Concepts some posters could benefit from learning

[pats-blue]

actually, they did find Yaz, but found that his hitting was UNTIMELY, when they (intelligently) decided to look beyond a laughably small sample

in fact, subsequent, more rigorous & recent studies have found the same thing.

here is one which actually does a good job of quantifying the small affect clutch really has

http://www.dolphinsim.com/ratings/notes/clutch.html

a couple notes about this article. it was conducted using the data from all MLB games in 1969 and 1972-1992, as well as in AL games for 1963, 1967, and 1968, and then trimmed down to only include "clutch" situations.

it estimates that a .285 hitter could posssibly turn into a .300 hitter in clutch situations. (note that Yaz was NOT one of them, in fact he was labeled a "choker")

however, a similar study using 1999-2003 data did not come to the same conclusion -there was no statistical signifigance. I think it's likely that as athletes have gotten better/more advanced/used to playing under the bright lights for their whole careers, they have gotten more used to the "pressure", and it has a whole lot less affect than it used to.



hey man, if you couldn't understand what I was saying, that's your problem not mine. but in my OP I linked to an article whose conclusion was

"Clutch hitting ability exists, more than previous research would indicate. It's about on the order of something like baserunning ability. Sometimes baserunning can make the difference between success and failure. Sometimes a hitter like David Ortiz gets a bunch of big hits down the stretch, and it makes the difference in a pennant race. Usually, though, it's the big three that prevail: Pitch the ball, catch the ball, and most of all hit the ball."

it's not my fault you didnt read it

I did read it and understand the guy is full of SH*T....here are Yaz's POSTSEASON STATS
Postseason Batting Gamelogs / Vs. Pitcher

Year Round Tm Opp WLser G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG SB CS SH SF HBP
+------+-----+---+---+-----+---+---+---+---+--+--+--+---+---+---+-----+-----+-----+---+--+---+---+---+
1967 WS BOS STL L 7 25 4 10 2 0 3 5 4 1 .400 .500 .840 0 0 0 0 1
1975 ALCS BOS OAK W 3 11 4 5 1 0 1 2 1 1 .455 .500 .818 0 0 0 0 0
WS BOS CIN L 7 29 7 9 0 0 0 4 4 1 .310 .382 .310 0 0 0 1 0
+------+-----+---+---+-----+---+---+---+---+--+--+--+---+---+---+-----+-----+-----+---+--+---+---+---+
2 World Series 0-2 14 54 11 19 2 0 3 9 8 2 .352 .438 .556 0 0 0 1 1
3 Postseason Series 1-2 17 65 15 24 3 0 4 11 9 3 .369 .447 .600 0 0 0 1 1
+--------------------+-----+---+---+---+---+--+--+--+---+---+---+-----


Not bad for a "choker" huh? Admit it your guy is WRONG. He showed NOTHING on Yaz except a STATMENT! He showed no figures to back up his claim....Yaz hit wel above his season and lifetime averages WHEN IT COUNTED IN THE PLAYOFFS and your guy said he didn't. HERE ARE THE FACTS!

This is from your "article"..."Yaz was the most consistently untimely hitter in the majors in 1969 and 1970. But no one who saw Yastrzemski play in September 1967 would ever believe that "Carl is a good hitter, but not quite as strong when a game or the pennant is on the line"! ...hhmmm funny but he did pretty good during the playoffs and WS and what was that 7/8 that you discounted? Who's right? I SHOWED YOU your almighty figures and all you have is some guy that made a statment. Besides the FACT the Sox were not even close to the playoffs finishing 22 games back in 1969 I am not sure how he came to the conclusion that Yaz wasn't "clutch" when it was on the line in 1969....when in May? The Sox were never in it in 69...so stat boy is a moron and that proves it.

Oh and 1970? The Sox finished 21 back. Face it the STATEMENT HE MADE had no basis, especially if he thought Yaz was involved in a pennant race in 69 and 70 where he labled Yaz a choker when the "Pennant is on the line" So obviously he made crap up since he wasn't even aware Yaz WASN'T in a pennant race in 1969 OR 1970 yet he makes a statment like that?

EXPLAIN THAT!

