here it is:
Palmers stat is Batting Wins: "this measures the number of wins a player added relative to the league average hitter". this reasonable and correctly measures the TOTAL contribution a player made in all his at-bats towards scoring runs/winning./ ie, his at bats from the first inning to the last. it's a good approach.
some further "clutch" studies have been based off the work of Batting Wins, but ONLY using the at-bats in "clutch situations". ie close and late or whatever.
so imagine a player that was the best in the league through innings 1-5, but poor in the late innings. his Batting Wins stat would be good, but a clutch study done using Batting Wins as the metric would rate him poorly.
understand now?
And since NO ONE INCLUDING Palmer and the guy that wrote the bogus article did a break down of late innings vs. early inning batting. Here is a DIRECT QUOTE from the article which I will use against itself and you and see if you can answer it....
" The Player Win Average is without doubt a perfect measure of which hitters (and pitchers) are winning and losing games. But its computation, with the requirement of an accounting for every situation in every game, is forbiddingly expensive even when the data are available, and quite impossible in general since play-by-play information is not saved by the major leagues"
So in summary his Conclusions DID NOT include any play by play and in FACT did not include ANY data of "clutch" situations because play by play was not available so the "author" had NO CLUE WHEN THE HITS HAPPENED!
Now back o his Yaz assertions....follow me if you can. Again
DIRECTLY FROM THE ARTICLE...
"Yaz was the most consistently untimely hitter in the majors in 1969 and 1970"
OK...but here is how he arrived at his conclusions of "clutch hitting"...again directly from the article...
"To summarize the discussion so far, both the PW A and the BWA are measures of overall batting skill. The PWA is a pure measure of clutch hitting. As its inventors say: "We have made the when the dominant factor. with no regard for the kind of what that happened." The BWA is pure measure of hitting quantity. Whether a particular home run is meaningless or Thomson-timely, it will still raise the everyday player's BWA by an identical three points. Thus a comparison of the PWA’s and BWA’s of players in the 1969 and 1970 seasons should provide considerable insight into the importance of clutch hitting.
My first comparison was to confirm a study by Pete Palmer, who had found that PWA's and BWA's are highly correlated. In fact, if one knows a player's BWA, one can predict his PWA with high accuracy using the following equation:
PWA = (BWA)*(1.37) + .484"
Yaz had the second HIGHEST PWA in MLB in 1970 (using the stats the "author" povided! So much fun using the "authors" mistakes against him and you!). So this geek totally contridicted himself. THE ONLY PLAYER with a higher PWA which the "author" claims is, "The PWA is a pure measure of clutch hitting" was McCovey. So Yaz was second best according to the stats he used.
Oh before you answer he qualifys his answer that if there, PWA varied from 1969 to 1970 then it was totally "luck" that they had a good PWA during one of those seasons. Yaz's PWA was still above most hitters in 1969 (even being 20+ games back a large par of the season and battling injuries) Yet the author is stating because it wasn't the SAME Yaz's "clutch" was luck not skill. Besides that fact he states Yaz wasn't clutch in 1970 during the PENNENT RACE..when he wasn't even in one and add to that he had the second highest measure of "clutch" according to the author in MLB for 1970 so where the F*ck does he get that Yaz was "untimely" in his hits in 1970? It is total BS. So explain this to me and I will have more faith in this guys "study". I have asked you this multiple times and you avoid it.
Lastly you used two "studies" that you claimed support your position.
The first conducted in 1977 using stats from 1970 and earlier with NO PLAY_BY PLAY used since it didn't exist then in any form.
The second "study" was conducted in 2004 USING PLAY-BY-PLAY.
BOTH ARE YOUR LINKS!
1977 "study" on "clutch" Concludes.."Although I have established clearly that clutch-hitting cannot be an important or a general phenomenon"....really? Oh I forgot here is one of the closing senteces..."Maybe luck was the basis, the reputation of a Henrich or a Reese as a clutch hitter-but let me hasten to add that Henrich and Reese were certainly exceptional good hitters simply on the basis of the quantity of their hits, as we as, perhaps, the timeliness of their hits"
WTF?
The 2004 "study" on "clutch"...."However, it does appear that clutch hitting exists and that its importance has been generally
underestimated."
So you have TWO STUDIES THAT YOU PROVIDED and they say exactly the opposite!
Of course the one study you want to believe DID NOT USE PLAY-BY-PLAY so you HAVE ZERO stats includd WHEN THE HIT HAPPENED pretty much invalidating the "study" completely...just a theory (Oh and a theory that PWA predicts "clutch" yet with Yaz having the second highest PWA in MLB in 1970 the "author" claims Yaz was one of the most "untimely hitters in 1970" So basically the "author" is saying he is full of ****)
The other study used PLAY-BY-PLAY so we know WHEN the hits happened and there is REAL proof, not theory on when hits happen and this author concluded that "clutch" is actually UNDERRATED and DOES EXIST.
In closing you say that "clutch" is OVERRATED.
The second study YOU linked to stated that "clutch" is UNDERRATED.
You failed to answer this before...this second study totally invalidates your opinion. Why is this explain. You keep avoiding these questions and saying 3 or 4 posters are ignorant...sorry I PROVED THE ONE STUDY WAS BS and that
the second study YOU USED on "CLutch" not only comes to the conclusion that "clutch" exist, that it is UNDERRATED! Which of course also blows your opinion out of the water aND SHOWS WHO IS "IGNORANT".
Admit it you are
owned using your own links and ego.
