Sports Talk Discuss all things Sports Related

Steinbrenner labels Yankees as 'sad failure'

Old 10-09-06, 09:52 PM
  #76  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Columbia, MD, USA
Posts: 11,135
Originally Posted by MechanicalMan
You don't believe in clutch play?

Albert Pujols OBP / SLG / AVG
Bases Empty: .390 / .625 / .321
RISP: .535 / .802 / .397
RISP, 2 outs: .581 / .826 / .435
Career postseason: .420 / .618 / .336

Pujols was very clutch this year, but was decidely mediocre in the clutch in both 2004 and 2005. And Pujols also was AWOL when the Cards were in the World Series.
Jericho is offline  
Old 10-09-06, 09:58 PM
  #77  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Columbia, MD, USA
Posts: 11,135
Originally Posted by Birrman54
how are baseball playoffs any more subject to 'luck' than basketball, or fooball, or any other sport for that matter?
Baseball playoffs should be more subject to luck than other sports because the best teams aren't as dominate. The Yankees won 'only' 60% of their games this year (and they were the top team). But a top flight basketball team will usually win 75% of their games, and top football teams can top 90%. The more dominant a team, the better the chance of a top team winning. Of course football negates this advantage somewhat by playing a one game series.

Also home field advantage is a factor. It's minimal in baseball, and much larger in a sport like football. That's another factor that subjects baseball to more luck than other sports.
Jericho is offline  
Old 10-09-06, 10:02 PM
  #78  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Columbia, MD, USA
Posts: 11,135
Originally Posted by NCMojo
And "luck" is not???
Luck by its very definition is the unknown and unpredictable phenomenon that causes an event to result one way rather than another. But you can at least identify specific instances of luck and where performance deviates from the norm. At least you can show luck exists and at least some of its impact. Chemistry and heart exist as nothing more than sports cliches.
Jericho is offline  
Old 10-09-06, 10:43 PM
  #79  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 616
Originally Posted by Jericho
Pujols was very clutch this year, but was decidely mediocre in the clutch in both 2004 and 2005. And Pujols also was AWOL when the Cards were in the World Series.
Pujols was a badass in 2004, in 2005, and in the World Series.

2004 RISP: .458 .622 .343
2005 RISP: .500 .593 .329
WS: .412 .467 .333

And 758 RBI in his first six years. WTF more do you want? Stop embarrassing yourself.
MechanicalMan is offline  
Old 10-09-06, 11:03 PM
  #80  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Columbia, MD, USA
Posts: 11,135
Originally Posted by MechanicalMan
Pujols was a badass in 2004, in 2005, and in the World Series.

2004 RISP: .458 .622 .343
2005 RISP: .500 .593 .329
WS: .412 .467 .333

And 758 RBI in his first six years. WTF more do you want? Stop embarrassing yourself.
I don't think you understand what clutch is. It's hitting above and beyond your normal level in high leverage situations. Pujols is already a good hitter, so his general stats are expected to be good. Look at his clutch ratings...

Pujols clutch Rating by year (0 is average)
2004 - 0.8
2005 - 0.9
2006 - 13.7

As for the WS, his stats were below his norm, particularly slugging. Of course it's a small sample size, as is most of his post season stats, so I wouldn't draw too much from it.
Jericho is offline  
Old 10-09-06, 11:36 PM
  #81  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 616
Originally Posted by Jericho
I don't think you understand what clutch is. It's hitting above and beyond your normal level in high leverage situations... Look at his clutch ratings...
Oh, so you are penalizing him for being great all of the time instead of some of the time. So someone who bats .100 with the bases empty and .270 with RISP is more "clutch" than someone who is much better but also more consistent. Close and late, walk-off hits, etc. are ignored. Such a useful stat, isn't it? Thanks for pointing out how wrong I was about Pujols.

Originally Posted by Jericho
As for the WS, his stats were below his norm, particularly slugging. Of course it's a small sample size, as is most of his post season stats, so I wouldn't draw too much from it.
You wouldn't?

Originally Posted by Jericho
Pujols also was AWOL when the Cards were in the World Series.

Last edited by MechanicalMan; 10-10-06 at 12:48 AM.
MechanicalMan is offline  
Old 10-10-06, 09:48 AM
  #82  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Columbia, MD, USA
Posts: 11,135
Originally Posted by MechanicalMan
Oh, so you are penalizing him for being great all of the time instead of some of the time. So someone who bats .100 with the bases empty and .270 with RISP is more "clutch" than someone who is much better but also more consistent. Close and late, walk-off hits, etc. are ignored. Such a useful stat, isn't it? Thanks for pointing out how wrong I was about Pujols.


