Everyone should know by now that I'm a bigtime Yankees fan. So I'm not going to get into the minutae of the stats (although A-Rod's are marginally better). But I don't see how even if think Ortiz has better numbers that he has enough seperation to make up for the fact that he's a DH and A-Rod is probably the second-best third baseman in the league.


Year Team G AB R H HR RBI BB SO SB CS OBP SLG AVG
David Ortiz
2005 BOS 142 536 108 159 42 130 92 107 1 0 .396 .603 .297
Alex Rodriguez
2005 NYY 144 539 108 172 41 112 81 118 13 6 .419 .596 .319

How about clutch hits? How about impact of hits? Ortiz has it over A-Rod (who's an average 3rd baseman)

A- rod- by far. In Boston, Ortiz is playing the "easiest" defensive position. Meanwhile, A-rod is playing a damn good 3b, and is out hitting Ortiz - he leads him in RC. Given that the defensive difference in worth 15-20 runs by itself, I see no reason why Ortiz should win.

And yes, I live in Boston. :D

I want to know how many game saving catches did Ortiz make? How many time Did ortiz turn a game around with a SPECTACULAR defensive play?

Sorry, but Defense if part of the game.

Now, if it was an award for only hitting, say the triple crown, then a DH could win it.

I want to know how many game saving catches did Ortiz make? How many time Did ortiz turn a game around with a SPECTACULAR defensive play?


and how many times has Arod cost the yankees runs and games with his defensive play?

and how many times has Arod cost the yankees runs and games with his defensive play?
As opposed to playing...say David Ortiz at 3rd?

and how many times has Arod cost the yankees runs and games with his defensive play?


okay, that is ridiculous. A-rod was consistently one of the best SS in baseball via UZR, and was amongst the best 3b last year - having to cover for Derek "no range" Jeter. PLus, A-rod playing a position with a defensive premium (compared to DH) makes him a lot harder to replace that Ortiz. He's had a better offensive season, and plays above average defense at 3b - the Ortiz case seems to be based primarily on Sox fans. :D

Arod's Fielding percentage is 5th best in the AL (only .009 behind the leader Blalock) and his range is among the best stasticially among 3B in the AL. His team has almost as many wins and his offensive numbers are comparable. Therefore, my vote would go to Arod.

okay, that is ridiculous. A-rod was consistently one of the best SS in baseball via UZR, and was amongst the best 3b last year - having to cover for Derek "no range" Jeter. PLus, A-rod playing a position with a defensive premium (compared to DH) makes him a lot harder to replace that Ortiz. He's had a better offensive season, and plays above average defense at 3b - the Ortiz case seems to be based primarily on Sox fans. :D

oh i agree completely. It just seems a bit foolish to me to say that Arod makes game saving defensive plays and Ortiz doesn't (which was the post i was replying to). It's not his game saving and spectacular plays that will win him the MVP, it's the fact that he goes out there every day and plays above average defence at a difficult position

dola

Now, if it was an award for only hitting, say the triple crown, then a DH could win it.

this to me implies that you think that a DH should not be allowed to win the MVP because he doesn't play defense. Last i checked the DH was indeed part of the game and of course a DH should be able to win the MVP, just as a pitcher (even a closer) should be able to win the MVP. Of course a pitcher needs to have an amazingly dominate season (and not be left off two ballots) and a DH would have to have a monster season and blow the rest of the field away statistically to make up for the lack of fielding.

For example, if Arod were playing first base and was the worst fielding first baseman in the league, i'm sure this race would be a hell of a lot closer

How many baseball players have won MVP awards due to their defensive skills?

The only argument to be made in Ortiz' favor is that his "clutch" performance is so outrageous this year (and I have a feeling from seeing some incomplete analysis at SOSH that it is truly outragous), combined with a corresponding lack of clutch-ness from A-rod, overcomes the credit the latter should get for fielding. Numbers-wise overall, there's very little to separate the two.

A-Rod without question.

Ortiz's "clutch" hitting? :rolleyes: Newsflash: runs scored in the first 6 innings count the same as runs scored in the ninth.

A-Rod. Getting that kind of production from a 3B is much more valuable than getting that kind of production from a DH.

A-Rod without question.

Ortiz's "clutch" hitting? :rolleyes: Newsflash: runs scored in the first 6 innings count the same as runs scored in the ninth.

Sure. But you can't win the game with a run scored in the sixth. You can win the game directly on a run scored in the 9th.

let me guess, you're one of those statheads who say "Clutch ability" is a misnomer, that there's no such thing as a clutch player?

let me guess, you're one of those statheads who say "Clutch ability" is a misnomer, that there's no such thing as a clutch player?

Let me guess, you're one of those emotional baseball types who ignore all research that clearly shows clutch hitting if it even exists is such a small effect it's not even worth considering.

Let me guess, you're one of those emotional baseball types who ignore all research that clearly shows clutch hitting if it even exists is such a small effect it's not even worth considering.

There are three types of lies, sir.

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics.

You take a set of numbers, and massage them to say whatever you want them to say.

Lets take a game that ends 1-0. Is A-Rod hitting a homerun in the first any more valuable than Ortiz hitting a homerun in the 9th to anyone but the fans who create irrational mythology out of it?

There are three types of lies, sir.

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics.

You take a set of numbers, and massage them to say whatever you want them to say.

Ok. I'll accept that to be true. Please massage out some numbers that show a trend that clutch performance actually exists.

Wasn't my point to begin with, but go ahead.

Wish I could find a site with the numbers, but (this is going from memory from a discussion on the radio)

RISP, Less then 2 Outs. Hard to say that this isn't a clutch situation. Every hit here means runs.

League average is .273

A-Rod is slightly better then league average, .277

Ortiz is hitting somewhere in the neighberhood of .325 IIRC

There are three types of lies, sir.

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics.

You take a set of numbers, and massage them to say whatever you want them to say.

Actually I was just making a contradictory post that had the same tone as yours. Just showing how your comment could easily be turned around. Carry on.

Wish I could find a site with the numbers, but (this is going from memory from a discussion on the radio)

RISP, Less then 2 Outs. Hard to say that this isn't a clutch situation. Every hit here means runs.

League average is .273

A-Rod is slightly better then league average, .277

Ortiz is hitting somewhere in the neighberhood of .325 IIRC

I'm confused at what this proves. First of all, Davd Ortiz is a much better than average hitter, so comparing his RISP to the league average RISP is rather misleading. Secondly, with such a small sample size, there is going to be a large amount of random deviation in any split. I don't feel like looking up any numbers right now, so I'll just take an example off the top of my head: In his first 100 ABs or so, Jeff Francouer was hitting about .380 with 10 HRs. Since then he has dropped off considerably. Does that mean he's a great first 100 AB hitter? Can we expect the same thing from him next year?

I think it's one of those things where we just won't agree, and it's two fucking thirty in the morning, don't feel like arguing, so I'll just leave it there.

Ok. I didn't really want to argue this either, as I'm sure this conversation has taken place a thousand times on this board and elsewhere.

I actually find it funny everytime a new argument like this pops up. Neither side is going to convince the other side to change their mind. Sorry for adding a little fuel to the fire there :).

How many baseball players have won MVP awards due to their defensive skills?

Exactly, how many times has Barry Bonds won the MVP award? Many, and I highly doubt it's because Bonds is a superb left fielder :p . Offense wins these awards, as much as I'd like to see defense play a bigger role, I don't think it plays into it much at all.

Ortiz, he's won about 20 games for the Sox this year. There is no one more valuable to the team than him. You can argue about the existence of clutch all you want, how many homers does Ortiz need to hit that put the Sox up in the last two innings?

And A-Knob's a chode.

No, players don't win the MVP with defense very often. But plenty of shortstops and catchers have won with defense being a main contributor. So, defense is obviously part of it.

How important do you think defense is? Even if you think that it's only worth 10%, that's all an advantage to A-Rod.

Barry Bonds played in the field pretty much every game-- despite ywhat you may have felt about the quality of his play-- when he won his MVPs. Even if you think he was terrible, his margin over his closest competition on offense was probably enough for him to have won if he had been a DH.

A-Rod and Ortiz have offensive numbers of almost equal value. But Ortiz has played ten games, badly, at first. A-Rod has played three games at short and 143 games at third. He'll be in the running for a gold glove at third. To say that that doesn't give Rodriguez the advantage means you're not exercising rational analysis and ther's no point in discussing it with you.

There's a point to be made about clutch hitting. While "clutch hitters" may not exist-- "clutch hitting" does. Ortiz has hit well in close-and-late situations and with runners-in-scoring-position. That's to his advantage. I'd also give him the advantage at this point because we could use team position as a tie-breaker.

However, even though he's hit fifty points higher with RISP, he's hitting twenty points lower overall. Also with all those great at bats his offensive numbers are still, at best, equal to Rodriguez's.

Player of the Year = A-Rod

MVP = Ortiz

A-Rod, and it's not even close.

I always thought it was a bullshit copout anyway. But I don't even get the whole Player of the Year vs. MVP thing this year. Their teams are 1 1/2 games apart. This isn't a case that one guy's team has been out of it since July.

You certainly can't make the case with the stats that Ortiz has been immensely more valuable.

I can't believe there's a thread discussing this. For a DH to win MVP, they're going to have to be head and shoulders above the field in terms of offensive performance. I'm talking dominant triple crown numbers.

I always thought it was a bullshit copout anyway. But I don't even get the whole Player of the Year vs. MVP thing this year. Their teams are 1 1/2 games apart. This isn't a case that one guy's team has been out of it since July.

You certainly can't make the case with the stats that Ortiz has been immensely more valuable.


No not on stats alone but I can safely say with his clutch play, the Sox would be no where near first place.

Not seeing A-Rod everyday I can't comment on his relative "value" but Ortiz wins games in the big spots for Boston.

Without following the Sox I don't know if people understand just how often he has come up big and how much you can depend on him in the late innings. It's freakish.


And he's not a whining little baby jerk Yankee.

Ortiz, he's won about 20 games for the Sox this year. There is no one more valuable to the team than him. You can argue about the existence of clutch all you want, how many homers does Ortiz need to hit that put the Sox up in the last two innings?

And A-Knob's a chode.
Without following the Sox I don't know if people understand just how often he has come up big and how much you can depend on him in the late innings. It's freakish.


And he's not a whining little baby jerk Yankee.
I value your opinion on this matter jeff061 because you are in no way biased in any capacity. :rolleyes:

Here is an easy question: you had a choice between a player that will hit .320 with 45 HR's and play gold glove caliber 3B, and a player that will hit .300 with 45 HR's and not get anywhere near the field, who would you choose to put on your team? If you don't say the 3B, you are crazy.

At least I don't try and hide it :D.

Your post qualifies for Player of the Year awards, not MVP. I'd take Ortiz over A-Rod. That's my totally 100% unbiased opinion.

At least I don't try and hide it :D.

Your post qualifies for Player of the Year awards, not MVP. I'd take Ortiz over A-Rod. That's my totally 100% unbiased opinion.
What is the different between the two in your mind? Playing 3B is definitely more valuable than playing DH.

I'd have to agree. Not taking away from A-Rod, he's great but it's the age old arguement of "valuable".

Is A-Rod more "valuable" on the open market...sure. That is Player of the Year. Take one away from their teams and which teams tanks it more...Red Sox. That's MVP.

This is not OOTP, this is real life. Ortiz is more valuable to the Sox than A-Rod is to the Yankees.

If we were drafting for a text sim here I'd take A-Rod.

I know that it isn't a perfect stat, game winning RBIs is a potential "clutch" stat. A-Rod actually has 1 more than David Ortiz, 17-16. Basically both players have equally put their team in the lead, while Ortiz' tend to be later in games, I tend to agree with Thunderherd that a home run in the first vs. in the 9th is just as important in a 1-0 game.

It doesn't matter. The voting is done by agenda toting morons who don't even pay attention.

I'd have to agree. Not taking away from A-Rod, he's great but it's the age old arguement of "valuable".

Is A-Rod more "valuable" on the open market...sure. That is Player of the Year. Take one away from their teams and which teams tanks it more...Red Sox. That's MVP.
So if you have two players with nearly equal stats playing for teams with nearly equal records, and take each away from their respective team, how does the one that plays no defense make the team tank while the one that does play defense has little effect? That doesn't make any kind of logical sense.

I'd have to agree. Not taking away from A-Rod, he's great but it's the age old arguement of "valuable".

Is A-Rod more "valuable" on the open market...sure. That is Player of the Year. Take one away from their teams and which teams tanks it more...Red Sox. That's MVP.

But how do you create value? By being the best player. A-Rod has a slightly higher SLG than Ortiz, and his OBP is 20 points higher. A-Rod has had a slightly better offensive season, and when you add in his defensive contribution, it's a no-brainer. And this is coming from a guy with a pretty severe dislike of A-Rod.

If you really want to talk value, look at a guy like Mike Sweeney. He is more valuable to the Royals than either Ortiz or A-Rod are to their teams.

So if you have two players with nearly equal stats playing for teams with nearly equal records, and take each away from their respective team, how does the one that plays no defense make the team tank while the one that does play defense has little effect? That doesn't make any kind of logical sense.


Put a light hitting, good defensive 3b in the Yankees lineup and

put a crappy hitting dh in the red sox lineup and let's compare.

But how do you create value? By being the best player. A-Rod has a slightly higher SLG than Ortiz, and his OBP is 20 points higher. A-Rod has had a slightly better offensive season, and when you add in his defensive contribution, it's a no-brainer. And this is coming from a guy with a pretty severe dislike of A-Rod.

If you really want to talk value, look at a guy like Mike Sweeney. He is more valuable to the Royals than either Ortiz or A-Rod are to their teams.

great, without Mike Sweeney they'd be more last.

Put a light hitting, good defensive 3b in the Yankees lineup and

put a crappy hitting dh in the red sox lineup and let's compare.
So the thinking is, if we replace ARod with Brooks Robinson in his prime, and Ortiz with Minnie Mendoza in his prime, then the Red Sox will do worse than the Yankees? I agree with that, but it has nothing to do with our conversation.

So the thinking is, if we replace ARod with Brooks Robinson in his prime, and Ortiz with Minnie Mendoza in his prime, then the Red Sox will do worse than the Yankees? I agree with that, but it has nothing to do with our conversation.

It always comes back to the definition of most valuable.

It's hard for either side to get a sense of it not watching the majority of games.

The fact that Ortiz does not play in the field is an ASSET to the Red Sox, if Ortiz played 3B he would be a liability and thus this makes him better then A-Rod.

Didn't A-Rod almost carry the Yanks for a month and a half? I think if you replaced either one with a crappy player, they'd both be a lot worse off. The Red Sox offense has scored more runs than the Yanks offense. So if you take Ortiz away, it would be almost the same as taking A-Rod away, except for the fact that you'd be losing a gold-glove caliber defender in the latter scenario.

The fact that Ortiz does not play in the field is an ASSET to the Red Sox, if Ortiz played 3B he would be a liability and thus this makes him better then A-Rod.
I'm assuming this is tongue-in-cheek?

The best part about OOTP is the clutch rating. If you get a team with all CLUTCH players, you are guaranteed to win 135 games per year.

I'm assuming this is tongue-in-cheek?


I don't know, it is?... :cool:

let me guess, you're one of those statheads who say "Clutch ability" is a misnomer, that there's no such thing as a clutch player?The argument is that clutch performance in one season does not predict clutch performance in a following season.

Edit: And it's one of the statheads who has noted that it looks like Ortiz has a really outrageous "clutch" distribution of his production.

A-Rod without question.

Ortiz's "clutch" hitting? :rolleyes: Newsflash: runs scored in the first 6 innings count the same as runs scored in the ninth.Yeah, but runs scored when your team is already winning by three runs don't count nearly as much towards the team W/L as runs scored when the game is tied or within a run either way.

Yeah, but runs scored when your team is already winning by three runs don't count nearly as much towards the team W/L as runs scored when the game is tied or within a run either way.
While correct, it is not applicable to this particular discussion because ARod has 17 game-winning RBI's compared to Ortiz's 16. So clearly, they are both about equal in hitting when the game is close.

A-Rod has a slightly higher SLG than Ortiz, and his OBP is 20 points higher.Which is where the argument about the contextual value of the production comes in... in a vacuum, assuming a typical distribution of production, then those numbers are pretty conclusively in favor of A-rod. However, Ortiz's production has been remarkably atypical.

But can you conclusively prove that it's more valuable than playing the field.

To put it in simple terms- Jason Giambi couldn't be in the Sox lineup regularly. If Ortiz played on the Yanks, you'd get the same production that you'd lose if A-Rod weren't there. But you'd also lose trhe third best hitter in the lineup. What would A-rod cost the Sox if he played in Boston?

But can you conclusively prove that it's more valuable than playing the field.

To put it in simple terms- Jason Giambi couldn't be in the Sox lineup regularly. If Ortiz played on the Yanks, you'd get the same production that you'd lose if A-Rod weren't there. But you'd also lose trhe third best hitter in the lineup. What would A-rod cost the Sox if he played in Boston?
What? :confused:

What? :confused:
I think he meant that if Ortiz was a Yankee, he would take the DH spot away from Giambi.

Giambi has played more games at first than DH this season, so the original point is not quite right.

Basically, Ryan's got my point.

If A-Rod and Ortiz were to switch teams, it would take Giambi out of the lineup half the time. So, the Yanks overall run production would decrease. However the Red Sox overall run production would increase with the same switch because you'd be getting an upgrade at third and you could get some quality bat at DH that'd produce more than your previous third baseman.

Basically, Ryan's got my point.

If A-Rod and Ortiz were to switch teams, it would take Giambi out of the lineup half the time. So, the Yanks overall run production would decrease. However the Red Sox overall run production would increase with the same switch because you'd be getting an upgrade at third and you could get some quality bat at DH that'd produce more than your previous third baseman.