 

[Deus Irae]

I'm sorry, but it's ridiculous to imply that all the players in the NFL perform at the same exact level in relation to each other when under extreme pressure. Which is what being clutch relates to. I know if I have to go up and kick a SB winning FG, I'd buckle, which is why AV gets paid millions and I get paid jack ****. You seem to totally misunderstand the concept of sports with the whole mathematical formula thing.

Relax. This same clown thinks DVOA is the end all of statistics despite its historic 'struggles' to anticipate the Super Bowl winners, and its other flaws.

 

[VJCPatriot]

Sounds good, the wager is on.

However – note that what I am talking about is ODDS. The odds are in my favor, but they are just probabilities. Just like I could make a bet that a coin wouldn’t land on heads 5 times in a row, and almost always win. But the times I lose doesn’t mean my opponent has found a coin that is good at landing heads, it just means he got lucky

Except you have done NOTHING to substantially disprove my points. IF you can manage to make a substantial enough argument to disprove my points, I would be glad to make a wager.
I maintain that your statistical model of xyz is too simplistic and crude to accurately predict the results of football games. Thus it would be a fallacy to take your claim at face value that the Patriots can not or are extremely unlikely to go 16-0 despite the immense and unprecedent collection of talent, management, and teamwork that embodies the 2007 Patriots.

Let me put it to you as simply as possible. The Patriots have now won 9 games, this is a fact. They need to win only 7 more games to accomplish the feat of a perfect season. Show me a formula that can reliably predict the results of game 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and then show me that formula predicts that the Patriots will actually lose 1 game in this set and the score of that game. Then you will have proven a RELIABLE method to predicting results. But I don't think you can. I don't think you can even firmly predict the outcome of game 11, although many believe the Patriots will beat the Bills in this game easily. How can I have confidence in your conclusion on the whole set, when you cannot even make a definitive statement of any ONE sample in the set? That's simply too much for you to ask, the burden of proof therefore remains on you.

You haven't PROVEN anything. Period. Speaking in generalities does nothing to address the very particular circumstances, actions, and performances that go into an undefeated season. I don't believe you can even prevent a statistically reliable formula that can represent how the Dolphins achieved their 14-0 season. An event for which the facts are already known and recorded. Who are you then to confidently predict that the Patriots CAN'T go 16-0? I think you need to read what people actually say rather than continue with your selective, and inadequate perception of reality.

 

[makewayhomer]

I did read it and understand the guy is full of SH*T....here are Yaz's POSTSEASON STATS
Postseason Batting Gamelogs / Vs. Pitcher

Year Round Tm Opp WLser G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG SB CS SH SF HBP
+------+-----+---+---+-----+---+---+---+---+--+--+--+---+---+---+-----+-----+-----+---+--+---+---+---+
1967 WS BOS STL L 7 25 4 10 2 0 3 5 4 1 .400 .500 .840 0 0 0 0 1
1975 ALCS BOS OAK W 3 11 4 5 1 0 1 2 1 1 .455 .500 .818 0 0 0 0 0
WS BOS CIN L 7 29 7 9 0 0 0 4 4 1 .310 .382 .310 0 0 0 1 0
+------+-----+---+---+-----+---+---+---+---+--+--+--+---+---+---+-----+-----+-----+---+--+---+---+---+
2 World Series 0-2 14 54 11 19 2 0 3 9 8 2 .352 .438 .556 0 0 0 1 1
3 Postseason Series 1-2 17 65 15 24 3 0 4 11 9 3 .369 .447 .600 0 0 0 1 1
+--------------------+-----+---+---+---+---+--+--+--+---+---+---+-----


Not bad for a "choker" huh? Admit it your guy is WRONG. He showed NOTHING on Yaz except a STATMENT! He showed no figures to back up his claim....Yaz hit wel above his season and lifetime averages WHEN IT COUNTED IN THE PLAYOFFS and your guy said he didn't. HERE ARE THE FACTS!

This is from your "article"...""Carl is a good hitter, but not quite as strong when a game or the pennant is on the line"!...hhmmm funny but he did pretty good during the playoffs and WS and what was that 7/8 that you discounted? Who's right? I SHOWED YOU your almighty figures and all you have is some guy that made a statment. Besides the FACT the Sox were not even close to the playoffs finishing 22 games back in 1969 I am not sure how he came to the conclusion that Yaz wasn't "clutch" when it was on the line in 1969....when in May? The Sox were never in it in 69...so stat boy is a moron and that proves it.