You wouldn't?
Hey I don't make the definition of what clutch is. I'm just telling you what the facts are. You seem to want to insinuate that I'm commiting some great sin against Pujols, but I'm not. I have nothing against Albert Pujols. He is a great player. The point I was making is that clutch hitting is not a repeatable skill (or is extremely rare and very difficult to show without a career's body of work). And nothing in Pujols' history suggests otherwise. He's not raising his game consistently in "clutch" situtations. But you're wrong in youre analysis of the stat. Clutch ratings do include the impact of a batter's batting average with runners in scoring position and the number of home runs with runners on. You can roll your eyes all you want, but it would help if you understood what clutch hitting means. And for all you claims otherwise, there's still nothing to suggest Pujols is the mythical clutch hitter. He's simply a very good (or great) hitter who hits well all the time.

As for the World Series comment. My point is that any analysis of a player requires a statistically significant data set. The 15 at bats Pujols got in the WS is not enough to make seeping judgments of his qualities as a "clutch" hitter or as a postseason hitter. Even the 100 or so postseason at bats that Pujols has isn't a huge data set (Plus, they don't seem to show he's anything out of the ordinary, he simply remains a very good hitter). But I can say that Pujols didn't do anything of note in the World Series. He underperformed his statistical norms and didn't really make much of an inpact.

It's the same idea that a great hitter can go 0-4 on a given day. I can say that player sucked or did nothing that game and I'd be right. But I couldn't say that player was crappy player or a choker based one one game. It's not enough of a data set to make broad sweeping generalizations. There's a difference there.
Jericho is offline  
Old 10-10-06, 10:53 AM
  #83  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,383
Originally Posted by Jericho
actually David Ortiz was decidely unclutch this year, so try again
Um. Yeah. How many games did he have a walk off hit or homer again?
Qui Gon Jim is offline  
Old 10-10-06, 11:27 AM
  #84  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Columbia, MD, USA
Posts: 11,135
Originally Posted by Qui Gon Jim
Um. Yeah. How many games did he have a walk off hit or homer again?

Why? Because a few walk-off HRs is more important than underperfroming in dozens of at bats with RISP? I don't know how mnay walk-offs Ortiz had last year, but I'm guessing it's probably around 2.

Ortiz Clutch Rating
2005: 4.2
2006: -6.2

Last edited by Jericho; 10-10-06 at 11:32 AM.
Jericho is offline  
Old 10-10-06, 03:17 PM
  #85  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 616
Originally Posted by Jericho
Hey I don't make the definition of what clutch is.
Yeah, no shit. You think "clutch" is based only on a player's increase/decrease in performance with RISP, which is pretty asinine. Ortiz is probably the most overrated player ever in regard to how "clutch" he is, but it's still rather impressive that he has like 15 walk-off hits in three years, and you're completely ignoring that. Pujols also has a lot of walk-off hits and close and late hits. You should stop looking up meaningless stats and watch a baseball game sometime. You look incredibly foolish pointing at the stupid clutch stat and saying, "See??!! I'm right!!!"

Originally Posted by Jericho
As for the World Series comment... He underperformed his statistical norms and didn't really make much of an inpact.
He had five hits in 15 ABs against postseason pitching, and only a complete jackass would describe that as "AWOL." His teammates were AWOL; Pujols was the same as he always is.

edit: Oh, and if you still think Pujols wasn't clutch in 2005, watch the 2005 NLCS sometime.

Last edited by MechanicalMan; 10-10-06 at 03:28 PM.
MechanicalMan is offline  
Old 10-10-06, 03:43 PM
  #86  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Lakeville, MN
Posts: 3,070
Originally Posted by Jericho
Why? Because a few walk-off HRs is more important than underperfroming in dozens of at bats with RISP? I don't know how mnay walk-offs Ortiz had last year, but I'm guessing it's probably around 2.