Or you could play him at SS, since he is only playing 3B to keep Jeter happy. If the Yankees set their defense based on defensive talent, A-Rod wouldn't be playing 3B.

I wonder if there's any question now.

Without Ortiz, there's no way the Red Sox sniff the playoffs. Ortiz is clearly the Red Sox MVP. Without Mariano Rivera, there's no way the Yankees make the playoffs. Rivera is clearly the Yankees' MVP.

Ortiz: .300 BA, 47 HRs, 148 RBIs, .397 OBA, .604 Slugging
A-Rod: .321, 48 HRs, 130 RBIs, .421 OBA, .610 Slugging

I'd vote for Rivera over A-Rod and since A-Rod's not the MVP of his team, I don't see how he could be the MVP of the league. In the final 6 games of the season, Big Papi got RBIs in 5 of them and hit safely in all 6.

EDIT: Cleveland's Haffner posted great numbers as well, but I think he doesn't make it because Cleveland didn't make the playoffs. It's hard to vote for a guy who, when the playoffs were on the line, got only 2 RBIs in the final week (7 games) of the season.

I wonder if there's any question now.

Without Ortiz, there's no way the Red Sox sniff the playoffs. Ortiz is clearly the Red Sox MVP. Without Mariano Rivera, there's no way the Yankees make the playoffs. Rivera is clearly the Yankees' MVP.

Ortiz: .300 BA, 47 HRs, 148 RBIs, .397 OBA, .604 Slugging
A-Rod: .321, 48 HRs, 130 RBIs, .421 OBA, .610 Slugging

I'd vote for Rivera over A-Rod and since A-Rod's not the MVP of his team, I don't see how he could be the MVP of the league.
I don't understand how you can come to the conclusion you did. A-Rod had better offensive numbers playing in a less hitter-friendly park, played Gold Glove caliber defense, and the Yankees finished with the exact same record as the Red Sox. So how could Ortiz be worth more wins than A-Rod?

I don't understand how you can come to the conclusion you did. A-Rod had better offensive numbers playing in a less hitter-friendly park, played Gold Glove caliber defense, and the Yankees finished with the exact same record as the Red Sox. So how could Ortiz be worth more wins than A-Rod?

Blackie totally lost me too. The stats only seem to hurt his argument. I don't know why anyone would conclude Rivera is the Yankee's MVP. Replace him with a league average closer and the Yankees may lose an extra couple games because he only pitches a limited number of innings a year (even though they are high leverage innings). Remove A-Rod, and the Yankees lose many more games. I'm just confused.

I don't understand how you can come to the conclusion you did. A-Rod had better offensive numbers playing in a less hitter-friendly park, played Gold Glove caliber defense, and the Yankees finished with the exact same record as the Red Sox. So how could Ortiz be worth more wins than A-Rod?


Because the impact of subtracting Ortiz from the Red Sox would have been greater than subtracting A-Rod from the Yankees.

And before you go and ask me to prove it, it is this way because I said so.

I don't understand how you can come to the conclusion you did. A-Rod had better offensive numbers playing in a less hitter-friendly park, played Gold Glove caliber defense, and the Yankees finished with the exact same record as the Red Sox. So how could Ortiz be worth more wins than A-Rod?

MVP = Most Valuable Player

As I said, I don't even think that A-Rod is the most valuable player on his team - Rivera is. If he's not, then he can't be the MVP of the league.

I wonder if there's any question now.

Without Ortiz, there's no way the Red Sox sniff the playoffs. Ortiz is clearly the Red Sox MVP. Without Mariano Rivera, there's no way the Yankees make the playoffs. Rivera is clearly the Yankees' MVP.

Ortiz: .300 BA, 47 HRs, 148 RBIs, .397 OBA, .604 Slugging
A-Rod: .321, 48 HRs, 130 RBIs, .421 OBA, .610 Slugging

I'd vote for Rivera over A-Rod and since A-Rod's not the MVP of his team, I don't see how he could be the MVP of the league. In the final 6 games of the season, Big Papi got RBIs in 5 of them and hit safely in all 6.

EDIT: Cleveland's Haffner posted great numbers as well, but I think he doesn't make it because Cleveland didn't make the playoffs. It's hard to vote for a guy who, when the playoffs were on the line, got only 2 RBIs in the final week (7 games) of the season.

That is ridiculous. You making a mistake on Riviera being more valuable than A-rod doesnt make A-Rod not the MVP. The "take em " away arguement is absurd - hell, take Aaron Small away, and the Yanks dont win the pennant- should we give him the Cy Young ? A-rod matched (if not exceed) Ortiz while playing solid defense at a position where that is a premium - the replacement value at DH is a lot higher than at 3b.

I also believe Rivera is way more important to the Yankers than A-Rod.

So let it be written.

Again, this is just my opinion.

But also, one way to look at how important a player is to look at clutch situations.

Late and Close:
Ortiz: 78 ABs, .346, 33 RBIs, 11 HRs
A-Rod: 75 ABs, .293, 12 RBIs, 4 HRs

Cue Yankees fans saying there's no difference between a 4th inning game winning RBI and a 9th inning one.

Uh, that RBI in the 4th inning actually counts the same, unless they changed the scoring system. Clutch devotees would have you believe scoring the first 6 runs in a 8-7 victory means less than scoring those last 2. And I live in Boston.. so not really a Yankee fan.

Ortiz? The guy who sits his azz on the bench until his AB comes up?

A-Rod, quite easily. Me no like the DH.

Again, this is just my opinion.

But also, one way to look at how important a player is to look at clutch situations.

Late and Close:
Ortiz: 78 ABs, .346, 33 RBIs, 11 HRs
A-Rod: 75 ABs, .293, 12 RBIs, 4 HRs

Ortiz has obviously been great late in the game, but since when does Most Valuable Player equate to Most Clutch Player? Why does an A-Rod HR that puts the Yankees up 3-0 in the 1st inning of a game that ends 3-2 count less than an Ortiz HR that puts the Sox up 3-2 in the 9th? Value is accumulated through 9 innings, not just the final 3.

And I am far from an A-Rod or Yankee fan, so it really pains me to have to plead his case.

Because the impact of subtracting Ortiz from the Red Sox would have been greater than subtracting A-Rod from the Yankees.

And before you go and ask me to prove it, it is this way because I said so.
So...you take two players with (for argument's sake) identical batting stats from two teams with identical records. One plays gold glove caliber defense while the other never goes out into the field. And the player that doesn't play defense would have a greater impact if he were subtracted? I don't understand that logic.

So...you take two players with (for argument's sake) identical batting stats from two teams with identical records. One plays gold glove caliber defense while the other never goes out into the field. And the player that doesn't play defense would have a greater impact if he were subtracted? I don't understand that logic.


Defense, schmefence.

So...you take two players with (for argument's sake) identical batting stats from two teams with identical records. One plays gold glove caliber defense while the other never goes out into the field. And the player that doesn't play defense would have a greater impact if he were subtracted? I don't understand that logic.
It's trivial to understand. If the player who plays defense has a pretty good backup, or is surrounded by all-star caliber players, then subtracting him might not have that great an impact on his team.

It's trivial to understand. If the player who plays defense has a pretty good backup, or is surrounded by all-star caliber players, then subtracting him might not have that great an impact on his team.

Before A-Rod got there the Yankers used to win World Series.


HAR!

It's trivial to understand. If the player who plays defense has a pretty good backup, or is surrounded by all-star caliber players, then subtracting him might not have that great an impact on his team.
Not a bad point.

I just think a guy who does not play the field on a regular basis, may have more time for batting practice, pitcher study, and more rest.

Not a bad point.

I just think a guy who does not play the field on a regular basis, may have more time for batting practice, pitcher study, and more rest.
Oh, I agree. I actually take Bill Simmons' side on this one: in 5 years, who is going to remember who won the MVP this season? I'm far more concerned with who wins the World Series, and think both of them still have some time to make their cases.

I was just trying to help MrBigglesworth understand the logic that he was having trouble grasping.

I love these "well-reasoned" arguments for why Ortiz should be MVP over A-Rod.

For the clutch guys:

How much is that 'clutch' ability worth. 'Cause, you know, Ortiz doesn't play defense. His overall offensive numbers aren't as good as A-Rod's either.

To make the Ortiz-was-so-clutch argument you have to say that his amount of 'clutchness' over A-Rod makes up for 150 extra games of excellent defense at third base as well as the 3-7% (or whatevr) better A-Rod's overall offensive numbers were.

I'm talking all-around game here. A-Rod ground into fivel less DPs. He stole twenty more bases-- with a good (21/6) percentage. And those twenty-four pointa of OBA are a pretty big deal. As has been mentioned, he also did it in a less-friendly environment for hitters.

To come to the conclusion that this clutch ability makes up for all that is asinine.

To the replacement/context guys:

You can't just use Mariano vs. A-Rod. Use the overall context:

Let's swap players.

A-Rod goes to the Red Sox and puts Mueller on the bench.

Ortiz goes to the Yanks and puts Giambi on the bench.

Ortiz's .299/.395/.604 is an improvement over
Giambi's .271/.440/.535

at least it is when you account for his clutch performances and:
+15 HR
+61 RBI
+45 runs
+1 SB
+ 26 2B

But let's look at A-Rod vs. Mueller:

A-Rod's .321/.421/.610 greatly outshines
Mueller's .295/.369/.430

especially when you consider that he:
is generally regarded as the better fielder
+37 HR
+68 RBI
+55 runs
+21 SB

This is just to illustrate how much more a team easily replace the production at DH. Mueller is considered a good 3B. But his numbers aren't even worth half a season worth of A-Rod.

If the argument above with it's raw numbers doesn't sway you...

Not a bad point.

I just think a guy who does not play the field on a regular basis, may have more time for batting practice, pitcher study, and more rest.

Actually, that point is wrong - because comparing him to the team at large should not be the measure of value - comparing him to players at large should. Most people who play DH hit better than those who play 3b, who tend to hit better than MI - this is the defensive spectrum that common sense (and James) tells us about. It is easier to replace a DH who hits like Ortiz than a 3b who hits like A-Rod.

yeah but A-Rod is a dick. Everybody loves Papi.

Just batting doesn't make up the MVP. I'll be the first to say that fielding, clutch hitting, leadership, etc. all make up the MVP. Obviously, their hitting stats are very close. A-Rod won by .021 in BA, Papi had 18 more RBIs.

Obviously, A-Rod has a huge advantage in fielding. I think he was pretty good in the field this year. But how good was he? He has the 3rd best FPCT in the AL. But his ZR is average and his RF stinks. Huge advantage: A-Rod.

Can anyone honestly tell me that A-Rod is the leader of the Yankees over Sheffy, Jeter or Rivera? Can anyone honestly tell me that Papi isn't the leader of the Red Sox and helped hold them together through a number of issues (Schilling, Damon and most of all, Manny) that could have made the team fall apart? Huge advantage: Ortiz.

Some may count these factors more than others, but these are facts. More of Ortiz' RBIs won games than A-Rods, regardless of whether they took place in the 4th inning or 9th. Don't believe me? Go look up when their RBIs made the difference in the final score of the game. Ortiz is unquestionably more of a clutch hitter than A-Rod. Advantage: Ortiz.

For me, clutch hitting+winning more games+leadership > decent fielding.

Playoff game bottom of the 8th.. Your team trails 4-3.. Your superstar comes up with 2 outs in the 8th man on 2nd.. To me this is the spot the defines the MVP for that year. I would want Ortiz up and right now I can't think of a close 2nd. If you want A-ROD to play great Defense and keep the game close in the 9th that's fine, I want the guy that will tie or win the game for me.

It's trivial to understand. If the player who plays defense has a pretty good backup, or is surrounded by all-star caliber players, then subtracting him might not have that great an impact on his team.
Ortiz has Manny Ramirez hitting behind him and Damon getting on base in front of him. It's not like he is on a small market team here. It's easier to get a backup DH than a backup 3B, so that point is in A-Rod's favor as well.

That still doesn't answer my question.

Actually, that point is wrong - because comparing him to the team at large should not be the measure of value - comparing him to players at large should. Most people who play DH hit better than those who play 3b, who tend to hit better than MI - this is the defensive spectrum that common sense (and James) tells us about. It is easier to replace a DH who hits like Ortiz than a 3b who hits like A-Rod.
There are a lot of angles to consider, that's for sure. Heck, Nunez hit very well at 3B for Rolen this year, but there were some miscues that Rolen would have made on defense that might have given us a few more wins.

It is much easier to replace a DH that hits well, than it is a position player who hits well AND plays the field very well.

So...you take two players with (for argument's sake) identical batting stats from two teams with identical records. One plays gold glove caliber defense while the other never goes out into the field. And the player that doesn't play defense would have a greater impact if he were subtracted? I don't understand that logic.
It's trivial to understand. If the player who plays defense has a pretty good backup, or is surrounded by all-star caliber players, then subtracting him might not have that great an impact on his team.
Ortiz has Manny Ramirez hitting behind him and Damon getting on base in front of him. It's not like he is on a small market team here. It's easier to get a backup DH than a backup 3B, so that point is in A-Rod's favor as well.

That still doesn't answer my question.
Do you really have this much trouble with logic? You asked a hypothetical, and I responded to the hypothetical, and then you say it doesn't apply to the situation at hand? Note I said nothing about Ortiz, A-Rod, or Manny. Read again:

So...you take two players with (for argument's sake) identical batting stats from two teams with identical records. One plays gold glove caliber defense while the other never goes out into the field. And the player that doesn't play defense would have a greater impact if he were subtracted? I don't understand that logic.
I answered that pretty clearly, I thought. A superstar player's removal CAN have minimal impact if there are enough other superstars starting or a superstar-in-waiting ready to back him up. Removing a DH CAN have a huge impact, if no one else on the bench can hit anywhere near as well as him. The logic is pretty straightforward here. It all depends on who else is around them, which is where the argument comes in to play in this case.

Feel free to argue about whether or not that situation applies here, or if removing A-Rod really has less of an impact than removing Ortiz, but don't try to say the logic makes no sense. The logic makes perfect sense, so keep the debate as to whether or not A-Rod vs. Ortiz really fits the bill.

Playoff game bottom of the 8th.. Your team trails 4-3.. Your superstar comes up with 2 outs in the 8th man on 2nd.. To me this is the spot the defines the MVP for that year. I would want Ortiz up and right now I can't think of a close 2nd. If you want A-ROD to play great Defense and keep the game close in the 9th that's fine, I want the guy that will tie or win the game for me.


Uh, that RBI in the 4th inning actually counts the same, unless they changed the scoring system. Clutch devotees would have you believe scoring the first 6 runs in a 8-7 victory means less than scoring those last 2.

Like clockwork.

Clutch definately makes a difference. In the 4th inning you don't know it's a "clutch" situation where as in the 9th you are well aware of the implications of not coming through. Big mental difference.

The runs count the same but the situations are worlds apart.

It's the difference between hitting a buzzer beater to win, or nailing the go ahead points with over a minute left to play. There is a difference between the 4th inning and 9th inning.

Or kicking a go ahead field goal in the 3rd quarter vrs kicking it as time runs out.

Do you really have this much trouble with logic? You asked a hypothetical, and I responded to the hypothetical, and then you say it doesn't apply to the situation at hand? Note I said nothing about Ortiz, A-Rod, or Manny. Read again:
I think I see where you are confused, I didn't ask a hypothetical, I was explaining the actual situation. There was nothing hypothetical about my description of it.

It's the difference between hitting a buzzer beater to win, or nailing the go ahead points with over a minute left to play. There is a difference between the 4th inning and 9th inning.

Or kicking a go ahead field goal in the 3rd quarter vrs kicking it as time runs out.

Agreed. Tell that to Adam Vinetari. :)

As I mentioned before, even if you want to discount "clutch", more of Ortiz' RBIs actually were the difference in a W or L by his team than A-Rods.

It seems that the whole discussion comes down to this since their batting stats are remarkably similar.

A-Rod supporters: Fielding > DH
Ortiz supporters: Clutch hitting + leadership+more important to team > Fielding

A-Rod supporters: Fielding > DH
Ortiz supporters: Clutch hitting + leadership+more important to team > Fielding

I think some people are also giving Papi extra credit for his work in the role of Florida on Good Times.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v508/Hammer715/OOTP/papi.jpg http://www.virgoinservice.com/articles/images/davidortiz.jpg

ohhhh, that was below the belt.

A-Rod supporters: Fielding > DH
Ortiz supporters: Clutch hitting + leadership+more important to team > Fielding

I like how "more important to team" got added to Ortiz supporters. Where is that from? Wouldn't A-Rod supporters say the exact same thing?

If clutch hitting were a repeatable skill (carrying over a career), I would be inclined to give it more support. Instead, it is based on small sample sizes and good timing. With that being said, I'll give a little credit for that "luck" in a given year. Still, I like players who put a team way ahead too.

Leadership is also an area where I tread lightly. It is based on media coverage and none of us really know what is going on. Why doesn't A-Rod get credit for throwing a stink about not being SS? He was a Gold Glove SS and went gracefully to 3B. I'm not sure that counts for much, but I don't think the media story of Papi counts for much either.

So, for me, I see:

A-Rod - edge in batting (RBI's are overvalued, IMO), but only a slight one
edge in fielding that is enormous (even if he were a LF, it would be enormous - being a 3B is even more of a bonus)

Ortiz - slight '+' for being lucky/clutch
slight bonus for getting credited by media with leadership

So, for me, it is pretty clearly A-Rod, but Ortiz gets credit for a great season.

I wouldn't argue that hitting in clutch situations is more valuable. The question is how much more valuable is it?

