. Verlander was awful yesterday. They're botching routing plays in the field and they couldn't hit water if they fell out of a boat.

The worst thing of all is that Cabrera is killing my fantasy team.

 

Come in off the ledge Andy, it is just a few games. If it happens in the middle of the season no one pays much attention, but since they are "winless" they get all the attention for it.

I think the Tigers will be fine and they are a better team than the White Sox.

 

cc, I don't see how you can say you didn't give us some selective stats! To prove Joe Rudi wasn't a clutch hitter you only gave his postseason batting average. Why not give us all his clutch stats - like RISP, late in the game, etc.? Then you listed a bunch of guys with more selective stats - Jeter's '01 playoffs? What about all of his other playoff games? Ruth's '18-'22 W.S.? What about his '27 - '32? I mean, come on! Just because a player is "clutch" doesn't mean they are going to come through all the time. Even the most clutch hitters fail 60% of the time.

 

Anyone who can find this stat, I would love to see it:

How many teams that have at least a 6-game losing streak at anytime during the season go on to finish above .500? Or make the playoffs? I bet those teams with 6-game losing streaks more often than not finish below .500, and I bet making the playoffs occurs less than 1% of the time for those teams.

My point is, teams that lose 6 in a row are generally pretty bad or mediocre at best. And such is the case with the Tigers. The only thing the rest of the season will determine for us is whether they are (a) bad or (b) just mediocre.

I'm facing reality - the season is over. This team is not good.

 

The point about Joe Rudi is that he has clutchability (yeah, I made that up but it works), but when I see the same BA in both regular season and post season, it suggests that he was pretty much the same player in both cases. I have to questions whether he has clutchability or not. Feel free to post whatever you think will make your case that a certain player has clutchability.

In regards to Jeter not hitting well in a postseason series, if we're going to declare that Jeter has clutchability, then shouldn't it be manifested in every postseason series? Otherwise, declaring that he's clutch is nothing more than subjective opinion based on things that might include how many times the Boo-Yah network declares him to be clutch. I've got numbers that suggest Jeter, as great a player as he is, doesn't have this magical clutchability. Jeter's numbers in the regular and postseason demonstrate that he's a great player. No more, no less.

If a player's clutchability means that they fail as much during clutch situations as they do during non-clutch situations, how is it that you can say that clutchability exists?

I say no.

 

I'm not taking that bet, because I think you're right.

I found some precedence for teams overcoming long losing streaks. The 1953 Yankees lost nine in a row and beat the Dodgers in the World Series.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/NYY/1953_sched.shtml


The 1914 Braves, 1933 Giants, 1983 Orioles, 1990 Reds, 1991 Twins and 2000 Yankees all lost 7 in a row and won the World Series.



The 1951 Giants lost 11 consecutive games and still won the NL pennant, but lost the World Series to the Yankees.


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCI/is_9_64/ai_n15657356

It's possible that they'll recover, but I have serious doubts about it.

I don't see how you can say this after the White Sox swept them.

 

One series over the course of a whole season does not make the White Sox the better team.

 

Well, it's not really "you", because PastorSBC isn't a Tigers fan, but a Cubs fan. The very thought of rooting for a Detroit team probably makes him shudder. :laugh:

 

:laugh: This is true. Although of all the Detroit teams I like the Tigers the best. I could possibly acutally cheer for them in the right situation (i.e against the Yankees or Cardinals). The rest of the Detroit teams I would never cheer for.

 

I have no idea whether Rudi was "clutch" or not. But just giving me his postseason line doesn't tell us the whole story. After looking at all the pertinent stats, we may come to the conclusion that he was pretty consistent during all phases of the game. I agree with you that sometimes players are deemed "clutch" based on gut feelings and not reality.

A clutch hitter will no more perform clutch in all situations, than a .350 career hitter will hit .350 in every stretch of games. Again, let's look at all of Jeter's clutch stats and see the whole picture, not just some small piece (the '01 playoffs). Make a judgment on the whole, not a part.

I didn't say that. I gave an example of someone who hits .400 in clutch situations still fails 60% of the time. If that same player also hits .400 in all other situations, then I wouldn't call him clutch per se, I would call him the greatest hitter of all-time. However, if he only hits .300 in other situations but .400 in clutch situations, then I would definitely call him clutch.

 

Interesting. Maybe there is a glimmer of hope for the Tigers. That '53 Yankees team sure was streaky. Before they went on that 9-game losing streak, they went 29-4.

You heard it here first - the White Sox are good. I would not be the least bit surprised to see them win the AL Central. I see similar patterns with the White Sox and Tigers. The White Sox were great in '05 (but faltered a little bit near then end), had the best record after the first half of '06, then faltered for the rest of '06, then stunk in '07. Now they appeared to have regrouped and are going to do well in '08. Meanwhile, the Tigers are one year off that schedule - great in '06 (with faltering a bit at the end), had the best record thru the first half of '07, then faltered the rest of '07, will stink in '08, and here's hoping for a big turnaround in '09!

 

Wait a minute. We agree on something? How can this be? Who are you and where is the real Andy T.? :laugh:

Hmm... maybe I'm not understanding your position. Aren't you saying that certain players are more clutch than others because they have an ability that makes them more clutch? I mean, this is what is meant by saying somebody is a clutch hitter, isn't it?

 

The Tigers have humbled me this past week.

My definition of a clutch hitter is someone who performs signifcantly better in clutch situations than he does in regular situations. A career .250 hitter who hits .300 in clutch situations is a clutch hitter, in my book. Conversely, a career .300 hitter who hits .250 in clutch situations is a choker.

And as we dicussed above - there are different kinds of clutch situations - regular season RISP, late game situations, postseason, etc.

 

I believe ESPN reported that no team has ever started the season 0-4 and won the World Series.

Never got around to the post I wanted to make about "clutch hitting." More to come.....