FJM has gone dark for the foreseeable future. Sorry folks. We may post once in a while, but it's pretty much over.
You can still e-mail dak,Ken Tremendous,Junior,Matthew Murbles, or Coach.
You may have seen this already but it's just too fucking good not to share.
This video is porn. You've got Jeff Brantley, saying that now-batting Edwin Encarnacion should be taken out of the game. Why? Because he's not a clutch hitter. I won't tell you what happens next, but it's pretty awesome.
Okay, wait, I have to tell you. Edwin hits a game-winning home run. And the timing...it's just white fucking hot sports commentator porn.
Thank you Edwin. You have done a very great thing. In recognition of your efforts, you are cordially invited to my house to play NHL 2K7.
Pepsi, a cola renowned for its sabermetric aptitude, has released the candidates for its Clutch Performer of the Year award, an extremely fake award based on nonsense. As you can see, they chose the names out of a hat, and they chose incorrectly. Your 2007 clutchmen:
Jake Peavy Mark Teixeira Aramis Ramirez J.J. Putz Ryan Howard Choke-Rod
At least they nominated good players. Too choke-y to make the list:
Magglio Ordonez Prince Fielder Matt Holliday Vladimir Guerrero David Ortiz Albert Pujols Miguel Cabrera Chipper Jones David Wright Chase Utley Hanley Ramirez Johan Santana C.C. Sabathia Josh Beckett Jonathan Papelbon Takashi Saito Everyone else in the league
Seems like maybe they chose guys based on their numbers with RISP or RISP and 2 outs. But really, Ramirez, Teixeira, Howard? They missed a combined 78 games with injuries. It's funny, too: if you look at Howard's situational numbers, he looked phenomenal in the clutch this year, but last year, by all standards a far better year in which he won the MVP, his RISP and RISP with 2 outs figures are dramatically lower. There you have it: conclusive proof that in the offseason Ryan Howard learned how to be clutch.
For years, the debate raged. There were clutch fundamentalists, clutchocaust deniers, the skeptical but clutch-curious...
Put down your halberds, boys. The war is over. You can thank Dave Sessions of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Clutch exists, and it can be defined by one statistic: RBI per home run. That's right. It was staring at us right in the face. What dummies we were! Dave?
The Academy Awards have the Razzies. So why doesn't baseball have a Least Valuable Player award?
To be fair, Dave, this doesn't really line up. You guys remember standardized test analogies, right? Wouldn't the correct analogy be:
Movies : Razzies :: Baseball : Least Valuable Player
Or Dave could've gone with:
Academy Awards : Razzies :: Most Valuable Player : Least Valuable Player
Who's bored already? Here's a random analogy, for fun:
Cardamom : Churlishness :: Igneous Rock : ???
Answer to come never. Here are our candidates, who can all take solace in the fact that they'll start 2008 with a chance at winning the Comeback Player of the Year award:
Everybody take a deep breath. Dave Sessions is about to name who he thinks are the least valuable players of 2007. Least. Lessest. If you had a graduated cylinder that measured baseball value in terms of volume of perchloric acid, these players would make the cylinder nearly empty of scalding fluid. Mr. Sessions, your first name is...
Barry Bonds, Giants
Oof. Maybe that's a typo. Maybe he meant to write "Ray Durham, Giants," or "Entire Team, Pirates." Let me take a second look. Nope. Still Bonds. The same Bonds who would lead the NL in OPS and all of MLB in OBP if he had enough at bats. This motherfucker has an OBP of damn near .500!
LVP.
Sure, he sold a lot of tickets in San Francisco when he hit homer No. 756* and his statistics are much too good to merit LVP selection.
Really. And yet he is the first goddamn name on your stupid list.
P.S. Very clever use of asterisk, will have to make mental note to use that in the future.
But even though he has hit 28 homers this season, he has only 66 RBI because 15 of his prodigious blasts were solo shots. A player's number of RBI per homer strikes us as a worthy measure of his ability to get the job done in clutch situations, and Bonds' average of 2.36 RBI/HR is the second-lowest among the majors' top 25 home run hitters this season.