Oh and 1970? The Sox finished 21 back. Face it the STATEMENT HE MADE had no basis, especially if he thought Yaz was involved in a pennant race in 69 and 70 where he labled Yaz a choker when the "Pennant is on the line" So obviously he made crap up since he wasn't even aware Yaz WASN'T in a pennant race in 1969 OR 1970 yet he makes a statment like that?

EXPLAIN THAT!

you still don't understand. any credible study will use more than just postseason games to determine what a "clutch situation" is. the smaller the sample size, the less significant findings will be. you are including all postseason games, some people will say that only World Series games count! and someone else might say that only game 7 in the WS should count!! and some people say that only late in the game in game 7 of the WS should count!!!

the trouble is that you are eventually left with 1 or 2 at bats.

so any intelligent study must expand the definition of clutch in order to achieve a meaningful sample

the dolphin study used the following criteria

"6th inning or later, and either a tie game or the tying run on base, at bat, or on deck" (this is very close to the "close and late" stat you always see on tv)

so, everytime Yaz was in one of those situations, it was counted as a clutch opportunity. he fared poorly

 

[makewayhomer]

Except you have done NOTHING to substantially disprove my points. IF you can manage to make a substantial enough argument to disprove my points, I would be glad to make a wager.
I maintain that your statistical model of xyz is too simplistic and crude to accurately predict the results of football games. Thus it would be a fallacy to take your claim at face value that the Patriots can not or are extremely unlikely to go 16-0 despite the immense and unprecedent collection of talent, management, and teamwork that embodies the 2007 Patriots.

You haven't PROVEN anything. Period. Speaking in generalities does nothing to address the very particular circumstances, actions, and performances that go into an undefeated season. I don't believe you can even prevent a statistically reliable formula that can represent how the Dolphins achieved their 14-0 season. An event for which the facts are already known and recorded. Who are you then to confidently predict that the Patriots CAN'T go 16-0? I think you need to read what people actually say rather than continue with your selective, and inadequate perception of reality.

you are asking me to prove basic math principles that have been around for a looooong time. I already did it, and I can't do anymore than that b/c it's very simple.

if you think I'm wrong, you should be very happy to make this bet against me.

 

[makewayhomer]

Relax. This same clown thinks DVOA is the end all of statistics despite its historic 'struggles' to anticipate the Super Bowl winners, and its other flaws.

Deus let's have a contest. I'll use DVOA to pick games for the rest of the season (against the spread), you can use whichever other method you want. whoever wins gets $50. you in?

 

[VJCPatriot]

Why do his statistics on Yaz become insignificant and the article's statistics become undeniable? Simply because the article supports your point, and his sample statistics contradict it?

The author of the article ADMITS that it would be impossible to compute a truly accurate PWA because of the lack of data. Therefore to make PWA possible to compute it is necessary to ARBITRARILY reduce the data being evaluated. Therefore I cannot accept the author's conclusions based on that reduced data to be accurate. And unless I know how much data was sacrificed to make his version of PWA possible to compute, in 1977 no less, I can hardly take the author's word with anything approaching the 100% confidence you seem to place in him.

you still don't understand. any credible study will use more than just postseason games to determine what a "clutch situation" is. the smaller the sample size, the less significant findings will be. you are including all postseason games, some people will say that only World Series games count! and someone else might say that only game 7 in the WS should count!! and some people say that only late in the game in game 7 of the WS should count!!!

the trouble is that you are eventually left with 1 or 2 at bats.

so any intelligent study must expand the definition of clutch in order to achieve a meaningful sample

the dolphin study used the following criteria

"6th inning or later, and either a tie game or the tying run on base, at bat, or on deck" (this is very close to the "close and late" stat you always see on tv)

so, everytime Yaz was in one of those situations, it was counted as a clutch opportunity. he fared poorly

 

[makewayhomer]

Why do his statistics on Yaz become insignificant and the article's statistics become undeniable? Simply because the article supports your point, and his sample statistics contradict it?

