Long-time fans, tell me why I ought to be excited about Branch.

[SuperPatsFan]

You oughtn't.

At the moment he's an overpriced insurance policy with his own not too distant injury history. He needs to prove himself just as any other player would. That he's rejiggered his contract to give NE some financial wiggle room is to his credit. That he and Tommy are still friends and excited to be working together again is meaningless until it proves itself on game days. As RayClay noted somewhere, he came at the market price, which to my mind was excessive, but Bill & Co. felt otherwise. Hopefully he proves me wrong, but people drooling over this due to his NE history are choosing to discount more recent history - their choice. I recommend you relax and enjoy the ride, and not get excited prematurely.

I look forward to seeing what Branch brings to the table this season.

 

[RayClay]

I'd argue that Yaz was no more or less likely to hit .400 in any 25 AB streak. In the 75 WS he hit .310, slugged .310 with 0 extra base hits.

You misunderstand statistics like a lot of people.

A coin flip has nothing to do with talent or clutchness.

There's a 1 in 4096 of flipping 12 heads in a row. Yet, if you already flipped 11, it's 50/50. It's always 50/50 for the next one.

The chance of hitting 7/8 in a series is very low. The chance of hitting the seventh is about 3/10 for most hitters.

A coin that's been flipped 11 times hasn't proven it's learned how to flip itself heads, so it's odds are still 50/50.

A player, on the other hand, given the rules, has proved every series, every game to hit better than an average (mean), meaning he could have hit worse, the same, or higher and hit higher every single time.

Now we don't have a series of random coin flips, we have a series of experiments, every one of which answered as "better in the clutch".

What you're saying is Bird might start shooting like a stiff, Yaz might start hitting average or worse, when the evidence of every trial (not a random flip, but a test of skill) says the opposite.

 

[emoney_33]

That's not an argument. You don't understand statistics.

If Yaz was 10% above his regular season stats, or 60% of his performances were better than average, that might be considered statistically significant.

His differences over average are so off the charts, they would be considered proof, in an experiment.

Just using your Chrystal ball is not an argument.



Statistical hypothesis testing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not exactly sure where you are failing to understand my argument. You're argument is that because of the timing it proves that he had an ability to be better depending on the timing (i.e. your specific criteria for "clutch" moments).

The sample size IS statistically insignificant for that type of a proof. There exists many times over his career where he's had similar small sample size stretches that are NOT the playoffs.

He had 65 total playoff At-Bats, he has 11,988 regular season at-bats. I can find many instances of him batting far above his average and far below his average in a small-sample streak.

Your argument is that "clutch" is a significant moment that affects athletes performance different than all other points in time. You are attempting to prove this with a tiny sample size of 1 athlete.

 

[emoney_33]

You misunderstand statistics like a lot of people.

A coin flip has nothing to do with talent or clutchness.

There's a 1 in 4096 of flipping 12 heads in a row. Yet, if you already flipped 11, it's 50/50. It's always 50/50 for the next one.

The chance of hitting 7/8 in a series is very low. The chance of hitting the seventh is about 3/10 for most hitters.

A coin that's been flipped 11 times hasn't proven it's learned how to flip itself heads, so it's odds are still 50/50.

A player, on the other hand, given the rules, has proved every series, every game to hit better than an average (mean), meaning he could have hit worse, the same, or higher and hit higher every single time.

Now we don't have a series of random coin flips, we have a series of experiments, every one of which answered as "better in the clutch".

What you're saying is Bird might start shooting like a stiff, Yaz might start hitting average or worse, when the evidence of every trial (not a random flip, but a test of skill) says the opposite.

It is not I that does not understand statistics. It is you who is defining arbitrary boundaries that limit sample size to define "clutch". Yes Yaz came through in some big moments. He also failed in the World Series with 0 extra base hits and a signficantly lower Slugging percentage than his career average.

You have not proven that elevated performance in the clutch is a skill.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

They have the same chemistry that Manning has with Harrison or Wayne.

 

[RayClay]

It is not I that does not understand statistics. It is you who is defining arbitrary boundaries that limit sample size to define "clutch". Yes Yaz came through in some big moments. He also failed in the World Series with 0 extra base hits and a signficantly lower Slugging percentage than his career average.

You have not proven that elevated performance in the clutch is a skill.

You're stats are wrong, no idea where you came up with them. You do need to establish criteria firts.

352 11 runs 3 HR 9 RBI 2 doubles in 14 games slg pct. 556

career .285 avg 462 slugging.