Oh my Jesus fucking shitdick. So much to hate here. Let's start with "A player's number of RBI per homer strikes us" -- who the fuck is us? Dave Sessions and a lobster pinned to his forehead that speaks Portuguese into his ear?
Wait a minute. Could the reason that Barry Bonds doesn't have many RBI per home run be because no one fucking wants to pitch to him with runners on because he's arguably the best hitter of all time? Dave, you just nominated the best hitter of all time to be the Least Valuable Player. Because he's not clutch. In a season where he OPSed 1.401 with RISP and 2 outs.
Hey, you know what? With RISP, Barry Bonds had 76 at bats and 59 walks. No one pitched to him. Of course they didn't. At one point I believe Barry batted fourth in the Giants' lineup and a great auk batted fifth. It was amazing. The auk gave it his all but grounded out weakly to short.
Does anyone else think Dave Sessions has never seen Barry Bonds or any other human being play a baseball game? Has he not heard that the man is known to take a walk every so often because every pitcher on Earth fears him?
He's too fragile to play every day, he makes $15.5 million a year, and his team could wind up with the worst record in the National League.
There is an argument to be made that $15.5 million is too much to pay someone who doesn't play every day, especially if the franchise has a reasonable payroll. That argument has nothing to do with the ludicrous assumption that RBI/HR has anything to do with clutchitude or heart or balls or HIV-positivity.
P.S. Again: Seriously, Dave Sessions, what do you want Barry Bonds to do when guys throw the ball fifteen feet outside the strike zone? Throw his bat at the ball and hope for the best? Do what Miguel Cabrera did that one time and lean over and smack a double? (Actually, that would be pretty awesome.) You're a weird guy, Dave.
I'm not even going to write introductions to these things anymore. What's the point? They're all the same.
A-ROD'S CLUTCH SHOWING WEAR
By BRIAN COSTELLO
MR. AUGUST: As the season has cooled off, so has Alex Rodriguez' bat.
Sigh.
Just to short-circuit this whole argument:
Alex Rodriguez, last three years: 1778+ AB, .945 OPS. In September: 291 AB, .995 OPS.
And: drum-roll, please...
This September: .333/.419/.730/1.149.
I am not making this up, people. This idiot is claiming that Alex Rodriguez's bat has gone cold, in a month where he has a fucking .730 SLG and an OPS of 1.149, with 8 HR in 63 AB.
His bat has gone cold. He has an OPS of 1.149.
Justify this, New York Post. I will give you a billion dollars if you can justify this claim.
Signs of Fall are everywhere. The temperature has dipped, leaves are beginning to change colors and Alex Rodriguez looks tighter than Britney Spears' pants.
If Johnny Carson were alive, and still hosting TheTonight Show, and you submitted this joke to him, you would be fired. Come to think of it, if Jay Mohr were doing stand-up at the Ice House in Pasadena and you offered him this joke for free, he would throw a drink in your face.
Also, Alex Rodriguez is "tight" to the tune of a 1.149 OPS this month you terrible hacks.
The Yankee third baseman went 0-for-4 last night, making him 3-for-29 in his last eight games.
Can I just say something about Alex Rodriguez? And thank you, Brian Costello, for bringing this up, because I have been wanting to say this for a while: Alex Rodriguez is a total dick. I'm serious. What other player in baseball would have the gall to go 3 for 29 over an eight game stretch? That is selfish. Do you guys know how much money he makes? I just looked this up. He makes eleventy corbillion dollars a year. For that kind of money, you best not go 3 for 29 over an 8 game stretch. That is selfish and chokey. That is choke-ball. For eleventy corbillion dollars, you better go more like 15 for 29 over an eight game stretch while you also pitch and play three positions including catcher.