The author of the article ADMITS that it would be impossible to compute a truly accurate PWA because of the lack of data. Therefore to make PWA possible to compute it is necessary to ARBITRARILY reduce the data being evaluated. Therefore I cannot accept the author's conclusions based on that reduced data to be accurate. And unless I know how much data was sacrificed to make his version of PWA possible to compute, in 1977 no less, I can hardly take the author's word with anything approaching the 100% confidence you seem to place in him.

ok, if you don't like that article, then use this one

http://www.dolphinsim.com/ratings/notes/clutch.html

 

[pats-blue]

you still don't understand. any credible study will use more than just postseason games to determine what a "clutch situation" is. the smaller the sample size, the less significant findings will be. you are including all postseason games, some people will say that only World Series games count! and someone else might say that only game 7 in the WS should count!! and some people say that only late in the game in game 7 of the WS should count!!!

the trouble is that you are eventually left with 1 or 2 at bats.

so any intelligent study must expand the definition of clutch in order to achieve a meaningful sample

the dolphin study used the following criteria

"6th inning or later, and either a tie game or the tying run on base, at bat, or on deck" (this is very close to the "close and late" stat you always see on tv)

so, everytime Yaz was in one of those situations, it was counted as a clutch opportunity. he fared poorly

Ha! Perfect!

Well since the "article" you linked used Pete Palmers "figures" and YOU AND THIS IDIOT claim Yaz did poorly...well peruse Baseball reference for 1970 and Yaz LED THE LEAGUE IN BAT WINS..which is a Palmer stat in wins ADDED DUE TO THE player. He placed 10th in this Palmer stat in 1969 even though he battled injuries and had an off year bating .255.

So it appears that your guy adhered to Palmers stats when he felt like it and went off of it when he wanted. So where are your figures that prove Yaz wasn't clutch? His statement? I PROVED HE WAS..I showed you figures..INCLUDING stats your guy used as a reference...so your turn explain it.

 

[VJCPatriot]

you are asking me to prove basic math principles that have been around for a looooong time. I already did it, and I can't do anymore than that b/c it's very simple.

if you think I'm wrong, you should be very happy to make this bet against me.

Address my points with something SUBSTANTIAL rather than baseless assertion and you would have a wager.
In fact you have done nothing to address the following simple point:

Let me put it to you as simply as possible. The Patriots have now won 9 games, this is a fact. They need to win only 7 more games to accomplish the feat of a perfect season. Show me a formula that can reliably predict the results of game 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and then show me that formula predicts that the Patriots will actually lose 1 game in this set and the score of that game. Then you will have proven a RELIABLE method to predicting results. But I don't think you can. I don't think you can even firmly predict the outcome of game 11, although many believe the Patriots will beat the Bills in this game easily. How can I have confidence in your conclusion on the whole set, when you cannot even make a definitive statement of any ONE sample in the set? That's simply too much for you to ask, the burden of proof therefore remains on you.

 

[RayClay]

again...not to belabor ANY point here, but just how does one determine the "clutch" of the 67 season with the "clutch" of a lost season like 69?

http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/stats/...=&timeFrame=1&timeSubFrame=1969&Submit=Submit

and 67...

http://boston.redsox.mlb.com/stats/...=&timeFrame=1&timeSubFrame=1967&Submit=Submit

In 69 the Sox finished 22 games out...but Yaz's AB's carried the same "Clutch" designation as the 1967 Impossible dream year? I'd venture to say that in 67 Yaz was as clutch a hitter as has ever been on the Red Sox.

I'd say that in 69, his opportunity to reach the "clutch" level of 67 was NONEXISTENT. Different year, different set of circumstances, different levels of pressure and ultimately a completely different adrenalin level game to game.

Did Yaz, in 69 , have a statistically comparable year to 67?...yeah, you could draw that conclusion. Did he have a sac fly in a game to drive in a winning run down 20 games in the standings?Probably...I'll be dyamed if I'm gonna look to find out. Does that sac fly mean he was "less clutch" in 69 than when he hit a game winning 3 run homer in the same situation in 67? HOW do you make that determination? How do you designate a "clutch factor" to these two events? I just don't see it.