3 home runs/14 games = 34 hr/162...career average = 22 home runs.


Carl Yastrzemski Statistics and History - Baseball-Reference.com



If I searched for random hot streaks out of 23 162 game seasons, then proposed they had significance, I'd be laughed off, rightfully.

 

[emoney_33]

You're stats are wrong, no idea where you came up with them. You do need to establish criteria firts.

352 11 runs 3 HR 9 RBI 2 doubles in 14 games slg pct. 556

career .285 avg 462 slugging.

3 home runs/14 games = 34 hr/162...career average = 22 home runs.


Carl Yastrzemski Statistics and History - Baseball-Reference.com

1975.

If I searched for random hot streaks out of 23 162 game seasons, then proposed they had significance, I'd be laughed off, rightfully.

It's no different than the 1 hot streak you keep pointing to. It is YOU who defined an arbitrary boundary of timing to prove that this arbitrary boundary of timing is significant.

Your argument isn't any different than if I tried to argue that striped socks makes some players play better and find 1 player that went on a streak a couple of times he wore striped socks.

 

[BradyBranch39]

JSN - Chris Price kindly posted a link to that 60 Minutes piece on the Brady to Branch connection. Watch it.

It Is What It Is Video: Remembering the communication between Brady and Branch

was just about to look for this as my response to JSN. Glad I don't have to hunt for it.

 

[futuristicdart]

Brady's playoff numbers are slightly lower than his regular season numbers (comp %, TD %, INT %, Y/A).

That does not mean he does not perform well in clutch situations. I would say that it means he faces better competition in the playoffs hence his numbers being lower.

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

Because the chemistry between he and Brady had little to do with knees... He and Brady had a subliminal connection based on their ability to read defenses. Much like Welker and Brady quickly established. Knees don't impact that much...brains and determination and focus do. One of the reasons he couldn't match up with Hasselback in Seattle is they run a strictly timing offense, no brain involvement - all physical.

He finds the soft spots in coverage and has good hands.

That's the best I can describe him to you.

Think Wes Welker but 10 more yards downfield.

It's 3rd and 9 and there are 6 DBs out there. Leave it to Branch to get open 15 yards downfield.

That's what I remember.

Like Welker, Branch "gets" playing with Brady. He knows how to find soft spots in zones, he knows how to time his cuts as the CB is turning his hips, he knows how to take advantage of CBs cheating to the outside or inside...and Brady reads the exact same thing Branch sees.

Now let's just see if he can stay on the field.

Regards,
Chris

 

[unoriginal]

I just looked up Yaz's stats against Oakland in the ALCS and in the regular '75 season. In the postseason his OBP went up from .441 to .500, but his RBI/AB went down from .235 to .167. Basically a wash given the sample size.

Was he really that much more "clutch," or was he just running into pitching matchups he liked at fortuitous times?

 

[The Boston Patriot]

You shouldn't. He is more than likely a #2 at best at this stage of his career
and that is only if he can stay on the field. He's Brady's binky now that Moss
is gone. Why does this team remind me of this song sometimes?

YouTube - johnny cash-one piece at a time

 

[SEA_Pat]

I'd wager over 90% of professional athletes have this "skill" then. The "chokers" are few and far between, and even then give them enough chances and they "stop choking". ...but don't forget that Kasay put us at the 40 by kicking it out of bounds after they tied it up.

So, I guess Kasay is one of the 10% then? The golfers at the Ryder Cup were talking about how they'd never felt such pressure before in their lives, how it affected their games because of the tension. Tiger Woods fluffed a chip shot in that crucible of stress, and he's been about the definition of clutch over the years (at least until he lost his mojo).

How can you say that playing in the clutch doesn't matter when practically every pro athlete has said that it makes a big difference? And when it's clear that the ones who separate themselves from the pack perform better under this pressure (whether that means performing up to their usual standard as opposed to playing tight like the majority of players do).

Look at Manning vs. Brady. The whole reason why we feel Brady is better is based on the post-season. Manning is clearly better during the regular season. But because he chokes (or used to, anyway) when it's on the line, we are happy we have Brady who doesn't. Check out their playoff records. Why does Manning perform so well during the regular season but not in the playoffs?

 

[Dutchmaster617]

Let's put this in perspective: Decent value for one of our two 4th round picks?

I guess but I still rather the young guys, if your gonna grab a vet grab a dominant one, or close to it.