Alls I'm saying is, there's a little guy on the Yankees you might have heard of. His name is Derek Motherfucking Jeter. Yeah. You ever heard of him? He's the best athlete in earth's history except for maybe Jim Thorpe. And there is no way -- none -- that Derek Jeter would ever go 3 for 29 (!!!!!!) over an eight game stretch. Not while he's be-pinstripèd. Not while Monument Park is still standing. Not while Scott Brosius and Tino Martinez are--
Derek Jeter, September, thus far: .266/.347/.406. (Sep. 3-Sep. 14: 5-32, one double, no HR.)
-- stop interrupting me! Not while Scott Brosius and Tino Martinez are still breathing God's beautiful Lou Gehrig-flavored air. Until Alex Rodriguez realizes that, all the money in the world can't save his soul from burning in eternal hellfire, that cowardly prick. Also, Paulie O'Neill was the balls!
No one can knock the MVP-caliber season Rodriguez is having, but as he's learned in his first three years in The Bronx, his season ultimately will be measured by what he does during the Yankees' pennant chase and playoff run.
That stupid fact wouldn't have anything to do with...the media, would it?
Fortunately for Rodriguez, the Yankees have not needed his offense. Last night's 2-1 victory over the Orioles was their 12th win in 14 games. They have been winning in spite of the hole in the middle of their lineup wearing No. 13.
The hole in their line-up. The hole in their line-up. Give me a second. I just want to remember everything about this moment -- where I am sitting, what I am wearing, the temperature outside -- because this is the moment that Alex Rod was referred to as a hole in the Yankee line-up, because he had a bad eight games, in a year in which he leads his league in all meaningful (and most unmeaningful) categories.
Live this moment, people. This is real. This is happening to all of us. We are humans, here on earth, with feelings, and consciousness, and this is happening, right now, to us.
Rodriguez left the clubhouse without speaking to reporters.
Jerk.
He struck out in second inning against Brian Burres and again in the eighth against Chad Bradford. That ran his strikeout total to 15 since his last home run on Sept. 9 in Kansas City.
It also sent his EqA tumbling all the way down to .337. The best in the league.
On one of the strangest plays of the night, Rodriguez appeared to have a mental slip. In the fifth inning, he was at the plate with Doug Mientkiewicz at third and Bobby Abreu at first and two out.
Burres unleashed a wild pitch that sailed past catcher Ramon Hernandez and reached the backstop. Inexplicably, Rodriguez stayed in the right-handed batter's box as Mientkiewicz broke for home. Foreseeing a collision, plate umpire Mike Reilly grabbed Rodriguez by the arm and pulled him out of the way.
Graig Nettles never would have done that. Drew Henson would never have done that. Enrique Wilson never would have done that. And do I even have to mention that one Dr. Scotthew von Brosius never would have done that? Yes, I do. Scott Brosius never would have done that.
"There was a chance to be a play at the plate so I wanted him to move," Reilly said. "He was standing there. I grabbed his arm and said, 'Alex, I've got to see it.' "
Mientkiewicz said he didn't see Rodriguez standing there because he was running so hard.
"It would have been a double-negative," Mientkiewicz said. "I would have cleaned him out and gotten released tomorrow."
Sorry, are we still talking about this? This makes the news? ARod didn't immediately jump out of the way of Doug Malphabet as Malphabet charged home from 3rd on a wild pitch? This is worth ten column inches? This is proof of something?
Later in the at-bat, Rodriguez had his hardest-hit ball of the night, a long fly to left.
Asshole.
The Yankee Stadium crowd still has not turned on A-Rod, but you get the feeling that if he looks this bad in the playoffs the "MVP" chants will transform back into the boos he heard last season.
I have been Groundhog Day-ing this exact article all effing year, and allow me to say, here, in late September: I hope -- I pray -- that ARod fails miserably in the playoffs, because I dislike his team. And I hope that Yankee Stadium boos him mercilessly, because I want him to leave that team, because he is the best hitter in baseball. I am also interested in what happens if he has a repeat of the 2004 ALCS, where he goes like 8-31 or something...not great, not terrible. Because I think what would happen is: people would savage him anyway. In fact, if he goes 15-20 in the ALDS and the Yankees lose, I think the media would still write that he "still hasn't led his team to victory," and I would find that immensely pleasurable.