That ninth inning HR is not infinitely more valuable than the sixth inning one. It's marginally more valuable.

But what is that margin? A-Rod's defense has a great marginal benefit. We're talking at least 10-15% at the very least-- assuming you really don't believe that defense has much impact at all.

Looking at A-Rod's numbers in the clutch, which are good, and comparing them Ortiz's, which are excellent, I don't see where you get that the margin is equal to the benefit A-Rod gives you on defense and with his overall better offensive numbers.

Where would you find the number of game winning or lead producing rbi's?

Where would you find the number of game winning or lead producing rbi's?
As of the last week of the regular season, A-Rod had 20 GWRBI's and Ortiz had 19.

As of the last week of the regular season, A-Rod had 20 GWRBI's and Ortiz had 19.


Thanks, is there a link or something. I can't find these stats anywhere.

As of the last week of the regular season, A-Rod had 20 GWRBI's and Ortiz had 19.

Go back and look at the number of RBIs that made the difference in the score of the game. I.E., if those RBIs don't happen, the team loses the game rather than wins it.

Ortiz leads A-Rod by 20%.

A-Rod should win this award easily.

Rodriguez and Ortiz have very comprable offensive numbers, with Rodriguez having a slight edge. The average designated hitter is going to be much more productive, offensively, than the average third baseman, so it stands to reason that there would be much more significant dropoff in production for the Yankees without A-Rod than for the Red Sox without Ortiz.

Everyone loves Ortiz and loves to hate Rodriguez, but for a DH to win the MVP over a position player, his numbers would have to be significantly better, and in the case, they are not. I am in the camp that does not believe in "clutch," but check out the stats from the last 7 games of the season, when both teams were fighting for their lives, and you can see that both guys played very well when they needed to for their teams.

Go back and look at the number of RBIs that made the difference in the score of the game. I.E., if those RBIs don't happen, the team loses the game rather than wins it.

Ortiz leads A-Rod by 20%.

That's what I'm looking for...where are these?

That's what I'm looking for...where are these?
As far as I know, pulled out of Blackadar's backside ;)

I like how "more important to team" got added to Ortiz supporters. Where is that from? Wouldn't A-Rod supporters say the exact same thing?

If clutch hitting were a repeatable skill (carrying over a career), I would be inclined to give it more support. Instead, it is based on small sample sizes and good timing. With that being said, I'll give a little credit for that "luck" in a given year. Still, I like players who put a team way ahead too.

Leadership is also an area where I tread lightly. It is based on media coverage and none of us really know what is going on. Why doesn't A-Rod get credit for throwing a stink about not being SS? He was a Gold Glove SS and went gracefully to 3B. I'm not sure that counts for much, but I don't think the media story of Papi counts for much either.

So, for me, I see:

A-Rod - edge in batting (RBI's are overvalued, IMO), but only a slight one
edge in fielding that is enormous (even if he were a LF, it would be enormous - being a 3B is even more of a bonus)

Ortiz - slight '+' for being lucky/clutch
slight bonus for getting credited by media with leadership

So, for me, it is pretty clearly A-Rod, but Ortiz gets credit for a great season.

Sorry John, but if Ortiz only gets a "slight bonus for getting credited by media with leadership", then forget it. It's not the media who credits Ortiz - it's his teammates. They sure in hell aren't crediting Damon or Manny or Schilling. Whereas Yankee players tend to credit Jeter, Sheffy and Rivera.

Of course, then if leadership doesn't count, I guess Jeter won't make the HOF, will he? :D

As far as I know, pulled out of Blackadar's backside ;)

ESPN has a game-by-game log...check it out sometime. :rolleyes:

ESPN has a game-by-game log...check it out sometime. :rolleyes:


oh shi.

Somebody went through every game?

Sorry John, but if Ortiz only gets a "slight bonus for getting credited by media with leadership", then forget it. It's not the media who credits Ortiz - it's his teammates. They sure in hell aren't crediting Damon or Manny or Schilling. Whereas Yankee players tend to credit Jeter, Sheffy and Rivera.

Of course, then if leadership doesn't count, I guess Jeter won't make the HOF, will he? :D

Jeter will make the HOF regardless, but I don't think he should get in because of leadership. Intangibles based on media created reputations should never be the basis of awards or honors like the HOF.

Other players may say the right things, but it doesn't really mean much. They are lobbying for Ortiz. And the only player I've heard say Sheff is the leader is Sheff. I'm not sure I've ever heard someone say Rivera is a leader (he is in the bullpen all game). Jeter's image is largely media created. I could be wrong, but I don't trust intangibles without reliable information AND proof that it has actually made the team better.

A-Rod has been more valuable because he has been the better player at a harder to play position. It's that simple.

Of course, I'm one who believes in Intangibles.

Like Mo Vaughn getting the award over Albert Belle a few years ago. Or Vlad winning it last year. I thought (and still think) Irchio getting it was a joke over Giambi.

You'll see this once in a blue moon:

I agree with John Galt's argument 100%.

I think it really just boils down to how you interepret the award.

If you think the MVP award is for the player who is most valuable to his team, Ortiz probably should get your vote. No, he doesn't play defense, but without him, this team would have been scheduling Phoenix tee-times months ago. What was the stat they keep showing? 20 of his homers either tied the game or gave the Sox the leauge? I don't put a lot of faith in clutch hitting, but I do believe there is importance in timely hitting. I think there is a huge difference in the offensive contributions of Ortiz and, say, Manny Ramirez, even though their stats are very similar. And, even though both the Sox and Yankees are both pretty good hitting teams, it's worth noting that the Yankees have 3 100+ RBI guys, plus Jeremy Giambi at 87. Without ARod, that's still a pretty good lineup. The Sox have Manny and Ortiz and then their 3rd and 4th biggest run producers are their leadoff hitter (Damon) and their #2 hitter (Edgar freaking Renteria). The Yankees had 8 guys hit more home runs than the Sox's fourth best homerun hitter (Nixon with a whopping 13). No question in my mind that Ortiz is more valuable to his team than ARod.

But I don't think that's what the award should be. It should be for the best all-around hitter. And you have to take Rodriguez's production over Ortiz even before you factor in defense. I don't think defense should be a big factor in this award...unless the offensive contribution is too close to call. In this case, ARod is just slightly better than Ortiz (don't forget those 21 stolen bases), and then, if it's still too close for you, if you have to factor in defense, this shouldn't be close.

ARod is a douche, Ortiz is a saint...but ARod had a better season with the lumber. simple as that.

So if MVP is all about numbers, why don't we just give it to the guy with the best production with say a minimum of 550 at bats?

So if MVP is all about numbers, why don't we just give it to the guy with the best production with say a minimum of 550 at bats?

Cuz what if they are a DH?

Yep, there should be a mathematical formula to determine who the winner is.

Yep, there should be a mathematical formula to determine who the winner is.

well then, in that case, the MVP is Miami.

it's worth noting that the Yankees have 3 100+ RBI guys, plus Jeremy Giambi at 87. Without ARod, that's still a pretty good lineup. The Sox have Manny and Ortiz and then their 3rd and 4th biggest run producers are their leadoff hitter (Damon) and their #2 hitter (Edgar freaking Renteria). The Yankees had 8 guys hit more home runs than the Sox's fourth best homerun hitter (Nixon with a whopping 13). No question in my mind that Ortiz is more valuable to his team than ARod.

Isn't it also worth noting that Boston outscored NYY by 24 runs? The Boston offense besides Ortiz can't be *that* bad now can it?

No it really can. It's really 100% Manny and Ortiz driving in Damon. I don't know why they don't pitch around both of them every time they get to the plate. Put them on 1st and 2nd, no ones knocking them in.

Cuz what if they are a DH?

That's exactly my point. If Ortiz wasn't a DH, this wouldn't be an issue. Also, its not like A-Rod hasn't put up these numbers before. He put up numbers like this in Texas, and there he was far more valuable than he is to the Yankees.

This is all a way that the media can get another Yankees vs. Red Sox debate going for ratings.

For what its worth, I think Ortiz deserves to win. The Yankees have far better pitching than the Red Sox do, so the Red Sox need to outscore their opposition to win, unlike the Yankees.

Well, I may have a different view of what's productive. DD refers to Renteria as the 4th biggest run producer...at .335 OBP/.721 OPS, I'd say Renteria is one of the WORST hitters on BOS. The BOS offense works because guys get on base - most of the guys with any AB at all have over a .350 OBP. The Yankees too have some great OBP guys, but they also have great big balls of suck in Cano, B. Williams, Womack (good gravy, .276??), and even Tino to some extent.

The Yankees have far better pitching than the Red Sox do, so the Red Sox need to outscore their opposition to win, unlike the Yankees.

Yankees Runs: 886
Sox Runs: 910

Yankess Runs Allowed: 789
Sox Runs Allowed: 805

16 runs different over the course of a whole year ain't that much.

It's funny - some say Ortiz should win because the lineup would be dead without him (ignoring that the Red Sox scored more runs). Now, someone is saying Ortiz deserves to win because their lineup is the only good thing they have going. It's a miracle the Red Sox won any games.

Well, I may have a different view of what's productive. DD refers to Renteria as the 4th biggest run producer...at .335 OBP/.721 OPS, I'd say Renteria is one of the WORST hitters on BOS. The BOS offense works because guys get on base - most of the guys with any AB at all have over a .350 OBP. The Yankees too have some great OBP guys, but they also have great big balls of suck in Cano, B. Williams, Womack (good gravy, .276??), and even Tino to some extent.

I strictly was referring to RBIs.
Speaking of OBP, though, the Sox have 6 guys with 502 appearances over .350. The Yankees also have 6.

It's a miracle the Red Sox won any games.
Well, duh http://dynamic.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

Yankees Runs: 886
Sox Runs: 910

Yankess Runs Allowed: 789
Sox Runs Allowed: 805

16 runs different over the course of a whole year ain't that much.

It's funny - some say Ortiz should win because the lineup would be dead without him (ignoring that the Red Sox scored more runs). Now, someone is saying Ortiz deserves to win because their lineup is the only good thing they have going. It's a miracle the Red Sox won any games.

Due to the Yankees pitching they certainly didn't need A-Rod as much... That is my point, yes, the Red Sox lineup outside of Ortiz and Ramierez is not all that great. You are looking at roughly 1/3 of the team's production coming from two players.

My vote for MVP would go to Vlad, the Angels sucked when he was out of the lineup and were pretty impressive while he was in it.

I would also be interested to see how many 10+ run games the Yankees had vs. the Red Sox. Let's not forget that raw numbers and even average numbers can be skewed by a few big 10+ run games. Again, we can argue statistics all day long, I can massage them my way, you can massage them your way.

It's a miracle the Red Sox won any games.
Only if you call Ortiz a miracle! Without him they are the Devil Rays! The Yankees would win 120 games without A-Rod!

:D

Due to the Yankees pitching they certainly didn't need A-Rod as much... That is my point, yes, the Red Sox lineup outside of Ortiz and Ramierez is not all that great. You are looking at roughly 1/3 of the team's production coming from two players.

My vote for MVP would go to Vlad, the Angels sucked when he was out of the lineup and were pretty impressive while he was in it.

I would also be interested to see how many 10+ run games the Yankees had vs. the Red Sox. Let's not forget that raw numbers and even average numbers can be skewed by a few big 10+ run games. Again, we can argue statistics all day long, I can massage them my way, you can massage them your way.

Even taking your argument, it is only 16 runs. If you adjust for park factors (Fenway 1.120, Yankee .922), you will see that difference evaporates. You pull out numbers like 1/3 production coming from 2 players based on what? RBI's? Why does Manny get counted as a reason why Ortiz is valuable? Does the fact that the 2nd best offensive player on the team is really good count for Ortiz? Huh?

Vlad?!?!!?

Statistics are meaningless?!?!?! They can be massaged to say anything?!?!?!

Your baseball analysis is even worse than your breakdown of the Constitution. And I didn't think that was possible.

Statistics are meaningless?!?!?! They can be massaged to say anything?!?!?!
Pretty much. I'm surprised this point is even up for debate.

Pretty much. I'm surprised this point is even up for debate.

I'm confused. Are you agreeing that statistics are meaningless and can be massaged to say anything? Being sarcastic? or actually agreeing with me?

I'm confused. Are you agreeing that statistics are meaningless and can be massaged to say anything? Being sarcastic? or actually agreeing with me?
Sorry, you're right. I'm saying that "Yes, statisticis can be massaged, twisted, and turned to say anything the person using them wants to say."

I'm saying that "Yes, statisticis can be massaged, twisted, and turned to say anything the person using them wants to say."

Wow. Just wow.

Wow. Just wow.

yeah. this is the ignore facts in favor of intagibles crowd - at some point, they fail to recognize that the potential for misuse in statistics can be checked, unlike pointless cliches about "leadership" and "proven veteran" and "knowing how to win."

yeah. this is the ignore facts in favor of intagibles crowd - at some point, they fail to recognize that the potential for misuse in statistics can be checked, unlike pointless cliches about "leadership" and "proven veteran" and "knowing how to win."
Faith-based baseball ;)

"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain

I mean seriously, come on. As I said above, I'm surprised this point is up for debate. Even in baseball. Look at this very conversation, the whole debate centers around "which statistics are more important for the MVP race?" Which RBIs are most important, how good a measure of a hitter is BA vs OBP vs OPS vs RBI vs HR vs GWRBI, is Range at all important in measuring a fielder's contribution even if that guy is winning a Gold Glove (i.e. does he make all routine plays that come his way, but doesn't even try or come close to the difficult outs), etc?

I mean, all any of the hardcore baseball guys DO is debate statistics, ad nauseum. It's not like all of this is set in stone.

To me, the MVP comes down to one question: who do I want at the plate when I desperately NEED a hit? Right now, that's Ortiz. Of course, I also want Brady QB'ing my team over Manning, and I suspect that most of you that want A-Rod would pick Manning. And you know what? We're both right. Because they are both very, very good at their jobs, and we're sitting here splitting hairs over fractions of a point.

Sorry, you're right. I'm saying that "Yes, statisticis can be massaged, twisted, and turned to say anything the person using them wants to say."
Use statistics to convince me that Tony Womack is a better power hitter than Alex Rodriguez.

"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain

I mean seriously, come on. As I said above, I'm surprised this point is up for debate. Even in baseball. Look at this very conversation, the whole debate centers around "which statistics are more important for the MVP race?" Which RBIs are most important, how good a measure of a hitter is BA vs OBP vs OPS vs RBI vs HR vs GWRBI, is Range at all important in measuring a fielder's contribution even if that guy is winning a Gold Glove (i.e. does he make all routine plays that come his way, but doesn't even try or come close to the difficult outs), etc?

I mean, all any of the hardcore baseball guys DO is debate statistics, ad nauseum. It's not like all of this is set in stone.

To me, the MVP comes down to one question: who do I want at the plate when I desperately NEED a hit? Right now, that's Ortiz. Of course, I also want Brady QB'ing my team over Manning, and I suspect that most of you that want A-Rod would pick Manning. And you know what? We're both right. Because they are both very, very good at their jobs, and we're sitting here splitting hairs over fractions of a point.

The fact that there are different statistics does NOT mean statistics are meaningless. The point is that some statistics are better than others and they are all just proxies for measuring performance. To dismiss statistical analysis in baseball (or any other endeavor) is just crazy talk. Your right that that this shouldn't even be up for debate - statistical analysis is wonderful tool and blanket condemnation of stats is just mathmatical ignorance.

You said you want Ortiz to be the one at bat for you right now - what do you base that on? Statistics or your gut feeling?

The fact that there are different statistics does NOT mean statistics are meaningless. The point is that some statistics are better than others and they are all just proxies for measuring performance. To dismiss statistical analysis in baseball (or any other endeavor) is just crazy talk. Your right that that this shouldn't even be up for debate - statistical analysis is wonderful tool and blanket condemnation of stats is just mathmatical ignorance.

You said you want Ortiz to be the one at bat for you right now - what do you base that on? Statistics or your gut feeling?
To expand on this a little, what Twain was talking about was how you can unfairly manipulate statistics, for instance by using small sample sizes (On August 3, ARod went 0-4 while Ortiz went 1-4, therefore Ortiz is a better hitter) or using the causation/correlation fallacy (churches are positively correlated with crime, therefore churches cause crime). When used correctly stats are extremely useful. It's science.

For an example of how you can sort of manipulate statistics, Blackader said that Ortiz had 20% more RBI's that, without them, the team wouldn't of won. As it turns out, that 20% also corresponds to the difference of total RBI's between them. So their same % of RBI's came in the situation that Blackader described.

I love these "well-reasoned" arguments for why Ortiz should be MVP over A-Rod.

For the clutch guys:

How much is that 'clutch' ability worth. 'Cause, you know, Ortiz doesn't play defense. His overall offensive numbers aren't as good as A-Rod's either.You can introduce situational value to Ortiz's and A-Rod's performance to figure out an approximate "win value" of their batting that puts their overall numbers in context, rather than just assuming that they have been situationally neutral (which is definitely not the case).

To make the Ortiz-was-so-clutch argument you have to say that his amount of 'clutchness' over A-Rod makes up for 150 extra games of excellent defense at third base as well as the 3-7% (or whatevr) better A-Rod's overall offensive numbers were.You can use an advanced defensive metric to estimate how much better (or worse) A-Rod's defense has been at third base compared to the hypothetical replacement-level player. That's what UZR used to do, before it stopped being published. There was an attempt by somebody to put together a replacement metric, but I don't recall what the verdict was on A-Rod, whether his defense was actually as good as you're claiming it to be or not.

To come to the conclusion that this clutch ability makes up for all that is asinine.You don't know that.