Ortiz Clutch Rating
2005: 4.2
2006: -6.2
No shit. Ortiz is the complete opposite of A-Rod. Eveyone remembers the few awesome games he has and completely forgets about all his failures.
SonOfAStu is offline  
Old 10-10-06, 05:31 PM
  #87  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Columbia, MD, USA
Posts: 11,135
Originally Posted by MechanicalMan
Yeah, no shit. You think "clutch" is based only on a player's increase/decrease in performance with RISP, which is pretty asinine. Ortiz is probably the most overrated player ever in regard to how "clutch" he is, but it's still rather impressive that he has like 15 walk-off hits in three years, and you're completely ignoring that. Pujols also has a lot of walk-off hits and close and late hits. You should stop looking up meaningless stats and watch a baseball game sometime. You look incredibly foolish pointing at the stupid clutch stat and saying, "See??!! I'm right!!!"


He had five hits in 15 ABs against postseason pitching, and only a complete jackass would describe that as "AWOL." His teammates were AWOL; Pujols was the same as he always is.

edit: Oh, and if you still think Pujols wasn't clutch in 2005, watch the 2005 NLCS sometime.
You're completely missing the point AND on top of that you're putting words in my mouth that I've never said. It's a nice combo, really.

First, as to David Ortiz, he's played a lot more than three years. The whole point of saying someone is clutch, is that it assumes being clutch IS a repeatable stat. And when someone has 2 good years in his entire career, but ignores the rest of his career, it's hard to call them clutch.

Of course there's a difference between a clutch hit and being clutch. As I've stated several times, being clutch basically doesn't exist. But a clutch hit certainly exists. The isolated hit that wins the game. I have no problem calling that clutch. And in some years a particular player has a lot of those. In 2006 it was Pujols. In 2005 it was Ortiz. But here's a little mindbender for you. People think Ortiz was so awesome late in games for the Red Sox in 2005. And for the most part he was. But you know what? In 2005, when Boston trailed after 7 innings, they went 6-53. 6 wins in 59 tries. Those few isolated walk-offs are rare and not nearly as important as pure good hitting.

You call these stats "foolish", but they explain a lot more than your stories about how clutch guys are. I'm sure no one here watches every single baseball game. And even if you did, there's always the bias and tricks that memory plays on you. Stats are objective and tell the real story.

Besides, I have no idea where you're getting your definition of clutch. I'm using the general standard definition used in the industry. If a guy is underperforming his general skill level in crucial situations, that seems to me that's a bad thing and not clutch. Yet, you seem to think as long as someone is getting hits occasionally, it's okay and they are clutch. You're the only one I know that uses that definition.

Pujols is a good hitter. Ortiz is a good hitter. As good hitters, they are generally going to get a fair amount of hits. Some come in the clutch, some don't. But they aren't any more clutch than the next guy if they're simply maintaining their basic levels of play. Instead they're just being themselves.

As for Pujols, he underperformed in the World Series. He wasn't as good as he normally is. That's all I'm saying. If a guy underperforms his normal levels, even if those levels are pretty high to start, that's not a good thing. And if a guy were truly "clutch", I would think he'd be at or exceeding his normal levels playing on the games biggest stage.

But I never said Pujols didn't have clutch hits in his career, nor did I ever comment about the NLCS. So I don't know what you're getting at there.
Jericho is offline  
Old 10-10-06, 06:14 PM
  #88  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 616
Originally Posted by Jericho
Besides, I have no idea where you're getting your definition of clutch. I'm using the general standard definition used in the industry.
LOL. You're using the clutch stat, which is essentially based on performance with runners on relative to performance with the bases empty. You're ignoring everything else: hits close and late, hits with RISP and two outs, game-winning hits, important postseason hits...

As for Pujols, he underperformed in the World Series. He wasn't as good as he normally is. That's all I'm saying. If a guy underperforms his normal levels, even if those levels are pretty high to start, that's not a good thing. And if a guy were truly "clutch", I would think he'd be at or exceeding his normal levels playing on the games biggest stage.
He didn't manage to hit a home run in 15 ABs. Big deal. The guy doesn't hit a home run in 15 ABs, and you call him "AWOL." That was idiotic.