 

[emoney_33]

So, I guess Kasay is one of the 10% then? The golfers at the Ryder Cup were talking about how they'd never felt such pressure before in their lives, how it affected their games because of the tension. Tiger Woods fluffed a chip shot in that crucible of stress, and he's been about the definition of clutch over the years (at least until he lost his mojo).

Kasay has shanked kicks without stress and Tiger Woods has fluffed chip shots with no stress as well, it doesn't prove anything.

How can you say that playing in the clutch doesn't matter when practically every pro athlete has said that it makes a big difference? And when it's clear that the ones who separate themselves from the pack perform better under this pressure (whether that means performing up to their usual standard as opposed to playing tight like the majority of players do).

The ones that separate from the pack are the ones that are great at all times. They don't suddenly become great in the clutch. And I can say clutch doesn't "matter" because there's lots of evidence that point to it not mattering. Yeah you can find one or 2 examples of anything, but that doesn't prove it.

Look at Manning vs. Brady. The whole reason why we feel Brady is better is based on the post-season. Manning is clearly better during the regular season. But because he chokes (or used to, anyway) when it's on the line, we are happy we have Brady who doesn't. Check out their playoff records. Why does Manning perform so well during the regular season but not in the playoffs?

I like the "used to" line there. Brady's numbers are slightly worse in the playoffs than in the regular season. Ditto Manning, and if you want to use the "tougher defense" excuse you have to use it for Manning, not to mention Manning is used to a dome.

The same 2.7 INT% in the regular season vs. playoffs. 65% comp to 62% in the postseason. 5.6 TD% to 4.2% in the playoffs. 7.7 Y/A to 7.4 in the postseason.

 

[RayClay]

I just looked up Yaz's stats against Oakland in the ALCS and in the regular '75 season. In the postseason his OBP went up from .441 to .500, but his RBI/AB went down from .235 to .167. Basically a wash given the sample size.

Was he really that much more "clutch," or was he just running into pitching matchups he liked at fortuitous times?

You're too smart for this, so I know you're putting me on. It is virtually impossible, given all the statistics they keep in baseball, not to find one category that contradicts.

Nevertheless, We'd still be talking 95% of measurable statistics > regular season averages for the guy, which, statistically is way way above what would be considered statistically significant.

In fact, there probably is as great a chance a random typist copied one statistic wrong.

People on sports web sites routinely take the 1 in 100 exception, as proof that the 99% factor is wrong.

Case in point, people will routinely argue that a 6th round pick is tremendously valuable because there is a great possibility you will pick a 3 ring wearing future hall of fame quarterback with it.

Do you think that's a statistically valid or likely possibility with any future sixth round pick?

 

[RayClay]

Without even looking, I know I could find a statistic which was less than the regular season average. I guarantee Yaz failed to hit a triple in one of the playoff type or postseason events. Since i know he hit at least one triple in 23 years regular season, he was less clutch with triples in some clutch games.

That's the type of arguments people make, which are irrelevant. Significance and consistent criteria is what is missing in most statistically based argument on blogs and boards.

 

[West Philly Patriot]

Kasay has shanked kicks without stress and Tiger Woods has fluffed chip shots with no stress as well, it doesn't prove anything.



The ones that separate from the pack are the ones that are great at all times. They don't suddenly become great in the clutch. And I can say clutch doesn't "matter" because there's lots of evidence that point to it not mattering. Yeah you can find one or 2 examples of anything, but that doesn't prove it.



I like the "used to" line there. Brady's numbers are slightly worse in the playoffs than in the regular season. Ditto Manning, and if you want to use the "tougher defense" excuse you have to use it for Manning, not to mention Manning is used to a dome.

The same 2.7 INT% in the regular season vs. playoffs. 65% comp to 62% in the postseason. 5.6 TD% to 4.2% in the playoffs. 7.7 Y/A to 7.4 in the postseason.

Manning is just not very good in the postseason, I can't believe your putting his postseason performances on par with tom brady.

This is all I need to know.... Was Michael Jordan a clutch performer Yes or No?

 

[spacecrime]

Aside from his money aspirations of the past ... he is a team player .

Aside from his serial killings of the past, Ted Bundy was a good citizen...

As the great philosopher Emmitt Smith said, "A leopard doesn't change its stripes."

 

[spacecrime]

I'm not exactly sure where you are failing to understand my argument.

You are trying to do the equivalent of explaining planetary physics to an astrologer. Any data that does not support Jupiter being in the house of Mars is irrelevant or your (erroneous) opinion.