An interesting thought experiment, inspired by some commentary over the weekend where ESPN color guys opined that A-Rod wasn't even the most feared batter on his own team (that being Sheffield):

All other things being equal, would you walk A-Rod to get to Ortiz? Would you walk Ortiz to get to A-Rod?

Does anyone know who finished with more Game winning RBI's. Going into the final week, I think A-Rod was up by 1.

Vlad?!?!!?

Statistics are meaningless?!?!?! They can be massaged to say anything?!?!?!

Your baseball analysis is even worse than your breakdown of the Constitution. And I didn't think that was possible.

OK, let me get on my knees and kiss your feet the all-knowing, all-powerful, supreme John Galt!

Look, sure, Vlad may not have the numbers this year, but the Angels need Vlad in their lineup far more than A-Rod or Ortiz is needed in either one of the Yankees or Red Sox lineup. If that isn't the definition of more valuable, I don't know what is.

Stats can be manipulated to back up a lot of things based upon how you break them down. You know that and I know that.

OK, let me get on my knees and kiss your feet the all-knowing, all-powerful, supreme John Galt!

Look, sure, Vlad may not have the numbers this year, but the Angels need Vlad in their lineup far more than A-Rod or Ortiz is needed in either one of the Yankees or Red Sox lineup. If that isn't the definition of more valuable, I don't know what is.

Stats can be manipulated to back up a lot of things based upon how you break them down. You know that and I know that.

No I don't "know that." You seem to mistake argument with conclusions. You say Vlad is more important, but you give no warrant to support your claim. Stats give us an objective means of evaluating performance as opposed to your unsupported conclusions.

Your entire argument is "Vlad is the most valuable because he is the most valuable." That is a tautology and is wholly unsupported.

Your entire argument is "Vlad is the most valuable because he is the most valuable." That is a tautology and is wholly unsupported.

I actually I did not want to get this into a discussion of his worth because that is not the topic for the thread. I gave that tidbit of info because I don't have a dog in this fight as I am neither a Yankee or Red Sox fan. That was the point of my statement.

What I do have to back it up, was the Angels offensive production during the time he was out was significantly lower than when he was in the lineup. During that time, the Angels were in a mini-slump that they recovered only once he was back in the lineup and got back on track.

So, no, I did not say "Vlad is the most valuable because he is the most valuable." I said the Angels need him more than the Yankees or Red Sox need their guy. MVP is not about numbers, if it was all about numbers A-Rod would have multiple MVPs. It's not, it is seems to me it is a contest about what people FEEL, and try to make it a fact by presenting stats during the conversation.

The fact that there are different statistics does NOT mean statistics are meaningless. The point is that some statistics are better than others and they are all just proxies for measuring performance. To dismiss statistical analysis in baseball (or any other endeavor) is just crazy talk. Your right that that this shouldn't even be up for debate - statistical analysis is wonderful tool and blanket condemnation of stats is just mathmatical ignorance.

You said you want Ortiz to be the one at bat for you right now - what do you base that on? Statistics or your gut feeling?

congratulations. you missed his point entirely.

twice.

congratulations. you missed his point entirely.

twice.

Thanks. That's helpful.

He said: "Yes, statisticis can be massaged, twisted, and turned to say anything the person using them wants to say."

He then gave a more detailed, more nuanced reply that didn't actually endorse abandoning statistics.

I replied to his original post AND to Warhammer's. I'm fine debating which statistics are better, but saying they can say anything is just nonsense.

Tell me how I missed the point again. Twice.

congratulations. you missed his point entirely.

twice.

Actually DD, he made an inane point - and got called on it. Taking a negative stance without providing any basis for it other a simplistic understanding of statistics - the flaw is on him. Statistical evidence suggests that A-rod was better, by a lot. The burden is on the "Ortiz z proven vet A-rod suks cuz he dont win" crowd - arguing that RBI is equivalent to OPS is wrong.

Thanks. That's helpful.

He said: "Yes, statisticis can be massaged, twisted, and turned to say anything the person using them wants to say."

He then gave a more detailed, more nuanced reply that didn't actually endorse abandoning statistics.

I replied to his original post AND to Warhammer's. I'm fine debating which statistics are better, but saying they can say anything is just nonsense.

Tell me how I missed the point again. Twice.
I'll give it a shot.

The fundamental problem with statistics is that they tend to have a limited scope. Unfortunately, that limited scope usually means they have limited application. They are perfectly good for the application for which they are intended, but that is typically a very narrow usage that is only of interest to a limited number of people.

So, someone comes along and tries to make it more general. But because they are applying the stat outside of its intended bounds, it loses some of its meaning. It also means that the person broadening its scope can nudge the scope in the direction of whatever theory they are trying to prove, without technically being wrong.

The classic example that applies here: what stats tell you who is the better hitter? Answer: it depends on your definition of "what makes for a good hitter". All batting average tells you is "over the course of an entire season, how many times did this player come to the plate and reach base safely without an error or a fielder's choice being committed or a sacrifice being hit vs the number of times he was at the plate total without walking or hitting a sacrifice". You need a certain number of at-bats before this is meaningful, but even then the batters have faced different pitchers and different defenses over the season, plus the definitions of "error" and "fielder's choice" are subject to human interpretation (and often debate afterward, although moreso for error than fielder's choice). Since BA is a component of other stats, OBP and OPS have some of the same flaws. Sure, a BA of .300 tends to indicate a better hitter than a BA of .200, but what's the margin of error here? .010? .020? And how important is reaching base versus driving in runs? If you're third up in an inning early in a game with 2 outs, does it really matter if you don't reach base, since the odds of you being driven in are small? Is BA with runners in scoring position more important than BA without?

Each of these baseball stats only tells a small part of the story, and in most cases the actual stats are subject to human interpretation. Heck, strikeouts and walks are all subject to the whim of the umpire making the calls. Watching the Sox/Yanks game this weekend, they talked about how Randy Johnson was upset he wasn't getting calls he felt he "deserved", and how veteran pitchers tend to get close called strike 3s while rookies don't (much like veteran NBA players get the foul calls that young guys don't).

So with only a small part of the story and the vagaries of human interpretation, I again ask you: how the heck do statistics tell you that A-Rod is a better hitter than Ortiz, or vice-versa? I'll grant that stats can tell you that A-Rod is a better hitter than Curt Schilling (although I could also argue that Schilling's sample size is too small to be meaningful), but how can you really tell that ANY of the top 10 hitters are better than any of the others? There is too much slop in these stats to be anything more than rough approximations.

And I'll also say again: baseball afficianados (I don't put myself in this category, I'm more of a casual fan) argue the meaning of these stats all the freakin' time. They're not even clear to those who allegedly understand them fully. There's a whole thread here on this forum trying to reach a consensus on which stats to use to tell who is a better batter.

A statistic is a tool, nothing more. You use a hammer to build a house, but it's not even a big part of making that house, and if you had to you could use the butt of a screwdriver to knock in a nail. Statistics have their place, and are better than nothing (you've got to start somewhere), but to think they are gospel and not subject to human whims just because there is solid math behind them is just burying your head in the sand to the realities of this world.

P.S. Since I mention it occasionally through here, I guess I'll have my quick say in general on stats. I know that, given a properly distributed population sample, you can mathematically prove that your distribution is representative of the total population within a certain number of decimal places. That's great, but getting a properly distributed population is so much harder than it sounds. I don't trust many statistics that are thrown at me simply because I'm asked to "trust" that they used a proper sample. Frankly, in most cases, I don't. And as talked about above, this is where many baseball stats fall apart when used to compare two players that are at comparable levels.

You said you want Ortiz to be the one at bat for you right now - what do you base that on? Statistics or your gut feeling?
Here's a stat for this (since everyone wants stats): his batting average with runners in scoring position. Tells me how often he not only knocks in runs, but gets on base safely to continue the inning, thus helping generate more runs by the guys after him in the lineup. This is in line with my "gut feel" call. I'm taking this from "The Hardball Times" at http://www.hardballtimes.com/thtstats/main/index.php?view=offense&linesToDisplay=50&sortBy=baRisp&thenBy=rcPerGame&teamAbbr=Tm&leagueAbbr=AL&pos=Pos&qualified=Yes&Submit=Submit
I chose this source simply because it was the first one I found that had the data.

Interestingly, Texas seems to have the best 1-2 punch here, as Michael Young is #1 at.368, followed closely by Mark Teixeira in #2 with .366. If Texas was heading to the playoffs, would either of these guys be getting consideration for MVP? Gary Sheffield comes in third at .364, backing up all those who say he is the more feared hitter on the Yankees compared to A-Rod. Manny is #4 at .358, followed by Ortiz at #5 with .354, lending more stat credence to them being a feared 1-2 punch in the AL.

A-Rod is the FOURTH Yankee on this list (Sheffield, Matsui, and Giambi are all ahead of him) and 34th overall at .290. Not bad, but he's no Ortiz or Manny.

This is only an argument because so many people have an irrational hatred of Alex Rodriguez. He should have about 5 MVPs by now. He's far and away the best player in the AL.

An interesting thought experiment, inspired by some commentary over the weekend where ESPN color guys opined that A-Rod wasn't even the most feared batter on his own team (that being Sheffield):

All other things being equal, would you walk A-Rod to get to Ortiz? Would you walk Ortiz to get to A-Rod?
At the beginning of the season, Ortiz wasn't the most feared in his lineup either. Both Manny and Sheffield (or Giambi) are a big part of the success of Ortiz and ARod. You almost have to pitch to them because of who is in the on deck circle.

Well if we're going to have the question of which you would rather have for one at bat, how about which you would rather have nine of? Would you take a lineup (and defense) full of Papis, or a lineup full of ARods?

You can introduce situational value to Ortiz's and A-Rod's performance to figure out an approximate "win value" of their batting that puts their overall numbers in context, rather than just assuming that they have been situationally neutral (which is definitely not the case).

You can use an advanced defensive metric to estimate how much better (or worse) A-Rod's defense has been at third base compared to the hypothetical replacement-level player. That's what UZR used to do, before it stopped being published. There was an attempt by somebody to put together a replacement metric, but I don't recall what the verdict was on A-Rod, whether his defense was actually as good as you're claiming it to be or not.

You don't know that.

The point is that whatever the amount of value that A-Rod's defense has over replacement is irrelavent. When comparing him to Ortiz that's not the metric that you use.

With A-Rod vs. Ortiz, you are comparing 159 games of good-to-very-good defense at third and one game and two relief appearances of good defense at short to ten games of mediocre-to-bad defense at first. That's the problem with Ortiz being a DH.

Ortiz gives you nothing in the field. There's no way you can massage the statistics to say that Ortiz was enough of a better hitter than A-Rod to make up for 160 well-played games towards the difficult end of the defensive spectrum compared to ten games plaed poorly at the easy end of it.

Ortiz does not even give you replacement value defensively.

Looking at the 2005 Win Shares (which include the value of situational hitting) in the AL:


Rank League First Last Name Team Position Batting Pitching Fielding ExpWS WSP WSAB Total WS CWS
1 AL A Rodriguez NYA 3B 33.3 0.0 3.3 19 0.989 24 37 318
2 AL M Ramirez BOS OF 30.9 0.0 2.9 17 1.018 22 34 310
3 AL G Sheffield NYA OF 30.5 0.0 2.2 17 0.978 21 33 401
4 AL M Teixeira TEX 1B 29.1 0.0 3.3 18 0.884 20 32 69
5 AL D Ortiz BOS 1B 31.4 0.0 0.2 14 1.149 22 31 108
6 AL B Roberts BAL 2B 23.5 0.0 5.0 16 0.873 17 28 63
7 AL T Hafner CLE 1B 26.8 0.0 0.0 11 1.190 19 27 56
8 AL V Guerrero LAA OF 24.5 0.0 2.3 15 0.893 16 27 222
9 AL M Young TEX SS 23.0 0.0 4.5 18 0.753 15 27 90
10 AL R Sexson SEA 1B 25.4 0.0 1.6 17 0.789 15 27 129
11 AL M Tejada BAL SS 20.0 0.0 6.1 18 0.717 13 26 188
12 AL D Jeter NYA SS 19.6 0.0 6.0 19 0.672 12 26 245
13 AL J Giambi NYA 1B 24.5 0.0 0.6 12 1.016 16 25 261
14 AL J Peralta CLE SS 17.0 0.0 8.1 15 0.813 14 25 29
15 AL H Matsui NYA OF 22.6 0.0 2.6 18 0.711 13 25 73
16 AL J Damon BOS OF 19.9 0.0 5.7 17 0.739 13 25 195
17 AL G Sizemore CLE OF 18.2 0.0 6.4 19 0.663 12 25 30
18 AL J Lugo TB SS 18.6 0.0 5.8 17 0.699 12 24 85
19 AL P Konerko CHA 1B 21.5 0.0 2.9 17 0.712 12 24 113
20 AL I Suzuki SEA OF 19.6 0.0 4.3 19 0.631 11 24 135
21 AL M Buehrle CHA SP -0.1 23.2 0.0 13 0.922 16 23 94
22 AL J Santana MIN SP -0.5 23.1 0.0 12 0.917 15 23 80
23 AL J Mauer MIN C 13.7 0.0 9.2 14 0.802 13 23 29
24 AL C Crawford TB OF 21.0 0.0 2.2 17 0.672 11 23 63
25 AL V Martinez CLE C 16.6 0.0 5.8 16 0.679 11 22 47
26 AL C Figgins LAA 3B 16.2 0.0 5.5 19 0.586 9 22 50
27 AL J Garland CHA SP 0.3 21.1 0.0 12 0.914 14 21 60
28 AL M Ellis OAK 2B 14.2 0.0 6.8 13 0.809 12 21 53
29 AL C Crisp CLE OF 16.3 0.0 4.4 17 0.600 9 21 45
30 AL E Chavez OAK 3B 16.0 0.0 5.2 18 0.584 9 21 143


As you can see, Win Shares has A-Rod significantly ahead of Ortiz. As a matter of fact, Ramirez is much closer to A-Rod. Why? Because what he contributes in LF (even though no one says he's Roberto Clemente) is valued against the 0 Ortiz gives you on defense.

I just can't understand how some of you can't see that gigantic hole in your argument. Yes, clutch ability and even 'leadership' may have some value. But we know that defense has significant value.

BTW, I also highlighted Hafner and Figgins because they indicate where the next best production was at Ortiz and A-Rod's respective positions.

But if I wanted to make the contrast even more stark, I'd point out that There are three guys in the top 30 that play third and seven that would be capable of it-- assuming that all the shortstops could-- seven of the top thirty. There are thirty of the top thirty that could play DH.

In the great DH debate, does anyone have any studies handy, showing how hitters hit while they played DH vs when they fielded in the same season? If for instance, you were able to determine that a hitter was on average less efficient when he DH'd vs when he fielded, you could give Ortiz some "defensive" credit for playing DH.

I just wonder if the stress of fielding makes some hitters more focused at the plate(cause they are "in" the game) vs. the relative ease of DH'ing, where you wait to hit again.

Anyways, I think the anti-Yankee anti-Arod bias skews the whole mess, as Arod should win this one since he arguably played gold glove calibre 3b.

So with only a small part of the story and the vagaries of human interpretation, I again ask you: how the heck do statistics tell you that A-Rod is a better hitter than Ortiz, or vice-versa? I'll grant that stats can tell you that A-Rod is a better hitter than Curt Schilling (although I could also argue that Schilling's sample size is too small to be meaningful), but how can you really tell that ANY of the top 10 hitters are better than any of the others? There is too much slop in these stats to be anything more than rough approximations.

And I'll also say again: baseball afficianados (I don't put myself in this category, I'm more of a casual fan) argue the meaning of these stats all the freakin' time. They're not even clear to those who allegedly understand them fully. There's a whole thread here on this forum trying to reach a consensus on which stats to use to tell who is a better batter.

A statistic is a tool, nothing more. You use a hammer to build a house, but it's not even a big part of making that house, and if you had to you could use the butt of a screwdriver to knock in a nail. Statistics have their place, and are better than nothing (you've got to start somewhere), but to think they are gospel and not subject to human whims just because there is solid math behind them is just burying your head in the sand to the realities of this world.

P.S. Since I mention it occasionally through here, I guess I'll have my quick say in general on stats. I know that, given a properly distributed population sample, you can mathematically prove that your distribution is representative of the total population within a certain number of decimal places. That's great, but getting a properly distributed population is so much harder than it sounds. I don't trust many statistics that are thrown at me simply because I'm asked to "trust" that they used a proper sample. Frankly, in most cases, I don't. And as talked about above, this is where many baseball stats fall apart when used to compare two players that are at comparable levels.

You are just raising doubt about the reliability of any particular metric in evaluating performance among similar players. That is a farcry from "statisticis can be massaged, twisted, and turned to say anything the person using them wants to say." Even then, I think you are overstating your case. The point with A-Rod and Ortiz is that A-Rod beats Ortiz in virtually every category not largely dependent on luck or small sample sizes. "Clutch" hitting is not a repeatable skill and derived from very small samples. RBI's have a decent sample size, but are dependent on the actions of other players. It isn't that A-Rod's OBP is better than Ortiz that makes him a better hitter - it is that the best of the various metrics all give A-Rod an advantage. Even then, A-Rod only has to be comparable to Ortiz in this debate because of his massive advantage on defense.

Galt:

First, I don't conceed that A-Rod has any better batting stats than Ortiz. Their stats are remarkably similar. A-Rod has some advantages, Ortiz has others. You seem to want to discount the ones that Ortiz has and highlight the ones A-Rod has.

Secondly, it all comes down to what your definition of Most Valuable Player is. Is it the best player? The most valuable player in the league? The most valuable player to his team? A combination of the above? I tend to favor the combination method that's heavily weighted towards the latter, which is a bit more subjective. That's the reason I favored Steve Nash for the MVP in basketball last year and thought Irchio was a joke a few years ago over Giambi.

