Brantt wrote:

smitty wrote:For those of you who haven't checked out old friend Jonk's take on this, here it is on The Good Phight:

http://www.thegoodphight.com/2010/4/30/ ... law-um#top

Good stuff.

Great article.

Who is jonk?

Disco Stu isn't it? Can we mention those from the land of the banned?

smitty wrote:Disco Stu isn't it? Can we mention those from the land of the banned?

He's got a photo of Stu's kids as his avatar, so it's either Stu or a real quirkball

Where, oh where, are those pics of Halloween Stu's...

Is there any sort of "RBI efficiency" statistic? Where you count how many runners are on base every time someone is at bat and then see how often they drive them in?

smitty wrote:
If the radio guy had hit Law up with this stuff it would have been pretty cool yesterday.

Anyways, I think that's the kinda stuff Amaro is talking about. Plus, he's really smug.

I am with you. I would like to have heard respond if the Missanelli had taken 3 minutes to do some research and asked him about has career splits with men on (116% better than career), RISP (111% better than career), and in High Leverage spots (even higher than the other two). And the former two aren't insignificant sample sizes.

I am sure he would have references studies that situational hitting, over time, goes back to what one's overall slash line is. But Howard's sample sizes on these stats are pretty large, except the High Leverage. He very well could be an exceptional case, and there is even a tangible variable like you said in the shift

bleh wrote:Is there any sort of "RBI efficiency" statistic? Where you count how many runners are on base every time someone is at bat and then see how often they drive them in?

There are Run Expecancy stats (RE24) and Win Probability stats (WPA) which deal with this idea. They are both on Fangraphs, go to "Leaders" and then the "Win Probability" tab

WPA explanation

RE24 explanation

RE24 is cool because you can compare it directly to a player's wRAA (on the Advanced tab, and this is just a measure of runs above/below average based on the player's overall, context-neutral slash line), and that can show you if they guy did better (higher RE24 than wRAA) or worse (lower RE24 than wRAA) in terms of situational, context-dependent run production than they did overall

The drawback is that these are cumulative stats, so they get potentially biased if one guy has a lot more opportunities to convert RBIs than another guy in a given season. But you can even compare the opportunities directly between two players on their splits

bleh wrote:Is there any sort of "RBI efficiency" statistic? Where you count how many runners are on base every time someone is at bat and then see how often they drive them in?

Bill James has an RBI percentage which I think is what you're asking. Anyway I did a quick check of some guys:

Pujols is around 46-48% since 2006.

Howard is about 43-46% in that time.

Adrian Gonzalez is 36-38%

Adam LaRoche is 34-36%.

Tex is 37-45%

ARod 38-40% but 48.4% in '07.

Utley is 38-40%.

Ibanez is 38-42%.

Werth is 38-40%.

Jeter is 31-33%.

sorry if this was posted already. you're welcome if it wasn't.

Smitty, re: clutch and your numbers... it's not so much about the sample size; it's more about whether or not it's an actual skill by a hitter.

Derek Jeter, for example, is often hailed as a clutch hitter, but if you graph his overall batting average and his batting average with RISP, it either is essentially even or wavers slightly (more so in favor of being "less clutch"). There hasn't been any evidence that hitters have a "clutch skill".

That's not to say there can't be any clutch events, it's just that hitters have no innate ability to produce more in those spots than less meaningful spots.

But Crash the lack of facing a shift on occasion when runners are on is a major difference. It might not make Howard "clutch" per se, but if it helps him perform above his typical numbers in high leverage situations, it could make him more valuable.

Being clutch would be a negative thing anyway. It would say that he only tries when it's important. Wouldn't it be better to be equally good in every situation?

jerseyhoya wrote:But Crash the lack of facing a shift on occasion when runners are on is a major difference. It might not make Howard "clutch" per se, but if it helps him perform above his typical numbers in high leverage situations, it could make him more valuable.

Right, that's a completely legitimate explanation and in no way validates any claim of "clutchness". I would bet that explains a decent portion of his success with RISP.

CrashburnAlley wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:But Crash the lack of facing a shift on occasion when runners are on is a major difference. It might not make Howard "clutch" per se, but if it helps him perform above his typical numbers in high leverage situations, it could make him more valuable.

Right, that's a completely legitimate explanation and in no way validates any claim of "clutchness". I would bet that explains a decent portion of his success with RISP.

I agree. I don't care if someone wants to call it clutch or anything else. The fact is, Howard has shown he is consistently excellent in high leverage situations. I think the shift explains part of it. There may be some other factors as I mentioned. But I think there's some good data that supports Howard as a "good RBI man."

Pretty much every professional athlete is clutch. Or at least they don't choke. Otherwise, they wouldn't be pros.


For real. MattS explained it to me. That's why it's not really found on a consistent basis when you look at stats. I'm guessing if you ran ANOVA on this stuff for any pro player you wouldn't find much.

In any event, if there is such a thing, it would show up in the stats.

bleh wrote:Being clutch would be a negative thing anyway. It would say that he only tries when it's important. Wouldn't it be better to be equally good in every situation?

I don't think it has to do with trying. It has to do with defensive positioning and perhaps changes in the way pitchers approach hitters in those situations. I think Howard's strengths as a hitter are increased in "clutch" situations because pitchers might not throw as much slop or something.

Howard WANTS to hit all the time. But things swing more to his advantage with guys on base.

It wouldn't be negative, really. It would mean that at points where there's more pressure, rather than pressing and fucking up, you actually channel the adrenaline or whatever such a situation produces in a productive way.

Think about any pressure situation--some people fall apart, and some people do a great job.

I remember as a wrestler, there would be guys who would consistently win in wrestle-offs (which would determine who would start at a given weight class) but during the actual match would suck and lose.

joe_sheehan
I hope everyone who defended the Howard deal saw something called "Alfredo Simon" put away David Ortiz with tonight's game on the line.
3 minutes ago via web
Retweeted by keithlaw and 2 others

Because sabermetrics has scientifically proven Ryan Howard will be David Ortiz in 5 years.

what does that even mean? Ortiz sucks in one high-leverage situation=Howard sucks?