But I never said Pujols didn't have clutch hits in his career, nor did I ever comment about the NLCS. So I don't know what you're getting at there.
Well, let me help you. You said this:

Pujols was... decidely mediocre in the clutch in both 2004 and 2005.
Pujols being "mediocre in the clutch" in 2005
Just one example of something that is not reflected in the clutch stat that you so humorously described as the "general standard definition [of clutch] used in the industry."
MechanicalMan is offline  
Old 10-10-06, 08:18 PM
  #89  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Columbia, MD, USA
Posts: 11,135
Originally Posted by MechanicalMan
LOL. You're using the clutch stat, which is essentially based on performance with runners on relative to performance with the bases empty. You're ignoring everything else: hits close and late, hits with RISP and two outs, game-winning hits, important postseason hits...
No, you still have your info wrong. The clutch stats measures hitting with RISP and HRs with runners on against all the runs created by a particular player. In may not be all encompassing, but it is NOT measured simply against production with bases empty. And it does include game-winning hits, provided the hits come with RISP or were HRs. It does include two RISP hits. It may not include all close and late situations, although that stat can be very misleading. A lot of close and late at bats are largely meaningless. I'd also add that postseason stats are in a whole nother computation as with most stats, its a comparison of regular season totals.

I'd point out that under your definition of clutch, a player who under performs from his normal levels in the clutch is still considered clutch. How a guy who does worse than normal in pressure situations is clutch I don't know.

Originally Posted by MechanicalMan
He didn't manage to hit a home run in 15 ABs. Big deal. The guy doesn't hit a home run in 15 ABs, and you call him "AWOL." That was idiotic.
You seem to take particular exception to the acronym AWOL. Fine. I'll retract that and say he underperformed. There's no dispute to that statement, and that was the point. He wasn't "clutch", but worse than normal.

Originally Posted by MechanicalMan
Just one example of something that is not reflected in the clutch stat that you so humorously described as the "general standard definition [of clutch] used in the industry."
Actually you are wrong again. This IS included in the clutch stat. Although I would point out that I wasn't stating the stat as being the general standard definiton (like Win Shares, you can tinker with it). I was stating that clutch hitting is generally defined as exceeding your normal production levels in certain high leverage situations.
Jericho is offline  
Old 10-10-06, 08:54 PM
  #90  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 616
Originally Posted by Jericho
it does include game-winning hits, provided the hits come with RISP or were HRs. It does include two RISP hits. It may not include all close and late situations...
You are completely missing the point. The clutch stat places no significance on those situations. A two-run homer in a blowout is treated the same as a two-run walk-off homer. BTW, sorry if I gave an unfair summary of that silly, unofficial stat, but I do know what it measures.

Actually you are wrong again.
Actually, I'm not. You claimed that Pujols wasn't clutch in 2005 based on that stupid clutch rating, and the rating is based only on the regular season. But if you don't think that hitting game-winning home runs on the road in October is relevant, then I guess that's not a problem. Besides, we all know that everything that happens in October is based on luck.
MechanicalMan is offline  
Old 10-10-06, 09:36 PM
  #91  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Columbia, MD, USA
Posts: 11,135
Originally Posted by MechanicalMan
You are completely missing the point. The clutch stat places no significance on those situations. A two-run homer in a blowout is treated the same as a two-run walk-off homer. BTW, sorry if I gave an unfair summary of that silly, unofficial stat, but I do know what it measures.
This is true, and that stat isn't perfect. But it does provide a much more objective and realistic look at clutch play than someone's random opinions. It's fair to look at the flaws in the stats. Although I would point out, that people have done many, many studies on clutch play. And the best case scenario that anyone has come up with is that it may exist in a small number of players and be very minor it terms of their clutch ability.


Originally Posted by MechanicalMan
Actually, I'm not. You claimed that Pujols wasn't clutch in 2005 based on that stupid clutch rating, and the rating is based only on the regular season. But if you don't think that hitting game-winning home runs on the road in October is relevant, then I guess that's not a problem. Besides, we all know that everything that happens in October is based on luck.
Like any statistic, you can break it down by regular season and post season. You don't add post season HRs to a regular season HR total either. This stat is no different. I don't have Pujols clutch rating for the 2005 playoffs. But it doesn't really matter, as having some big hits in a few postseason games doesn't change the overall idea that Pujols wasn't particularly clutch over 162 games and it doesn't change the fact that there's little evidence that clutch hitting is repeatable.
Jericho is offline  
Old 10-10-06, 10:00 PM
  #92  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 616
Originally Posted by Jericho
...doesn't change the overall idea that Pujols wasn't particularly clutch...
According to an unofficial and rather useless stat. The reality is that he was clutch in 2005, but you can cling to that stupid stat and believe whatever you want.