And no, everyone who votes against A-Rod doesn't have some sort of irrational hate of him. Actually, I think he's a very nice guy and a talented player. I simply don't think he did as much for the Yankees as Ortiz did for the Red Sox and both teams ended up with the same record. Without A-Rod, I see the Yankees still contending for the pennant. Without Ortiz, I see the Red Sox as a .500 club.

Galt:

First, I don't conceed that A-Rod has any better batting stats than Ortiz. Their stats are remarkably similar. A-Rod has some advantages, Ortiz has others. You seem to want to discount the ones that Ortiz has and highlight the ones A-Rod has.

Secondly, it all comes down to what your definition of Most Valuable Player is. Is it the best player? The most valuable player in the league? The most valuable player to his team? A combination of the above? I tend to favor the combination method that's heavily weighted towards the latter, which is a bit more subjective. That's the reason I favored Steve Nash for the MVP in basketball last year and thought Irchio was a joke a few years ago over Giambi.

And no, everyone who votes against A-Rod doesn't have some sort of irrational hate of him. Actually, I think he's a very nice guy and a talented player. I simply don't think he did as much for the Yankees as Ortiz did for the Red Sox and both teams ended up with the same record. Without A-Rod, I see the Yankees still contending for the pennant. Without Ortiz, I see the Red Sox as a .500 club.

I have no problem with the majority of your post because it's your opinion and you state as much. But the highlighted part is simply ludicrous.

Galt:

First, I don't conceed that A-Rod has any better batting stats than Ortiz. Their stats are remarkably similar. A-Rod has some advantages, Ortiz has others. You seem to want to discount the ones that Ortiz has and highlight the ones A-Rod has.

Secondly, it all comes down to what your definition of Most Valuable Player is. Is it the best player? The most valuable player in the league? The most valuable player to his team? A combination of the above? I tend to favor the combination method that's heavily weighted towards the latter, which is a bit more subjective. That's the reason I favored Steve Nash for the MVP in basketball last year and thought Irchio was a joke a few years ago over Giambi.

And no, everyone who votes against A-Rod doesn't have some sort of irrational hate of him. Actually, I think he's a very nice guy and a talented player. I simply don't think he did as much for the Yankees as Ortiz did for the Red Sox and both teams ended up with the same record. Without A-Rod, I see the Yankees still contending for the pennant. Without Ortiz, I see the Red Sox as a .500 club.


I'll try and make this reasonable Blackie - the problem is that this belief of yours comes out of fiction - the idea that without Ortiz, the Sox are a .500 team. Fun fact- the Sox scored 24 runs more than The Yanks this year. Ortiz had a lower RC number than A-rod did. Roughly speaking, if Ortiz was as good as you say he was, he ought to have somewhere in the region of 85 WS (3 Win Shares translates to a win) - which would mean he had the greatest season in the history of baseball, by some factor. Barry Bonds' 2001 season and Ruth's 1923 season end up around 50-55 WS - for some context. Wagner's 1908 was 59. And WS is a statistic that actually gives credit for performance in a higher leverage situation. You cannot make the .500 arguement with any degree of credibility.

Secondly, I'm not sure what evidence is in Ortiz' favor - any statistics that aren't context dependent (like say, RBI) are statistics where A-rod is better or at worse, equal.

You keep citing this belief that Ortiz was better in the face of all the evidence, when the basis points for this are lacking - show me some proof for this theory. The main problem with this ridiculous notion of "clutch" per se, is that it pretends everything up to that point doesnt matter - which is absurd.

You are just raising doubt about the reliability of any particular metric in evaluating performance among similar players. That is a farcry from "statisticis can be massaged, twisted, and turned to say anything the person using them wants to say."
Would it help everyone if I said "Statistics are a valuable tool that are easily misunderstood, so they are easily misused and abused, and so are often misused and abused to make a point"? And by "often" I mean pretty much every time someone throws a statistic at me. I'm always asking questions about stats that are handed to me and rarely getting good answers.

Even then, I think you are overstating your case. The point with A-Rod and Ortiz is that A-Rod beats Ortiz in virtually every category not largely dependent on luck or small sample sizes. "Clutch" hitting is not a repeatable skill and derived from very small samples. RBI's have a decent sample size, but are dependent on the actions of other players. It isn't that A-Rod's OBP is better than Ortiz that makes him a better hitter - it is that the best of the various metrics all give A-Rod an advantage. Even then, A-Rod only has to be comparable to Ortiz in this debate because of his massive advantage on defense.
The "best" of which "metrics"? I've already thrown one out there that shows Ortiz with a CLEAR advantage over A-Rod. Of course, that one also has him 5th in the AL, so it doesn't necessarily bolster his claim to MVP, but it does back up my gut feeling that when I need a run, I want Ortiz coming to the plate to knock it in. But the key here is: who decides which metrics to use? You've cherry-picked your metrics, I've cherry-picked mine.

Let me try again regarding baseball stats: once you go beyond simple stats like "Batting Average", you practically need a PhD in math to understand what the heck the stat means. Talk to fans that "follow" baseball, and I bet most could tell you what "Batting Average" means, many could tell you what "On Base Percentage" means, and only a few could tell you what "OPS" is (of course, I just threw out a stat with no backing at all, so let me say that is a gut feeling, backed up by:) There are entire BOOKS devoted to the statistical analysis of baseball. You guys argue the merits of these things all the time. What's a "Win Share" for crying out loud?

A problem I have with this entire discussion is that in order to participate in the "who is the MVP?" discussion, I have to have read all of these books and understand the ins-and-outs of a whole bunch of different statistics, some of which have only entered the modern lexicon recently, and generally be a baseball stat geek. So you've shut out what I believe is the vast majority of baseball fans simply by finding more obscure stats to throw into the mix that have more complex definitions. I hope I've given enough info above to show that I at least understand the nuances of batting average and other "basic" stats to prevent someone from saying "oh, he hates this because he doesn't understand it" and get you to see what I'm actually saying: most of these stats you throw around in this dicussion are only meaningful to those who have spent significant time studying what they mean and represent, and are not meaningful to the much larger population who might actually care who the "MVP" is. And those of you who DO study the heck out of this stuff can't even come to an agreement. But I'm supposed to sit here and take it while you say things like "Trust me, win share shows how valuable so-and-so is to his team".

As said MUCH earlier in this thread, if stats were such a crucial part of this discussion and so cut-and-dried, you guys could come up with a "magic formula" along the lines of the NFL Quarterback rating that would tell you who the MVP is, and allow you to keep track throughout the year of the MVP race. You can't do it, and then you get mad when people try to throw "intangibles" into the mix because those can't be proven. But stats are clearly only a part of this discussion.

I'll try and make this reasonable Blackie - the problem is that this belief of yours comes out of fiction - the idea that without Ortiz, the Sox are a .500 team. Fun fact- the Sox scored 24 runs more than The Yanks this year. Ortiz had a lower RC number than A-rod did. Roughly speaking, if Ortiz was as good as you say he was, he ought to have somewhere in the region of 85 WS (3 Win Shares translates to a win) - which would mean he had the greatest season in the history of baseball, by some factor. Barry Bonds' 2001 season and Ruth's 1923 season end up around 50-55 WS - for some context. Wagner's 1908 was 59. And WS is a statistic that actually gives credit for performance in a higher leverage situation. You cannot make the .500 arguement with any degree of credibility.

Secondly, I'm not sure what evidence is in Ortiz' favor - any statistics that aren't context dependent (like say, RBI) are statistics where A-rod is better or at worse, equal.

You keep citing this belief that Ortiz was better in the face of all the evidence, when the basis points for this are lacking - show me some proof for this theory. The main problem with this ridiculous notion of "clutch" per se, is that it pretends everything up to that point doesnt matter - which is absurd.

If you don't believe in clutch, then you don't believe in it. I'm a firm believer in it - Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, Adam Vinetari, Joe Montana, etc. There are guys who you simply want on your team when the game is on the line. If you want to believe that raw statistics determine wins and losses, so be it.

Ortiz' RBIs made the difference in 20 of the Red Sox wins. I'm not talking about "game winning RBIs", which is an absurd statistic where someone gets credited for a winning RBI in a 10-1 rout. I'm talking about a game where the RBIs from a player were the difference in the final score of the game. I'n talking about stepping up to the plate and getting someone over home plate to add a run to your teams' total. "Context dependent"? The whole game is context dependent.

Given Ortiz' amazing statistics both in "late and close" games AND the difference-making RBIs, there's a pretty strong circumstantial case that Ortiz made the difference in many of the Red Sox wins.

The challenge is that we're playing "what if" scenarios. But given the disruptions in the Red Sox clubhouse this year, their pitching woes and the like, what happens if Ortiz DOESN'T get those huge momentum-shifting hits? What happens if he doesn't give his team the emotional boost it needs with his timely, game-winning RBIs? What happens to the clubhouse if he doesn't have the calming influence he has? It's my belief that the Red Sox would have folded.

Is there any factual way to answer any of these questions? No. There are no statistics that can prove that someone else wouldn't have performed as well as Ortiz in these emotional situations. There's no way to determine what would have happened to the Red Sox clubhouse if Ortiz wasn't there. However, reasonable speculations can be made by the words of the players, managers and press. Reasonable assumptions can be made by comparing his performance to the performances of other players. Reasonable assumptions can be made from what I've seen on the field.


I guess what it boils down to is that I'm a firm believer in "intangibles" and things that can't be quantified by statistics. Much like the statistics that say a "bullpen by committee" is better than having one closer or the statistics that suggest you should almost never punt on 4th down, there are other things that go into winning and losing that can't be statistically analyized. Both of those items are supposed to be statistically correct, yet the teams that try them lose. You know why? Because statistics don't mean a damn thing when there's two men on, two men out and you're down by a run in the bottom of the 9th inning. What you're suggesting is that the hit I get at that point doesn't mean any more than any other hit that year. What I believe is that hit means everything.

If this was Ortiz vs. 'anybody not on the Yankees' there would not even be a debate here. ARod brings the most astonishing claims and the most bizarre and mundane and meanlingless stats to the forefront. What last MVP discussion brought up BA with RISP with 2 outs in the 7th, 8th and 9th innings before? And I love the leadership skills arguements...you mean professionals and well paid guys like Manny, Damon, Varitek, Schilling, etc... need Ortiz to pump them up in the lockerroom in order for the Sox to win? Heh, funny stuff.

If you don't believe in clutch, then you don't believe in it. I'm a firm believer in it - Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, Adam Vinetari, Joe Montana, etc. There are guys who you simply want on your team when the game is on the line. If you want to believe that raw statistics determine wins and losses, so be it.

There is a big difference between baseball and other sports. If "clutch" were really a baseball skill, then it should be repeatable. Players who are "clutch" should be so from year-to-year or for their whole career. Unfortunately, when you look at baseball, you see clutch leaders being clutch dogs the next. When you look at career totals, you see a pretty normal distribution curve.

I believe in clutch players in football and basketball. I don't, however, believe in clutch hitters for baseball. I may even believe in clutch pitchers for baseball (not based on W-L like the Jack Morris defenders) - that is still an open question. However, for baseball hitters, the evidence has convinced me that "clutch" is really luck * opportunity and is based on small sample sizes.

If this was Ortiz vs. 'anybody not on the Yankees' there would not even be a debate here. ARod brings the most astonishing claims and the most bizarre and mundane and meanlingless stats to the forefront. What last MVP discussion brought up BA with RISP with 2 outs in the 7th, 8th and 9th innings before? And I love the leadership skills arguements...you mean professionals and well paid guys like Manny, Damon, Varitek, Schilling, etc... need Ortiz to pump them up in the lockerroom in order for the Sox to win? Heh, funny stuff.

Manny? A professional? LOL!

Wellpaid ≠ Professional

There is a big difference between baseball and other sports. If "clutch" were really a baseball skill, then it should be repeatable. Players who are "clutch" should be so from year-to-year or for their whole career. Unfortunately, when you look at baseball, you see clutch leaders being clutch dogs the next. When you look at career totals, you see a pretty normal distribution curve.

I believe in clutch players in football and basketball. I don't, however, believe in clutch hitters for baseball. I may even believe in clutch pitchers for baseball (not based on W-L like the Jack Morris defenders) - that is still an open question. However, for baseball hitters, the evidence has convinced me that "clutch" is really luck * opportunity and is based on small sample sizes.

Oh, so you believe in it for other sports but not for baseball? Why would baseball be any different?

There is a big difference between baseball and other sports. If "clutch" were really a baseball skill, then it should be repeatable. Players who are "clutch" should be so from year-to-year or for their whole career. Unfortunately, when you look at baseball, you see clutch leaders being clutch dogs the next. When you look at career totals, you see a pretty normal distribution curve.

I believe in clutch players in football and basketball. I don't, however, believe in clutch hitters for baseball. I may even believe in clutch pitchers for baseball (not based on W-L like the Jack Morris defenders) - that is still an open question. However, for baseball hitters, the evidence has convinced me that "clutch" is really luck * opportunity and is based on small sample sizes.
Or maybe "clutch" in baseball takes so much out of you mentally (because clutch is a very mental skill) that it's difficult to be so over a single 162-game season (+ playoffs), let alone over multiple such seasons? Basketball is half that, and football is only 16 games + playoffs (a max of 20 games). Perhaps baseball hitters have so much trouble maintaining "clutch" because it is so difficult to be at that peak level for so long, day-in-and-day-out?

Oh, so you believe in it for other sports but not for baseball? Why would baseball be any different?

A couple points:

1) The most important reason - year to year stats show baseball hitting is different. A "clutch" player one year doesn't repeat the skill over the long term.

2) Baseball hitting is an extremely quick, focused event that is repeated many, many times. It is not a long drive down the football field. It isn't even a shoot at the basket (which doesn't involve someone throwing a ball at you). It is about hitting a ball traveling at 90+ MPH in such a way that it avoids the players on the field (or leaves the park). I think it is reasonable to say Joe Montana saved his best for the end of the game. I think it is unreasonable to say a player at the plate really swings much different in a given situation. The swing is practiced over and over and over again. The ability to hit it is a rare one and I don't think any player will be that much better or worse in a given situation (although they will go on hot and cold streaks over longer periods of time).

2) is just my speculation. 1) is the reason I have to speculate. Stats have convinced me that clutch hitters don't exist. Perhaps someone will show that clutch shooters don't exist - I doubt it, but if they do, I will believe it. I doubt anyone will ever show clutch football players don't exist because you will always have small sample sizes.

Or maybe "clutch" in baseball takes so much out of you mentally (because clutch is a very mental skill) that it's difficult to be so over a single 162-game season (+ playoffs), let alone over multiple such seasons? Basketball is half that, and football is only 16 games + playoffs (a max of 20 games). Perhaps baseball hitters have so much trouble maintaining "clutch" because it is so difficult to be at that peak level for so long, day-in-and-day-out?

I have a hard time buying the mental drain explanation. When you look at player's "clutch" stats over the long term, you find an amazing thing - they usually match their stats in "non-clutch" situations. Why would someone save their "mental energy" for clutch situations one year, but not be able to do it another year? Was the mental energy drain so great from 1999, that they couldn't manage it for 2000 (yet they were somehow able to maintain it for all of 1999)? Occam's Razor makes me think this explanation doesn't work.

Of course John, some studies suggests clutch hitting does exist.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050506140903.htm

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

Of course John, some studies suggests clutch hitting does exist.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050506140903.htm

Come on - anyone can do a google search. Without access to his data, it is impossible to trust the conclusions. He used a relatively small sample size (only 3 years). There is no evidence he controlled properly, assumed a normal distribution curve, and/or didn't distort the sample with sacrifice hits (if he included bunts especially, that is a major problem). The best studies I've seen (you can read them at Baseball Prospectus, Baseball Primer, or many other sites) show no repeatable clutch skill. If someone proves otherwise, I'll be happy to change my mind.

edit: I posted when you only included the first article. I'm reading the second article which actually seems to contain data and methodology now.

Come on - anyone can do a google search. Without access to his data, it is impossible to trust the conclusions. He used a relatively small sample size (only 3 years). There is no evidence he controlled properly, assumed a normal distribution curve, and/or didn't distort the sample with sacrifice hits (if he included bunts especially, that is a major problem). The best studies I've seen (you can read them at Baseball Prospectus, Baseball Primer, or many other sites) show no repeatable clutch skill. If someone proves otherwise, I'll be happy to change my mind.

edit: I posted when you only included the first article. I'm reading the second article which actually seems to contain data and methodology now.

I know you're reading the 2nd article, but the first guy did it for 1,000 players over 18 seasons. That's NOT a small sample size.

Come on - anyone can do a google search. Without access to his data, it is impossible to trust the conclusions. He used a relatively small sample size (only 3 years). There is no evidence he controlled properly, assumed a normal distribution curve, and/or didn't distort the sample with sacrifice hits (if he included bunts especially, that is a major problem). The best studies I've seen (you can read them at Baseball Prospectus, Baseball Primer, or many other sites) show no repeatable clutch skill. If someone proves otherwise, I'll be happy to change my mind.

edit: I posted when you only included the first article. I'm reading the second article which actually seems to contain data and methodology now.
Thank-you for making my point. Statistics by themselves are meaningless. It requires research to determine if they are any good. And most people simply do not have the time, patience, energy, or skill to do this for every statistic thrown at them. Which makes it very easy for people to throw statistics around and hope most people just "trust" them.

I know you're reading the 2nd article, but the first guy did it for 1,000 players over 18 seasons. That's NOT a small sample size.

Ooops. You are right. For some reason, I read it as 1972-74. My other objections still stand.