Each season is like its own universe,seasons being nothing more than parallels.There are so many variables at work each season that to designate a "clutch" factor and then opine whether it declines the same ,slowewr or faster than other measurable skills is an exercise in futility as far as THIS fan is concerned, and I see nothing in these preceding arguments that sway me either way.

22 games out?

 

[pats-blue]

ok, if you don't like that article, then use this one

http://www.dolphinsim.com/ratings/notes/clutch.html

HAHAHA!

You might want to read the article you linked...here are the conclusions..

Conclusions

Clutch hitting is an important skill in baseball.
The difference between a good and a bad clutch performer is about 28% the difference between a good and a bad hitter, a much larger effect than had previously been thought from sabermetric work. So it is unlikely that any 0.250 hitters turn into 0.400 hitters in clutch situations, but there are 0.285 hitters who turn into 0.300 hitters.
Because of random effects, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to peg a specific player as a clutch performer or choker with a high degree of certainty. (For that matter, it is extremely difficult to ascertain much of anything about a player's batting skills to an accuracy better than 20 points of OBP based on one season's stats.)
That said, power hitters that perform better in the clutch are fairly rare, as are singles hitters that perform worse in the clutch. This can be used to make an educated guess of a player's clutch tendencies.
I don't pretend to understand exactly what makes one player a clutch hitter and another a choker. The correlation with slugging average probably gives a good clue, but half the "skill" seems to be uncorrelated with any obvious batting stats. However, it does appear that clutch hitting exists and that its importance has been generally underestimated.

 

[makewayhomer]

Ha! Perfect!

Well since the "article" you linked used Pete Palmers "figures" and YOU AND THIS IDIOT claim Yaz did poorly...well peruse Baseball reference for 1970 and Yaz LED THE LEAGUE IN BAT WINS..which is a Palmer stat in wins ADDED DUE TO THE player. He placed 10th in this Palmer stat in 1969 even though he battled injuries and had an off year bating .255.

So it appears that your guy adhered to Palmers stats when he felt like it and went off of it when he wanted. So where are your figures that prove Yaz wasn't clutch? His statement? I PROVED HE WAS..I showed you figures..INCLUDING stats your guy used as a reference...so your turn explain it.

no, unless I am wrong about that particular stats, you proved he was generally very good in all of his at-bats (which I agree with), you made no attempt to separate his clutch at-bats from his non-clutch at bats. read up on what you just referenced

 

[makewayhomer]

HAHAHA!

You might want to read the article you linked...here are the conclusions..

Conclusions

Clutch hitting is an important skill in baseball.
The difference between a good and a bad clutch performer is about 28% the difference between a good and a bad hitter, a much larger effect than had previously been thought from sabermetric work. So it is unlikely that any 0.250 hitters turn into 0.400 hitters in clutch situations, but there are 0.285 hitters who turn into 0.300 hitters.
Because of random effects, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to peg a specific player as a clutch performer or choker with a high degree of certainty. (For that matter, it is extremely difficult to ascertain much of anything about a player's batting skills to an accuracy better than 20 points of OBP based on one season's stats.)
That said, power hitters that perform better in the clutch are fairly rare, as are singles hitters that perform worse in the clutch. This can be used to make an educated guess of a player's clutch tendencies.
I don't pretend to understand exactly what makes one player a clutch hitter and another a choker. The correlation with slugging average probably gives a good clue, but half the "skill" seems to be uncorrelated with any obvious batting stats. However, it does appear that clutch hitting exists and that its importance has been generally underestimated.

dude I've said the same thing mutiple times. read what I am saying

 

[Rainy-Day Patriot]

Call me Captain Obvious, but this thread has spiraled out of control.

Posters on this thread have made inferences from this thread to the general usefulness of statistics and statisticians. That is a conclusion based on woefully insufficient evidence, which must be attributable to the heat of argument rather than the (reasonably high) intelligence of the posters.

Here is my wish list: Somebody asks a very specific research question--one that's interesting, seemingly answerable, but NOT necessarily answerable. (E.g., does a player or group of players perform differently in high stakes vs. low stakes situations?) We can then take a couple of days refining the question. Then, we can take another couple of days brainstorming about what quantitative data speak to the question. All the while, we must make sure we aren't molding our thinking around striking data. Treat the data like the final arbiter--as though it were a person. We don't want it around during the first phases, because we do not want to bias the process with the arbiter (or bias the arbiter with the process!).