As I mentioned earlier, the clutch stat is unfair to a player like Ortiz who hasn't hit very well with RISP but has hit an impressive number of walk-offs. It's ridiculous to pretend that the clutch stat is an actual and authoritative measure of "clutchness."
MechanicalMan is offline  
Old 10-12-06, 02:20 PM
  #93  
Needs to contact an admin about multiple accounts
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 2,464
Sad ... Cory Lidle would be alive today if the Yanks didnt underachieve.

It was very apparent that these players had no sense of urgency. An ass kicker like Leyland wouldnt have allowed it.

Seeing Damon on the bench laughing it up late in Game 4 was indicative of the team as a whole ...
vegasbaby is offline  
Old 10-12-06, 05:18 PM
  #94  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,840
I heard on ESPN today that Steinbrenner wants to try and bring Albert Pujols and Barry Zito both to the Yankees for next year. Is Pujols really a free agent this year?

Man if they get both of those guys there going to be insane next year.
Dalvin is offline  
Old 10-12-06, 05:41 PM
  #95  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Work. Or commuting. Certainly not at home.
Posts: 17,816
Originally Posted by Dalvin
I heard on ESPN today that Steinbrenner wants to try and bring Albert Pujols and Barry Zito both to the Yankees for next year. Is Pujols really a free agent this year?

Man if they get both of those guys there going to be insane next year.
... the same place you hear all your other rumors, huh?

No, Albert Pujols is not a free agent. And no, the Yankees don't have what it would take to pry him from the Cardinals. Which truthfully doesn't matter since they'd never trade him anyways.
wildcatlh is offline  
Old 10-12-06, 07:32 PM
  #96  
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 11,975
Originally Posted by Dalvin
I heard on ESPN today that Steinbrenner wants to try and bring Albert Pujols and Barry Zito both to the Yankees for next year. Is Pujols really a free agent this year?

Man if they get both of those guys there going to be insane next year.
Albert Pujols is signed with the Cardinals until 2010 with a team option for 2011. There is no way that Pujols is going to the Yankees next year. What is a strong possibility is that Zito ends up a Cardinal.
dx23 is offline  
Old 10-13-06, 12:23 AM
  #97  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 572
I feel bad for ARod. I like him as a ballplayer and he is a HOF'er. It sucks that he can't come through in the playoffs. I do partially blame him for the Yankees loss to the Tigers. If he came through with a couple of big hits, the Yankees probably would be playing the A's.
wolverine1028 is offline  
Old 10-13-06, 01:21 AM
  #98  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Goat3001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 16,917
Originally Posted by wolverine1028
I feel bad for ARod. I like him as a ballplayer and he is a HOF'er. It sucks that he can't come through in the playoffs. I do partially blame him for the Yankees loss to the Tigers. If he came through with a couple of big hits, the Yankees probably would be playing the A's.
1) I can't feel bad for someone that makes that much money, is that good looking and bi-racial.

2) Nonetheless, it sucks because he could be doing so much better, he has the talent.

3) There are only a handful of Yankees that you CAN'T blame. They are Jeter, Jorge, Abreu, Wang and Mussina (4 earned in 7 isn't terrible). No one else came through with the big hit or the big pitch when they needed to.
Goat3001 is offline  
Old 10-13-06, 04:37 AM
  #99  
DVD Talk Reviewer
 
Rogue588's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: WAS looking for My Own Private Stuckeyville, but stuck in Liberty City (while missing Vice City)
Posts: 15,094
Originally Posted by Goat3001
3) There are only a handful of Yankees that you CAN'T blame. They are Jeter, Jorge, Abreu, Wang and Mussina (4 earned in 7 isn't terrible). No one else came through with the big hit or the big pitch when they needed to.
Let's not forget Melky, Phillips and Cairo. All three should've been in at one point or another.

Yes, I know Melky played game four, but by then they were already on their downward spiral, and surely he deserved to play more than that...
Rogue588 is offline  
Old 10-13-06, 09:29 AM
  #100  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Memphis, TN
Posts: 5,583
Originally Posted by Dalvin
I heard on ESPN today that Steinbrenner wants to try and bring Albert Pujols and Barry Zito both to the Yankees for next year. Is Pujols really a free agent this year?

Man if they get both of those guys there going to be insane next year.
The Cardinals trading Pujols would be like the Bulls trading Jordan in his prime. The mere suggestion that that could happen is laughable.
Turd Ferguson is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.