I realized I've read the Dolphinsim study before when it was on Baseball Primer. I can't remember the objectins other people had, although I expect they are available somewhere. The problems I have are:

1) In the initial study, he counts all "good" outcomes equally. A single, a walk, and a homer are all the same. It is not a surprise then that he initially shows power hitters "choke" because power is correlated with striking out. Under his system, I bet Ortiz is actually a choke player.

2) He then says he gets similar results when switching to SLG. However, I bet who is a "clutch" player is now totally different (Ozzie Smith won't be a leader). However, he doesn't provide us the info here, so the better of the two studies isn't much help.

3) It's not clear SLG helps things because it ignores BB which was part of his initial study (since unintentional walks are said to be "clutch" under his initial definition).

Basically, by the end of the study, he was offered two opposite definitions of "clutch" (one favoring power hitters and one favoring singles hitters) and never done anything like do it for OPS. That makes the study a little suspect.

I'm also concerned that the data still isn't there. It seems odd to think (as his conclusions show) that the best "clutch" players are actually the worst normal hitters. The so-called "good" hitters are almost always "choke" artists. This could be because the other team uses their best pitchers in these situations (and dolphinsim makes no effort to adjust for pitcher quality), but I'm not sure if that would account for the difference.

Basically, this study has got some weird holes in it and was performed rather haphazardly. It was an interesting read when I read it a while back, but it has major problems.

Thank-you for making my point. Statistics by themselves are meaningless. It requires research to determine if they are any good. And most people simply do not have the time, patience, energy, or skill to do this for every statistic thrown at them. Which makes it very easy for people to throw statistics around and hope most people just "trust" them.

Premise: Statistics are hard to understand - they may even require a PhD
Conclusion: Statistics by themselves are meaningless.

The conclusion does not follow from the premise (even if we accept it as true). That things are hard to understand does NOT mean those things are meaningless.

Well, I've pointed out two different studies that suggests "clutch" players do exist. I'm sure you can point to two that say they don't. Oh well....I guess we'll see how it all turns out.

However, let me leave you with this tidbit. I've looked back at A-Rod's career...and for the last 4 years, the guy has underperformed vs. his normal statistics in these "clutch" situations. :D

Manny? A professional? LOL!


Professionals by definition are paid to do their job, and I was pointing out that these guys are well-paid. Knowing that their next contract depends on their production is all the motivation they need. I highly doubt Ortiz (or any supposed team leader) makes all that much of a difference. There are some players who take on a mentor to younger players and show them the right way to do things and the right way to conduct themselves. Ruben Sierra does that for the Yankees now (I know, hard to believe) and I don't think he brings anything to the Yankees.

Jeter is the supposed leader of the Yankees, but how many times have you heard that the Yankees would have won just as many or even more WS with an average shortstop?

I think whether or not Ortiz can repeat his clutch ability of this season is irrelevant. He did it this year. He gets credit for that. But his offensive numbers still don't add up to A-Rod's.

I'll reprint the Win Shares listing. Win Shares take into account how well a player did in 'clutch' situations.

Looking at the 2005 Win Shares (which include the value of situational hitting) in the AL:


Rank League First Last Name Team Position Batting Pitching Fielding ExpWS WSP WSAB Total WS CWS
1 AL A Rodriguez NYA 3B 33.3 0.0 3.3 19 0.989 24 37 318
2 AL M Ramirez BOS OF 30.9 0.0 2.9 17 1.018 22 34 310
3 AL G Sheffield NYA OF 30.5 0.0 2.2 17 0.978 21 33 401
4 AL M Teixeira TEX 1B 29.1 0.0 3.3 18 0.884 20 32 69
5 AL D Ortiz BOS 1B 31.4 0.0 0.2 14 1.149 22 31 108
6 AL B Roberts BAL 2B 23.5 0.0 5.0 16 0.873 17 28 63
7 AL T Hafner CLE 1B 26.8 0.0 0.0 11 1.190 19 27 56
8 AL V Guerrero LAA OF 24.5 0.0 2.3 15 0.893 16 27 222
9 AL M Young TEX SS 23.0 0.0 4.5 18 0.753 15 27 90
10 AL R Sexson SEA 1B 25.4 0.0 1.6 17 0.789 15 27 129
11 AL M Tejada BAL SS 20.0 0.0 6.1 18 0.717 13 26 188
12 AL D Jeter NYA SS 19.6 0.0 6.0 19 0.672 12 26 245
13 AL J Giambi NYA 1B 24.5 0.0 0.6 12 1.016 16 25 261
14 AL J Peralta CLE SS 17.0 0.0 8.1 15 0.813 14 25 29
15 AL H Matsui NYA OF 22.6 0.0 2.6 18 0.711 13 25 73
16 AL J Damon BOS OF 19.9 0.0 5.7 17 0.739 13 25 195
17 AL G Sizemore CLE OF 18.2 0.0 6.4 19 0.663 12 25 30
18 AL J Lugo TB SS 18.6 0.0 5.8 17 0.699 12 24 85
19 AL P Konerko CHA 1B 21.5 0.0 2.9 17 0.712 12 24 113
20 AL I Suzuki SEA OF 19.6 0.0 4.3 19 0.631 11 24 135
21 AL M Buehrle CHA SP -0.1 23.2 0.0 13 0.922 16 23 94
22 AL J Santana MIN SP -0.5 23.1 0.0 12 0.917 15 23 80
23 AL J Mauer MIN C 13.7 0.0 9.2 14 0.802 13 23 29
24 AL C Crawford TB OF 21.0 0.0 2.2 17 0.672 11 23 63
25 AL V Martinez CLE C 16.6 0.0 5.8 16 0.679 11 22 47
26 AL C Figgins LAA 3B 16.2 0.0 5.5 19 0.586 9 22 50
27 AL J Garland CHA SP 0.3 21.1 0.0 12 0.914 14 21 60
28 AL M Ellis OAK 2B 14.2 0.0 6.8 13 0.809 12 21 53
29 AL C Crisp CLE OF 16.3 0.0 4.4 17 0.600 9 21 45
30 AL E Chavez OAK 3B 16.0 0.0 5.2 18 0.584 9 21 143


As you can see, Win Shares has A-Rod significantly ahead of Ortiz. As a matter of fact, Ramirez is much closer to A-Rod. Why? Because what he contributes in LF (even though no one says he's Roberto Clemente) is valued against the 0 Ortiz gives you on defense.

I just can't understand how some of you can't see that gigantic hole in your argument. Yes, clutch ability and even 'leadership' may have some value. But we know that defense has significant value.

BTW, I also highlighted Hafner and Figgins because they indicate where the next best production was at Ortiz and A-Rod's respective positions.

But if I wanted to make the contrast even more stark, I'd point out that There are three guys in the top 30 that play third and seven that would be capable of it-- assuming that all the shortstops could-- seven of the top thirty. There are thirty of the top thirty that could play DH.

Premise: Statistics are hard to understand - they may even require a PhD
Conclusion: Statistics by themselves are meaningless.

The conclusion does not follow from the premise (even if we accept it as true). That things are hard to understand does NOT mean those things are meaningless.
I believe you are mis-wording my premise:

Premise: It requires a PhD or equivalent to determine if a statistic presented to you is valid.
Conclusion 1: The vast majority of the population do not have PhD or equivalent knowledge of math, let alone statistics, and therefore cannot determine if any statistic presented to them is valid.
Conclusion 2: Because the vast majority of people they are presented to cannot determine their validity, statistics are an easy tool to use for convincing others of a point-of-view regardless of their applicability to the situation at hand.
Conclusin 3: Statistics are meaningless to the general population because the good, solid, valid numbers are lost in a sea of misinformation.

This is unlike most scientific theories / presentations where there is at least the concept of "peer review", where we're told we can trust the theory because a preponderence of people who do understand the material have investigated and found it credible. With most "statistics" we are presented with, no such review occurs until long after the announcement. And quite often, the research and methodology used is not available to even those who would know enough to critique it.

Heck, the first paper above you're debunking comes from a known academic institution (University of Pennsylvania), and yet you're saying we can't trust it.

I think whether or not Ortiz can repeat his clutch ability of this season is irrelevant. He did it this year. He gets credit for that. But his offensive numbers still don't add up to A-Rod's.

I'll reprint the Win Shares listing. Win Shares take into account how well a player did in 'clutch' situations.

I did say I give a bonus to Ortiz for his clutch/luck hitting, but I think it is a stat that should not be overvalued in MVP determination because it is mostly a product of luck and opportunity (which aren't really things that I think should be rewarded). But I agree that it still counts for something.

I believe you are mis-wording my premise:

Premise: It requires a PhD or equivalent to determine if a statistic presented to you is valid.
Conclusion 1: The vast majority of the population do not have PhD or equivalent knowledge of math, let alone statistics, and therefore cannot determine if any statistic presented to them is valid.
Conclusion 2: Because the vast majority of people they are presented to cannot determine their validity, statistics are an easy tool to use for convincing others of a point-of-view regardless of their applicability to the situation at hand.
Conclusin 3: Statistics are meaningless to the general population because the good, solid, valid numbers are lost in a sea of misinformation.

This is unlike most scientific theories / presentations where there is at least the concept of "peer review", where we're told we can trust the theory because a preponderence of people who do understand the material have investigated and found it credible. With most "statistics" we are presented with, no such review occurs until long after the announcement. And quite often, the research and methodology used is not available to even those who would know enough to critique it.

Heck, the first paper above you're debunking comes from a known academic institution (University of Pennsylvania), and yet you're saying we can't trust it.

Statistics are meaningless is vastly different than statistics are meaningless to general population. The reason they are meaningless to most people is they don't understand them. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be used - it means people should learn to understand them.

As for my dismissal of the first study, it was because it didn't contain data or methodology. Shoddy works comes out of every institution (especially by graduate students) - that is why people need to learn math and stats so that authority of an institution doesn't hold force.

I said

Statistics are meaningless is vastly different than statistics are meaningless to general population. The reason they are meaningless to most people is they don't understand them. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be used - it means people should learn to understand them.
I would argue that this is an unrealistic expectation. Statistics require enough knowledge that I would put it above the level of "every driver should know how to change their own oil and how to change a flat" to the equivalent of "every driver should know how to install a new radio in their car" or something similar. It just won't happen to the general population.

Instead, you need something like the peer-review system applied to scientific articles that lets people know that a certain amount of effort went in to having someone else verify the methodology, someone who had the time and knowledge to do so. I mean, I'm someone who has the math background to understand statistics, but since most aren't presented to me with methodology or data backing them up made available, I still have to not trust them. Or in other words, the vast majority of statistics presented to me on a daily basis are presented like that University of Pennsylvania study you so quickly dismissed above.

popsicle headache

If Ortiz is so clutch, then shouldn't his clutch numbers raise his overall statistics well beyond those of Rodriguez. To me, by looking at the end of the season numbers and arguing that Ortiz is "that" much more clutch than Rodriguez, you are also arguing that Rodriguez is "that" much better than Ortiz when there are fewer than 2 outs, or before the 9th inning.

By the way, following this debate and tracking stats, I just noticed what an incredible season Manny Ramirez had.

I believe you are mis-wording my premise:

Premise: It requires a PhD or equivalent to determine if a statistic presented to you is valid.
Conclusion 1: The vast majority of the population do not have PhD or equivalent knowledge of math, let alone statistics, and therefore cannot determine if any statistic presented to them is valid.
Conclusion 2: Because the vast majority of people they are presented to cannot determine their validity, statistics are an easy tool to use for convincing others of a point-of-view regardless of their applicability to the situation at hand.
Conclusin 3: Statistics are meaningless to the general population because the good, solid, valid numbers are lost in a sea of misinformation.

This is unlike most scientific theories / presentations where there is at least the concept of "peer review", where we're told we can trust the theory because a preponderence of people who do understand the material have investigated and found it credible. With most "statistics" we are presented with, no such review occurs until long after the announcement. And quite often, the research and methodology used is not available to even those who would know enough to critique it.

Heck, the first paper above you're debunking comes from a known academic institution (University of Pennsylvania), and yet you're saying we can't trust it.

Let me at least disagree with the first premise. I have a Finance/BA degree and some statistical grounding, and I understand the majority of the statistics out there. Some, like Win Shares, are a fairly long and drawn out procedure, but their underlying logic is perfectly sound. Most sabremetric proponets I know are at least somewhat mathematically inclined, but they are by no means PhD's. It doesnt take a PHd to understand that OPS correlates better with RC and Runs than batting average does. It doesnt take a Phd to understand that fundementally, there is such a thing as a replacement level talent - this is basic statistical grounding, the kind most people get in high school. While I accept the premise that a lot of statistics are getting more complicated, the underlying premises are still fairly simple to grasp for anyone with the intellectual capacity to do so. I simply refuse to dismiss something that's fairly simply because people have an aversion to mathetmatical grounding/

Regarding clutch players: I think we can all agree that there are players out there that are not clutch players. Therefore, since I can tell you someone who lacks certain characteristics, then there must be players who either potentially or actually posses those characteristics.

I can tell you from my own experience that there is such a thing as clutch performances. Why do we value 4th Qtr comebacks in football? Why do we talk about players that can execute the 2 minute drill? Because some players do perform better than others in those circumstances!

Taking this back to the MVP discussion, people were talking earlier about runs in the first few innings being just as important as those in the later innings. That is correct, provided you win the game (i.e. getting beat 16-2 and scoring 2 runs in the 9th is pretty meaningless...). However, scoring runs late in games when you are losing is very important, and the fact that some players perform better in such situations is important as well.

When you are losing 1-0 after the top of the first, it is not a big deal. Why? You still have 9 at bats to make up the deficit. Each player basically has 3 or 4 chances to put the ball in play and possibly make something happen. However, in the later innings, each player may only have one opportunity to make something happen. What happens? They begin to press, and they make mistakes. Imagine yourself at work, working under a deadline performing an every day task, if it takes an hour for you to do this task, and you have 8 hours to get it done, chances are you will perform it well. It is something that you have done countless times before, and you can take your time with it. Now, let's say you have one hour to get that one hour job done, some people give themselves undue pressure to get the job done. They begin to make mistakes. The same thing happens in baseball. Its the bottom of the 9th, you are down a run, two runners are on, and there are two outs. Are you thinking about whether the pitcher is setting you up for his slider? Or, are you thinking that you need to put the ball in play, and you have to put it in play, and make contact, and....

My conclusion is that runs scored in the late innings are more important not because they are more important in and of themselves, but rather in when they are scored. This is because you have fewer chances late in the game to score additional runs. Therefore, you need to make the most of your opportunities. Some people fall apart when they have limited opportunities to do something, others perform equally well, and others thrive in those sorts of situations.

Some people fall apart when they have limited opportunities to do something,

You are absolutly correct and they even have a name for these people: Career Minor Leaguers

My conclusion is that runs scored in the late innings are more important not because they are more important in and of themselves, but rather in when they are scored. This is because you have fewer chances late in the game to score additional runs. Therefore, you need to make the most of your opportunities. Some people fall apart when they have limited opportunities to do something, others perform equally well, and others thrive in those sorts of situations.
You have just as much opportunity to score a run in the 1st inning as you do in the 9th.

You have just as much opportunity to score a run in the 1st inning as you do in the 9th.


Not if you bat 9th!

Not if you bat 9th!
Ok then 3rd and 9th.

At the beginning of the season, Ortiz wasn't the most feared in his lineup either. Both Manny and Sheffield (or Giambi) are a big part of the success of Ortiz and ARod. You almost have to pitch to them because of who is in the on deck circle. And yet, toward the end of the season, I remember Ortiz getting walked to face Manny, which was part of my point. I agree that going into the season, Manny was expected to be the guy other teams worried about more, and I think that it says something that the perspective changed by the end of the season, in spite of yet another outstanding season at the plate by Manny.

So with only a small part of the story and the vagaries of human interpretation, I again ask you: how the heck do statistics tell you that A-Rod is a better hitter than Ortiz, or vice-versa? There are two issues here:
1. Since we're discussing the MVP, the issue isn't so much who the better player is, as who played better last year. We have 100% confidence in the actual results we observed in the field, so the issues you raised with error bars and confidence and the like don't apply, IMO.

2. The question you raise seems to be, basically, how much confidence can we have in the descriptive value of baseball statistics as an indicator of the "true" ability of a player? I can't answer that directly, but I can posit that if we have statistics that have been found to have good predictive value for future performance, and we find that one player (let's call him A-Rod, for the sake of argument) consistently outperforms another (say, Ortiz) in those statistics, then even on a slim margin we might have some confidence in saying that A-Rod is a better player than Ortiz.

Having made that argument, I think the margin is slim enough that, given that Ortiz seems to be just peaking, we really can't be sure which player is better going forward, but I don't think you need a margin as extreme as A-Rod vs. Schilling; I'd be comfortable saying that A-Rod is a better player than anybody on the Sox not named Manny or Papi.

The point is that whatever the amount of value that A-Rod's defense has over replacement is irrelavent. When comparing him to Ortiz that's not the metric that you use. Bullshit. A-Rod's defense doesn't occur in a vacuum -- if he wasn't playing, there would be a replacement-level player there (actually, probably better than that considering it's the Yankees, but I'll pass over that). It's theoretically possible to quantify how many runs A-Rod has saved (or extra runs he has allowed) over a replacement-level third baseman, and this is all a positive (or a negative) in the ledger for him compared to Ortiz who essentially hasn't played in the field at all.

Ortiz gives you nothing in the field. There's no way you can massage the statistics to say that Ortiz was enough of a better hitter than A-Rod to make up for 160 well-played games towards the difficult end of the defensive spectrum compared to ten games plaed poorly at the easy end of it. I don't know whether that's true or not. I'm not suggesting "massaging" statistics, either... I'm suggesting that taking context into account may give Ortiz a significant boost in terms of offense vs. A-Rod (compared to context-neutral metrics which assume, incorrectly in this case, that production averages out to be context-neutral), and I'm saying that I don't know if that is sufficient to overcome the defensive difference.