That's the hard work. Then, and only then, is it time to bring in statistics. Applied statistics are garbage without rational research design. Once you have the design, the statistics are easy. I doubt we'll need anything that a few stats courses and a decent stats package couldn't handle, both of which we have among us.

Hey, that's my wish list--number four on my wish list actually, just after a Pats Super Bowl, a Pats undefeated season and peace on Earth.

You people are too damned smart to be arguing over who's smarter!
Jeezum beezum! We're all idiots for spending our time on a fanboy site!

Sean

 

[makewayhomer]

Address my points with something SUBSTANTIAL rather than baseless assertion and you would have a wager.
In fact you have done nothing to address the following simple point:

Let me put it to you as simply as possible. The Patriots have now won 9 games, this is a fact. They need to win only 7 more games to accomplish the feat of a perfect season. Show me a formula that can reliably predict the results of game 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and then show me that formula predicts that the Patriots will actually lose 1 game in this set and the score of that game. Then you will have proven a RELIABLE method to predicting results. But I don't think you can. I don't think you can even firmly predict the outcome of game 11, although many believe the Patriots will beat the Bills in this game easily. How can I have confidence in your conclusion on the whole set, when you cannot even make a definitive statement of any ONE sample in the set? That's simply too much for you to ask, the burden of proof therefore remains on you.

there is not formula that can perfectly predict the results of a football game that has yet to be played. is that your point?

however, you can make reasonable guesses. for various reasons, I think the Patriots win tomorrows game about 90% of the time. ie, they have a 90% chance to win the game.

in similar fashion, I can make a guess as to what the win probability is for every remaining game.

when you multiply all of these together, you get the probability that they win all games.

if you disagree with anything I said, then please just make the bet with me

 

[pats-blue]

no, unless I am wrong about that particular stats, you proved he was generally very good in all of his at-bats (which I agree with), you made no attempt to separate his clutch at-bats from his non-clutch at bats. read up on what you just referenced

No I proved to you USING PALMER STATS (the ones your guy BASED his article on...remember?) That Yaz in 1970 was #1 in MLB in creating WINS with is bat. I used the stats the guy used to completely show his "statment" was full of crap and totally made up. Show me I am wrong! You won't be able to because the guy outright made crap up. Personally that makes me question his whole "research" since he obviously is not objective and is stupid enough to put a blanket statment in there that is EASILY refuted using his OWN sources!

 

[makewayhomer]

No I proved to you USING PALMER STATS (the ones your guy BASED his article on...remember?) That Yaz in 1970 was #1 in MLB in creating WINS with is bat. I used the stats the guy used to completely show his "statment" was full of crap and totally made up. Show me I am wrong! You won't be able to because the guy outright made crap up. Personally that makes me question his whole "research" since he obviously is not objective and is stupid enough to put a blanket statment in there that is EASILY refuted using his OWN sources!

you don't know what you're talking about. you are saying that Palmer created a stat that said X, and someone else used parts of Palmers research to say Y. that is perfectly reasonable

 

[pats-blue]

dude I've said the same thing mutiple times. read what I am saying

I have and by the way this article you just linked DIRECTLY REFUTES what you said....maybe you should read...

Your quote "the idea of "clutch", which is generally highly overrated by most people"

THe qoute from this article you are holding up.....

"However, it does appear that clutch hitting exists and that its importance has been generally underestimated."


UUUMM it may just be me but it appears that you wrote off "clutch" as variance and this guy says it IS significant.

 

[makewayhomer]

I have and by the way this article you just linked DIRECTLY REFUTES what you said....maybe you should read...

Your quote "the idea of "clutch", which is generally highly overrated by most people"

THe qoute from this article you are holding up.....

"However, it does appear that clutch hitting exists and that its importance has been generally underestimated."


UUUMM it may just be me but it appears that you wrote off "clutch" as variance and this guy says it IS significant.

yeah, it's just you.

if I wrote off clutch as only variance (which you say) then I wouldn't have said this on the first page of this thread

"it's not JUST a matter of variance "

everyone else, I'm heading out for the night. please continue to not understand or ignore what I have quoted or written, I'll respond in the morning