Ortiz does not even give you replacement value defensively. I think he's played few enough games in the field that this is negligible.

Looking at the 2005 Win Shares (which include the value of situational hitting) in the AL:I'll defer argument on this basis until I've seen whether there are any rebuttals from people who are knowledgeable enough to rebut. I know enough to set up the parameters of the argument, but I don't know enough or have enough information to carry it through myself. In particular, I'd feel more comfortable working from something like UZR as far as fielding contribution is concerned. Provisionally, I do think that this is a very strong argument in favor of A-Rod.

"Clutch" hitting is not a repeatable skill and derived from very small samples.While that's obviously an issue in terms of choosing which player is likely to perform better going forward, I disagree with the implied assertion that it has no value assessing what happened during the past season.

Much like the statistics that say a "bullpen by committee" is better than having one closer... That's a misstatement of James's argument, which is to say that it's turned into a popular straw man.

While that's obviously an issue in terms of choosing which player is likely to perform better going forward, I disagree with the implied assertion that it has no value assessing what happened during the past season.

I did not say it had no value. I said it had less value because it was largely a product of luck and opportunity. I think some bonus should be afforded to doing well in the right place at the right time.

Regarding clutch players: I think we can all agree that there are players out there that are not clutch players. Therefore, since I can tell you someone who lacks certain characteristics, then there must be players who either potentially or actually posses those characteristics.
...
Some people fall apart when they have limited opportunities to do something, others perform equally well, and others thrive in those sorts of situations.

It's as though you didn't read anyone's posts. Your conclusions are the same as your arguments. No one has agreed that some players are anti-clutch at the Major League level (usually the people that can't handle the pressure don't make it to the Majors or last very long). Even if you take that as the case, it does not follow that there are also clutch hitters (both don't have to exist). And you offer nothing to rebut statistical evidence that players don't maintain clutch ability over the long term (which shows it is more a product of small sample sizes in a given season than an actual skill).

You have just as much opportunity to score a run in the 1st inning as you do in the 9th.

No argument, I was not talking about your opportunities to score in a SINGLE inning but in the rest of the game. So, in the first inning, you have say 3 or 4 chances to score (based upon 3 or 4 ABs for the game), but once you get into the late innings you only have one, possibly two, ABs. That means fewer chances.

If you are given a 20 pitches to hit the ball out of the park (and you are told this, controlled setting, etc.) the first 15 or so pitches you are going to be loose and taking your swings. However, after that 15th pitch, some people are going to start thinking that they only have 5 more chances and they need to make those chances count.

Just like in basketball, when you are down 7 points with 8 minutes left to play, you have some time to make up the points. But, when you're down 7 points with 2 minutes left, it's a different ball game.

Your conclusions are the same as your arguments. No one has agreed that some players are anti-clutch at the Major League level (usually the people that can't handle the pressure don't make it to the Majors or last very long).

Go back and read the first page of the thread, it looks as though you are the one who is not reading posts. The first page is all about whether or not there are clutch players, clutch ability, clutch hitting, etc.

Even if you take that as the case, it does not follow that there are also clutch hitters (both don't have to exist).

I will disagree with that. If there are players who are not "clutch" players, then there are those who perform better in the "clutch". Those players become the "clutch" players for that era. "Clutch" is a comparative description, there is no single item that says if a player bats .395 with players in scoring position that he is clutch, because if he is batting .450 for the year he actually suffers in that situation. Conversely, someone who bats .290 for the year, but bats .395 with runners in scoring position he is a better "clutch" hitter, because he performs better in those situations than normal.

Since it is a comparative term, you will always have "clutch" players and "chokers".

And you offer nothing to rebut statistical evidence that players don't maintain clutch ability over the long term (which shows it is more a product of small sample sizes in a given season than an actual skill).

OK, let's look at a 3 season span for Ortiz:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/splits?statsId=5909&type=batting3

For those three years, his batting average is .297. However, with runners in scoring position he is batting .328 over that time frame with 461 ABs. Let's look at the close and late situation, he's batting .326 with 221 ABs. Over this 3 year time frame, those 461ABs is equal to 28% of his total ABs. Those 221 ABs are about 14% of his ABs, both those numbers are a good sample size.

Looking at his 1631 ABs and 119 HRs, he hits a HR in about 7% of his ABs. In the close and late situational he hits a HR in 10% of his ABs! That is almost doubling his HR rate! Additionally, his SLG % is 174 points higher in the C&L situation, but 45 points lower when runners are in scoring position.

Given the overall look at this, he is considerably better in these situations than he is normally. Therefore, he is better in the clutch.

Look at A-Rod's numbers this year and over the last three years in these situations, Ortiz's numbers are better across the board. A-Rod's numbers are lower than what you would expect from a normal situation which backs up the rep he had in Texas of padding his numbers in meaningless situations and games.

A-Rod's stats
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/splits?statsId=5275&type=batting3

No argument, I was not talking about your opportunities to score in a SINGLE inning but in the rest of the game. So, in the first inning, you have say 3 or 4 chances to score (based upon 3 or 4 ABs for the game), but once you get into the late innings you only have one, possibly two, ABs. That means fewer chances.

If you are given a 20 pitches to hit the ball out of the park (and you are told this, controlled setting, etc.) the first 15 or so pitches you are going to be loose and taking your swings. However, after that 15th pitch, some people are going to start thinking that they only have 5 more chances and they need to make those chances count.

Just like in basketball, when you are down 7 points with 8 minutes left to play, you have some time to make up the points. But, when you're down 7 points with 2 minutes left, it's a different ball game.

Pursuant to this, you could argue that unless you score more runs than the other team, all of those runs scored in a game are meaningless. In baseball a win is a win, and a loss is a loss. Unlike football or hockey where point differential and points scored are tie breakers at the end of the season.

Therefore, it is arguable that the most important run in a game is the one that puts the other team in the lead. Since an early lead gives the other team more chances to score runs later in the game, you could argue that an early lead is not that important, but becomes more important as the game goes on (if you are down 1-0 prior to your first at bat, your team still has a minimum of 27 chances to make up that run, whereas in the 7th inning, you only have another 9 chances to make up that same run). Therefore, having a player that has higher batting statistics in clutch situations is preferable to those that don't.

Go back and read the first page of the thread, it looks as though you are the one who is not reading posts. The first page is all about whether or not there are clutch players, clutch ability, clutch hitting, etc.



I will disagree with that. If there are players who are not "clutch" players, then there are those who perform better in the "clutch". Those players become the "clutch" players for that era. "Clutch" is a comparative description, there is no single item that says if a player bats .395 with players in scoring position that he is clutch, because if he is batting .450 for the year he actually suffers in that situation. Conversely, someone who bats .290 for the year, but bats .395 with runners in scoring position he is a better "clutch" hitter, because he performs better in those situations than normal.

Since it is a comparative term, you will always have "clutch" players and "chokers".



OK, let's look at a 3 season span for Ortiz:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/splits?statsId=5909&type=batting3

For those three years, his batting average is .297. However, with runners in scoring position he is batting .328 over that time frame with 461 ABs. Let's look at the close and late situation, he's batting .326 with 221 ABs. Over this 3 year time frame, those 461ABs is equal to 28% of his total ABs. Those 221 ABs are about 14% of his ABs, both those numbers are a good sample size.

Looking at his 1631 ABs and 119 HRs, he hits a HR in about 7% of his ABs. In the close and late situational he hits a HR in 10% of his ABs! That is almost doubling his HR rate! Additionally, his SLG % is 174 points higher in the C&L situation, but 45 points lower when runners are in scoring position.

Given the overall look at this, he is considerably better in these situations than he is normally. Therefore, he is better in the clutch.

Look at A-Rod's numbers this year and over the last three years in these situations, Ortiz's numbers are better across the board. A-Rod's numbers are lower than what you would expect from a normal situation which backs up the rep he had in Texas of padding his numbers in meaningless situations and games.

A-Rod's stats
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/splits?statsId=5275&type=batting3

Let me try this last time.

1) No one has agreed that there are non-clutch players. That is your assertion without evidence.

2) Even if there are non-clutch players, it does not follow that there are clutch players. If 2% of the league is non-clutch, that does not mean any number will be clutch. If you say everyone else (98%) is clutch, that means the word has no importance. Your latest attempt to say there are always "chokers" and "clutch" players means the words have no meaning.

3) The grand total sample size for Ortiz over those 3 years is 221 AB. That is not a sufficient sample size. His OBP and OPS are higher in close and late situations, BUT not so much so that a slump in those situations over the next 200 AB won't even it out. 221 AB from ONE player is not sufficient to derive a general statistical rule. It proves NOTHING.

4) 7% to 10% is not "almost doubling."

5) If Ortiz (like almost every player in history) fails to be "clutch" over the next few years, does that mean he forgot how to be "clutch?" Or is it just a regressive to the mean?

Or what if his numbers persist or get even better. Will we need to give him more time?

Or what if his numbers persist or get even better. Will we need to give him more time?

I will wager $1000 with you, Warhammer, or anyone else that Ortiz will not perform in close and late situations at the rate above his average stats over the next 3 years that he has over the past 3 years.

Let me try this last time.

1) No one has agreed that there are non-clutch players. That is your assertion without evidence.

Go back and read the first page. Seriously, people are (were) arguing that there is no such thing as a "clutch" player.

My assertion is that there are clutch players and chokers. A clutch player plays above his head, performs better than another player in a "clutch" situation. A choker performs far worse than expected in a "clutch" situation. The choker sets the bar, than the other players fill in. So let's say that the average baseball player has a BA 20 points below his normal BA with RISP, the choker would have say a BA 40 points below his normal BA, and in this example, the clutch player would perform around his normal BA.

In another era, a choker might perform only 20 points below his BA, the run of the mill player performs at his normal BA, and the clutch player would perform above his BA. Again, it is compared to how other players are performing during the era.

2) Even if there are non-clutch players, it does not follow that there are clutch players. If 2% of the league is non-clutch, that does not mean any number will be clutch. If you say everyone else (98%) is clutch, that means the word has no importance. Your latest attempt to say there are always "chokers" and "clutch" players means the words have no meaning.

Well, they could all be chokers. However, given a certain population, I am confident that for all practical purposes the players will separate themselves into a group that performs below expectations, one that meets expectations, and one that exceeds expectations in a given situation. Say, 2% (using your number) would be chokers, performing below their normal performance, say 50-75% would perform at the same level, while the rest would perform above average in those situations, those would be your clutch players. In this case, the definition of a clutch player might shift slightly to a player who are a standard deviation or two above the player population for a given situation.

Or, let's use a different example, let's say that in a RISP situation, 95% of the players perform below their average. That means that the other 5% would appear to be clutch players BY COMPARISON!

3) The grand total sample size for Ortiz over those 3 years is 221 AB. That is not a sufficient sample size. His OBP and OPS are higher in close and late situations, BUT not so much so that a slump in those situations over the next 200 AB won't even it out. 221 AB from ONE player is not sufficient to derive a general statistical rule. It proves NOTHING.

Tell that to any manufacturing company in the US. In my industry, the typical sample size for quality assurance is 2%, and we produce far fewer identical parts over a similar time frame. Look at polling numbers, we generate national polling numbers based upon a fraction of 1% of the total population, yet those are accurate to +/-3%.

Also, those 221 ABs are over a 3 YEAR PERIOD! Your earlier assertion was that players do not keep it up over several seasons. Yet, he has amassed roughly 35% of a season worth of numbers in a situation, but this is not significant? How much do you consider a significant sample? A 100% sample? Of course the larger your sample size the more accurate it is going to be, but there is also the law of diminishing returns here as well.

4) 7% to 10% is not "almost doubling.".

Sorry, meant to say a 150% increase in production in the rate, that is a significant increase! You got me there!

5) If Ortiz (like almost every player in history) fails to be "clutch" over the next few years, does that mean he forgot how to be "clutch?" Or is it just a regressive to the mean?

It could be a number of factors. He could be pressing more to get that last ring. He could be trying to recature the glory days of yore. It could be a number of factors, but just as players skills fade, some players ability to come through in the clutch fade.

3) The grand total sample size for Ortiz over those 3 years is 221 AB. That is not a sufficient sample size. His OBP and OPS are higher in close and late situations, BUT not so much so that a slump in those situations over the next 200 AB won't even it out. 221 AB from ONE player is not sufficient to derive a general statistical rule. It proves NOTHING.
220 AB is roughly a third of a season's worth. Better move the All-Star game to the end of the season, then, so we have enough statistical evidence to decide which players are actually worthy of attending...

Are you seriously using the all-star game to make an argument? <boggle>

Warhammer, I give up. You have proven there are clutch players. Your evidence is that you say there are clutch players. I can't argue with that.

Bullshit. A-Rod's defense doesn't occur in a vacuum -- if he wasn't playing, there would be a replacement-level player there (actually, probably better than that considering it's the Yankees, but I'll pass over that). It's theoretically possible to quantify how many runs A-Rod has saved (or extra runs he has allowed) over a replacement-level third baseman, and this is all a positive (or a negative) in the ledger for him compared to Ortiz who essentially hasn't played in the field at all.

I don't se what's so hard to understand here. With normal position players you compare their defensive value to what they'd give you over a replacement player. But when comparing a position player to a DH, you can compare their defensive value to zero because that is what the DH gives you on defense.

Actually, you don't need to use replacement value at all if you believe in Win Shares. A-Rod gets 3.3 WS for fielding, Ortiz gets 0.0.

I don't know whether that's true or not. I'm not suggesting "massaging" statistics, either... I'm suggesting that taking context into account may give Ortiz a significant boost in terms of offense vs. A-Rod (compared to context-neutral metrics which assume, incorrectly in this case, that production averages out to be context-neutral), and I'm saying that I don't know if that is sufficient to overcome the defensive difference.

I think he's played few enough games in the field that this is negligible.

I'll defer argument on this basis until I've seen whether there are any rebuttals from people who are knowledgeable enough to rebut. I know enough to set up the parameters of the argument, but I don't know enough or have enough information to carry it through myself. In particular, I'd feel more comfortable working from something like UZR as far as fielding contribution is concerned. Provisionally, I do think that this is a very strong argument in favor of A-Rod.

I'd submit that this is the kind of flawed argument that has Juan Gonzalez with two MVPs on his mantle.

If there's a metric out there that has undergone significant peer review and held up, one cannot ignore it by saying that it cannot be understood. Either learn enough about it to understand it as hundreds of thousands of people do and if you see a flaw point it out, or just accept it as a reasonable part of the argument.

None of the old school analysts can quantify 'clutch performance'. It does but they it make worth whatever they feel like to justify their arguments for or against a player they support.

James has quantified it. Ortiz's clutch performance doesn't make up for the overall difference in their offensive numbers and the significant benefit that Ortiz gets from playing half his games in Fenway. When you add in the defensive difference, it's not even close.

Bullshit. A-Rod's defense doesn't occur in a vacuum -- if he wasn't playing, there would be a replacement-level player there (actually, probably better than that considering it's the Yankees, but I'll pass over that). It's theoretically possible to quantify how many runs A-Rod has saved (or extra runs he has allowed) over a replacement-level third baseman, and this is all a positive (or a negative) in the ledger for him compared to Ortiz who essentially hasn't played in the field at all.
If you are doing that for fielding, then you have to do that for hitting. You have to compare how much better ARod is than the average hitting 3B to how much better Ortiz is than the average hitting DH. And in that case, ARod destroys Ortiz.

I don't se what's so hard to understand here. With normal position players you compare their defensive value to what they'd give you over a replacement player. But when comparing a position player to a DH, you can compare their defensive value to zero because that is what the DH gives you on defense.My argument is that defensive value is meaningless in a vacuum. How do you judge A-Rod's defensive value without comparing him to a replacement-level player? It's nonsensical to try to argue that he's got some kind of defensive value without a baseline.

If you are doing that for fielding, then you have to do that for hitting. You have to compare how much better ARod is than the average hitting 3B to how much better Ortiz is than the average hitting DH. And in that case, ARod destroys Ortiz.I don't think the idea is completely without merit, but I don't think it's remotely as simple as a direct comparison of replacement value on the offensive side of things. You have a flexibility in putting a batting lineup together that doesn't exist in the same way in the field. I'm not saying there's no merit to trying to generate some sort of lineup context, but my instinct is that it's more complicated than direct comparison.

If there's a metric out there that has undergone significant peer review and held up, one cannot ignore it by saying that it cannot be understood. Either learn enough about it to understand it as hundreds of thousands of people do and if you see a flaw point it out, or just accept it as a reasonable part of the argument.You sure did do a nice job of eviscerating that straw man.

None of the old school analysts can quantify 'clutch performance'. It does but they it make worth whatever they feel like to justify their arguments for or against a player they support.

James has quantified it. Ortiz's clutch performance doesn't make up for the overall difference in their offensive numbers and the significant benefit that Ortiz gets from playing half his games in Fenway. When you add in the defensive difference, it's not even close.Other people who are also smart and who have also taken an interest in baseball statistics have independently quantified the clutch performance, I think their opinions have value, and I'm not prepared currently to either concede to James or to advance an argument against. As I said above.

You sure did do a nice job of eviscerating that straw man.

Other people who are also smart and who have also taken an interest in baseball statistics have independently quantified the clutch performance, I think their opinions have value, and I'm not prepared currently to either concede to James or to advance an argument against. As I said above.

What straw man? It's been pointed out by numerous people in this thread that it's okay to disregard various metrics because they are too complicated. That's nonsense.

And as far as clutch performance being reliably quantified, show me where the clutch rating is on the stat page at Baseball-Reference, ESPN, CBS-sportsline, or in any of the various basball annuals.

I certainly can't remember reading it on the backs of any baseball cards either. What is this quantified clutch stat even called?

I certainly can't remember reading it on the backs of any baseball cards either. What is this quantified clutch stat even called?

Check out the close and late situational stats. I would also argue that you could look at their stats with runners in scoring position as well. Compare the production in those situations with their normal production. NOTE: Production the term, not production the stat.

If you go to ESPN click on the splits tab for a player, and then at the bottom of the page click more splits. That will give you all of their situational stats.

What straw man? It's been pointed out by numerous people in this thread that it's okay to disregard various metrics because they are too complicated. That's nonsense.

And as far as clutch performance being reliably quantified, show me where the clutch rating is on the stat page at Baseball-Reference, ESPN, CBS-sportsline, or in any of the various basball annuals.

I certainly can't remember reading it on the backs of any baseball cards either. What is this quantified clutch stat even called?

Isn't this exactly what you're doing? Touting one set of statistics while entirely discounting another? :p

That doesn't clearly tell you how valuable a player's 'clutch' performance is.

Let's take it back a second.

I'm not saying that Ortiz hasn't performed better in what are traditionally called 'clutch' situations. I'm saying that the people who say that trumps A-Rod's overall better numbers haven't justified their arguments.

Win Shares takes 'clutch' into account and still rates Ortiz's offensive performance below A-Rod's. The various sportswriters and fans who say that Ortiz should win the MVP haven't quantified it in a clear way. They make statements like, "The Red Sox would be a .500 team without him" or other such absurdities.

How much are the thirty or so points of batting average and seven extra homers worth? Do they make up for the advantage that Ortiz's numbers get for playing in Fenway? How about the fact that all of A-Rod's rate stats (AVG/SLG/OBP) are better overall?

This is even before we take defense into account.

What I mean by quantify is this. How much more important were those 'clutch' plate appearances as compared to every other plate appearances? Because you have to make them orders of magnitude more important before they make up the difference in their overall offensive numbers-- and still more to make up the difference between a good 3B who plays 160 games in the field and a mediocre 1B that plays only 10.

What straw man? It's been pointed out by numerous people in this thread that it's okay to disregard various metrics because they are too complicated. That's nonsense.It clearly wasn't my argument, though... if you were addressing them, you shouldn't have been quoting me.

And as far as clutch performance being reliably quantified, show me where the clutch rating is on the stat page at Baseball-Reference, ESPN, CBS-sportsline, or in any of the various basball annuals.

I certainly can't remember reading it on the backs of any baseball cards either. What is this quantified clutch stat even called?You're confusing me. You waxed poetic about James quantifying "clutch" contributions, but now you're trying to tell me that it can't be reliably quantified?

Wednesday, I'm talking about being quantified in a way that justifies some reading that the basic numbers don't show. Close and Late and Runners In Scoring Position are not the same thing as clutch. They can be, but they are not by definition. Even if they were, how much more are they worth than normal situations. That hasn't been quantified.

This whole thread has been an argument about whether Ortiz can match A-Rod even though all the numbers have basically said that they haven't. As far as 'clutch' goes, it still has yet to be qualified. Isn't a homerun in a close game in the ninth more valuable than in the seventh-- C&L doesn't differentiate between the two. C&L and RISP are still a long way from 'clutch.'

Here's an example: your team goes down by five by the third inning. A player hits two two-run homers through the sixth to make it a one-run game. I'd say that production is pretty valuable. Those'd neither be C&L or, neccesarily, RISP situations. But it's pretty important to me.

No one can, or at least not yet, go back and quantify in some reliable way every at-bat or defensive performance according to its context. We can say that general RISP and C&L situations are a fair amount more significant than a normal at-bat. That's what Win Shares and a few other composite measures do.

But no reasonable reading of the stats can get you to Ortiz > A-Rod for the 2005 season.

If I've misattributed some of the wilder quotes in this thread to you, I apologize. Looking back at a previous page, it does seem that I've quoted you. I believe I actually meant to click on Warhammer's post back on the fourth page.

But I still stand by the statements I've made in general.

Let's avoid going off track on a discussion about the definition of "clutch" and focus on what's important: the extent to which the contextual distribution of Ortiz's production has fallen outside of a neutral distribution, how much contribution that's made to the Sox' results, and how significant it is.

Some smart folks at Sons of Sam Horn have argued that Ortiz has been worth about three extra wins in "win expectancy", I assume in excess of A-Rod, in offensive production... I have no idea how the defense compares, or what the proper accounting is for "lineup context", to point to the most significant issues that have been raised previously.

No one can, or at least not yet, go back and quantify in some reliable way every at-bat or defensive performance according to its context.That depends on your definition of "reliable". People can quantify and have quantified what the win expectancy is for a given set of situations in the game, and ascribe the change from one at-bat to the next to the responsible batter. I think that's a reliable way of quantifying the contribution of every at-bat, and in a way that avoids an arbitrary "late and close" division, but there are some reasonable grounds for disagreement.

A-Rod should win by a landslide. His value compared to an average 3B is much greater than Ortiz's value compared to an average DH.

Clutch hitting multiple choice:

Who was more important to a 2-1 win:

a. A player who hit a home run in the 1st.
b. A player who hit a home run in the 9th.
c. Both players are equally responsible for the win.

Anyone here familiar with coalition voting in game theory? It's the same concept. All runs/votes have equal value as part of the win.

I've always thought that players who performed better in the clutch were really just slacking off the rest of the time. Physical capability is something that's not going to change just because it's the ninth inning...if you're telling me that they get 'more focused' in late inning situations, then I would wonder what's keeping them from concentrating during the first six innings.

I've always thought that players who performed better in the clutch were really just slacking off the rest of the time. Physical capability is something that's not going to change just because it's the ninth inning...if you're telling me that they get 'more focused' in late inning situations, then I would wonder what's keeping them from concentrating during the first six innings.

I guess if you play the game in a vacuum or on the computer that makes sense.

I guess if you play the game in a vacuum or on the computer that makes sense.Why is that?

Why is that?

You talk like these are robots with ratings. If you can't accept that an at bat in the 9th tied 1-1 carries a different set of pressure than an at bat in the first at 0-0 then that's how you see these guys...as computer players.

The human element counts for something. Just in general, I'm not arguing Ortiz/A-Rod.

Heck, home/road, day/night, why should it matter right? It's still 60 feet to the plate.

You talk like these are robots with ratings. If you can't accept that an at bat in the 9th tied 1-1 carries a different set of pressure than an at bat in the first at 0-0 then that's how you see these guys...as computer players.So players don't try as hard at the beginning of a game as they do at the end? You can say that psychologically there's greater "pressure" when the game is on the line, but truthfully, I think it's safe to say that in all sports, the pressure to succeed is there at the beginning of every play. I think someone mentioned earlier that Joe Montana and Michael Jordan were examples of guys who were "clutch" players. No, they're not. They're examples of players who got the job done regardless of how much time was left in the game. John Elway racked up so many 4th quarter comebacks not because he magically got superpowers in the fourth quarter, but because he led his teams on scoring drives all the time...it's just that the fourth quarter ones are the ones that made SportsCenter.

When it comes down to it, all I'm saying is that when it comes to players who have some statistical evidence that indicates heightened performance when the spotlight on, I don't think it's a stretch to wonder why they can't do the same thing during the more "mundane" parts of the game.

Heck, home/road, day/night, why should it matter right? It's still 60 feet to the plate.The differences in those situations are irrelevant. In a "clutch" situation, you're talking about an environment that is the same as previous at bats, snaps, whatever. The only difference would be that it occurs at the end of the game, rather than at the start or the middle. Games don't stop at the end of the third quarter so that the teams can go play at a different field.

Again that's a very unhuman analysis geared towards people as static beings devoid of emotion.

I mean NFL for example, teams clearly "get up" for games and "let down" for others. It happens.

Why is playoff baseball so different than regular season baseball? How come the team with the most wins doesn't always win? I mean statistically it should bear out that the best team statistically always wins right?

I mean NFL for example, teams clearly "get up" for games and "let down" for others. It happens.

Why is playoff baseball so different than regular season baseball? How come the team with the most wins doesn't always win? I mean statistically it should bear out that the best team statistically always wins right?In both of those cases, you're talking about a wider time span than I am. My argument deals with the guy who consistantly goes 0 for 3 in the first 7 innings, but hits a walk off in the ninth.

In both of those cases, you're talking about a wider time span than I am. My argument deals with the guy who consistantly goes 0 for 3 in the first 7 innings, but hits a walk off in the ninth.


show me this guy; don't say ortiz cuz it ain't him. he didn't hit all his homeruns after the 7th inning.

what you are talking about is rare or nonexistent.

dola -

If you have a guy who has an OPS of .800 in normal situations and turns it up to 1.000 in "clutch" situations it is because of:

1 - The clutch situation is one where he performs at a 125% level
2 - Statistical anomaly that will even itself out in the long run.
3 - The mundane situation is one where he performs at a 80% level

Don't crucify me for thinking that option 3 is as likely as option 1

In both of those cases, you're talking about a wider time span than I am. My argument deals with the guy who consistantly goes 0 for 3 in the first 7 innings, but hits a walk off in the ninth.


Dola, the reverse is far more likely. Guy goes 2-3 and then fails to come through in the ninth.

dola -

If you have a guy who has an OPS of .800 in normal situations and turns it up to 1.000 in "clutch" situations it is because of:

1 - The clutch situation is one where he performs at a 125% level
2 - Statistical anomaly that will even itself out in the long run.
3 - The mundane situation is one where he performs at a 80% level

Don't crucify me for thinking that option 3 is as likely as option 1

We will never find common ground because I'm arguing in terms of the human condition. You are arguing in terms of raw statistics. Never will they meet since you can't "quantify" situation, pressure or context.

That's fine, I just look at it differently.

We will never find common ground because I'm arguing in terms of the human condition. You are arguing in terms of raw statistics. Never will they meet since you can't "quantify" situation, pressure or context.No I'm not. Slacking off when the spotlight is off is very much a human condition. I'd say that it occurs far more regularly in life than than the supposition that someone can perform beyond their means when the spotlight is on.

No I'm not. Slacking off when the spotlight is off is very much a human condition. I'd say that it occurs far more regularly in life than than the supposition that someone can perform beyond their means when the spotlight is on.

I don't. Not for good players. I mean in the Ortiz case are you saying he should have hit 70 homeruns and that perhaps that if A-Rod hadn't slacked off in the later innings he could have had 70 homeruns?

Dola, the reverse is far more likely. Guy goes 2-3 and then fails to come through in the ninth.
That must be why closers have lower ERA's than the rest of the bullpen, normally.

I don't. Not for good players.So "good" players should have no significant variance in their performance?

the reverse is far more likely. Guy goes 2-3 and then fails to come through in the ninth.:confused:

I'm really trying to understand what you're saying. It's more likely for a guy to "power up" in the ninth as it is that he underperforms when the spotlight is off?

That must be why closers have lower ERA's than the rest of the bullpen, normally.

And that's why any pitcher can be a closer. Just pick one. It doesn't matter as long as they have stuff.

Clutch hitting multiple choice:

Who was more important to a 2-1 win:

a. A player who hit a home run in the 1st.
b. A player who hit a home run in the 9th.
c. Both players are equally responsible for the win.The answer is b -- the home run in the 9th has a much more direct effect on the win expectancy for his team than the home run in the first.

The answer is b -- the home run in the 9th has a much more direct effect on the win expectancy for his team than the home run in the first.

EXACTLY, also because there are fewer opportunities, considering outs, to score runs later in the game rather than earlier. So, 9th inning runs are more important to producing a win than runs earlier, even more so in the bottom of the 9th, since the opposing team has no opportunity to counter those runs.

This is from Baseball Prospectus. It is not a study in itself, but it cites the two major studies on the issue and explains the confusion over what is clutch. It is available at:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2656

The concept of "clutch" is one of the clearest dividing lines between traditional coverage of baseball and what you'll find here at Baseball Prospectus. In the mainstream, performance in important situations is often attributed to some wealth or deficit of character that causes a particular outcome. Here, we're more likely to recognize that when the best baseball players in the world go head-to-head, someone has to win and someone has to lose, and it doesn't mean that one side has better people than the other.

Clutch performances exist, to be sure; you can't watch a day of baseball without seeing a well-timed hit, a big defensive play or a key strikeout that pushes a team towards victory. The biggest moments in baseball history are almost all examples of players doing extraordinary things in extraordinary circumstances. Those moments make the game great and the players responsible for them deserve credit, and even adulation, for their heroics.

In trying to get across the notion that no players possess a special ability to perform in particular situations, the usual line we use is that clutch performances exist, not clutch players. That's wrong. The correct idea is that clutch performances exist, and clutch players exist: every last one of them.

All major-league players have a demonstrated ability to perform under pressure. They've proven that by rising to the top of an enormous pyramid of players, tens of thousands of them, all trying to be one of the top 0.1% that gets to call themselves "major leaguers." Within this group of elite, who have proven themselves to be the best in the world at their jobs, there is no discernable change in their abilities when runners are on base, or when the game is tied in extra innings, or when candy and costumes and pumpkins decorate the local GigaMart. The guys who are good enough to be in the majors are all capable of succeeding and failing in these situations, and they're as likely to do one or the other in the clutch as they are at any other time. Over the course of a game, a month, a season or a career, there is virtually no evidence that any player or group of players possesses an ability to outperform his established level of ability in clutch situations, however defined.

The statistical studies of clutch have supported this point. David Grabiner did the seminal work more than a decade ago, defining clutch as performance in the late innings of close games. From the article:

The correlation between past and current clutch performance is .01, with a standard deviation of .07. In other words, there isn't a significant ability in clutch hitting; if there were, the same players would be good clutch hitters every year.

A study by Ron Johnson, which is not currently online but is quoted here, covered a 15-year period and concluded that just two players, Paul Molitor and Tony Fernandez met the statistical criteria to be considered clutch hitters. (Johnson didn't argue that the two had this trait, just that of the players in the study, they were the only two whose performance with runners in scoring position showed a statistically significant improvement.)

You can see this yourself if you like, and you don't need to understand correlations to do it. Pick any five players at random, and check out their splits for the last few seasons (you can do this fairly easily at any of the major sports portals). You'll find that their statistics from year to year in the various clutch situations (RISP, late-inning pressure, September) can vary widely, with no rhyme or reason to the splits. But over a large enough sample, players will hit in given situations pretty much as they do overall.

Of course, these statistical arguments assume both numeracy and a quest for the truth. Too often, neither of these things is in play. The notion of clutch persists because it allows for a storyline with a hero and a goat, and that's both an easy tale to write and an easy one to read. While it's a facile concept, players buy into it because it's flattering. No one wants to believe that they're successful just because they hit the genetic lottery and that, on a particular day, they performed better than the other, equally-gifted guys. It's much more enjoyable to extrapolate a certain moral superiority from on-field success, to attribute that game-winning double to your heart and desire, rather than to your fast-twitch muscles and hitting the fastball at just the right angle to push it past the diving center fielder. It's this need to turn physics and physicality into a statement about the character of people--to stick labels on them based on their day at work and the bounce of a ball--that is the most damning thing about the myth of clutch.

The idea that players' abilities do not change in the clutch is one of those things that gets the anti-stathead crowd riled up, gets them talking about pocket protectors and people who take the fun out of the game. I don't buy it; the fun is the game, in the performances and the competition and the talent that we get to watch.

When you have that, who needs a myth?

Why is playoff baseball so different than regular season baseball? How come the team with the most wins doesn't always win? I mean statistically it should bear out that the best team statistically always wins right?

I don't agree with VPI, but this sure is some bad math you are using.

I don't agree with VPI, but this sure is some bad math you are using.

After reading it again I have to agree. I have no idea what I wrote means.

After reading it again I have to agree. I have no idea what I wrote means.

Fair enough. :)

This thread needs more humor, so I'll post the Bill Simmons take from his most recent Cowbell:

An MVP performance from A-Rod, who waited until the Yanks were up 6-2 before he ripped a long home run, then followed that up with two more big hits. The weird thing about A-Rod is that there's nobody more terrifying in a big game ... when you're down by 4 runs. There really isn't. It's like he goes to another level.

I like Simmons, but I root against the Red Sox and Pats every chance I get now, because he (and presumably all BOS fans) has gotten WAY too smug and annoying with the teams' successes.

I'm going to be a complete ass here:

I haven't read any of this thread, but my vote goes to Ichiro.

Oh, wait, I thought this was the MVP thread from last year.

I also wonder if Giambi's selection as the Comeback Player will play into the A-Rod/Ortiz MVP race. Rivera seems to be the odds-on favorite for the Cy. I think you'd see a lot of people gag if Yankee players won the Cy, the MVP and the Comeback awards for a team that won 6 fewer games than it did a year ago. Seems a bit odd that the team would perform worse if those guys all had career seasons.

I also wonder if Giambi's selection as the Comeback Player will play into the A-Rod/Ortiz MVP race. Rivera seems to be the odds-on favorite for the Cy. I think you'd see a lot of people gag if Yankee players won the Cy, the MVP and the Comeback awards for a team that won 6 fewer games than it did a year ago. Seems a bit odd that the team would perform worse if those guys all had career seasons.
They did go 84-48 after their horrible start, and clutch wins at the end of the season are more important than wins in the first third of the season, so that more than makes up their lower record. ;)

They did go 84-48 after their horrible start, and clutch wins at the end of the season are more important than wins in the first third of the season, so that more than makes up their lower record. ;)

:D LOL

bump

So, A-Rod won. Even the idiot members of the BBWAA get the award right sometimes.