The next month may be the most important month in Rodriguez's career. His stay in pinstripes has been shadowed by what he's done in October. This year there is the added factor of him possibly opting out of his contract and leaving New York.
Weirdly, this is the end of the article. Oh well. At least the points he made were well-thought-out and insightful.
I just don't know who yet. Let's find out, as we look at this article from Pittsburgh Post-Gazette writer Dejan Kovacevic.
It was a week ago today, fewer than 24 hours after the Pirates had put down a sizzling St. Louis rally in the ninth inning, that catcher Ronny Paulino reflected upon it and offered this surprising tidbit.
"You know what the key was to that whole inning?" he said. "When David Eckstein got hit by that pitch."
Say what?
Hitting Eckstein -- not intentionally -- loaded the bases and, ultimately, forced closer Salomon Torres to pitch to Albert Pujols with a one-run lead.
"Doesn't matter," Paulino said. "Eckstein's the guy you don't want to face there."
There's a lot of stupid stuff in this article. I am happy to say -- since I get bored of disparaging journalists only -- that most of it is said by actual baseball players. That's new and fun!
David Eckstein's career EqA is .260, which is exactly league average. Albert Pujols's career EqA is .341, which is easy, don't-even-think-twice Hall of Fame shoo-in. Anyone who ever wants to pitch to Albert Pujols over David Eckstein in any situation, including pick-up whiffle ball games at family barbecues when Pujols has dengue fever and Eckstein gets to use one of those over-sized red bats while Pujols has to hit with a live cobra, is a goddamn moron of the highest order. So I'm sure Paulino is the only one who thought this.
Others agreed without hesitation, players and coaches alike.
"Can't let Eckstein beat you there," shortstop Jack Wilson said.
Huh.
Albert Pujols Career OPS: 1.042
David Eckstein Career OPS: .708
I feel stupid even comparing these two people. They almost don't play the same sport.
OK, so, just to be clear here: The Pirates are happy to duck a 5-foot-7 career .282 hitter to take on the sport's most imposing hitter?
And why, exactly, is this?
"Because," Wilson said. "Eckstein's clutch."
I don't like that stupid "close and late" stat, but...
Eckstein "Close-and-Late" 2004-2006: .722 OPS
Pujols "Close-and-Late" 2004-2006: 1.088 OPS. He has 24 HR in 231 AB.
On page 191 of the famed book, "Moneyball," Billy Beane, the innovative Oakland general manager and prime subject matter, barks at a television as he hears a broadcaster describe his Athletics as failing in the clutch.
"It's [expletive] luck," Beane says.
Those words resonate with some as gospel, mostly because they are so easy to support.
Easy to support? My whole effing life all I do is yell at people that there's no such thing as "clutch." Everyone tells me I am wrong. My friends and I had to start a blog so we could stop shouting into the wind and start typing into the wind (easier on the vocal cords). Easy? Easy?!?!
The numbers will show, the game's statistical-minded followers will say, that a hitter with a .280 career average will hit ... well, right around .280 in whatever anyone might define as a clutch situation.
Some use batting average with runners in scoring position. Some use a fairly new statistic called close-and-late, which measures average in the seventh inning or later with the score no more than a run apart. Some just count up RBIs.
Whatever the bar, it is true that the disparity of numbers is little different between clutch and non-clutch.
At least this Dejan Kovacevic fellow seems to have read Moneyball. Unlike some ESPN Moneyball-disparagers I could name, named Joe Morgan.
"It's obvious that some players perform better in clutch situations," said Dan Fox, author for the statistics-based journal Baseball Prospectus. "The question is whether that difference, as measured in a week, a month or a season, actually reflects an underlying ability to come through more often."
A BP reference in a mainstream newspaper. I bet this is how Galileo felt (posthumously, obviously) when the Church finally admitted that the earth revolved around the sun.
"What they've found is that while there may be a small clutch ability -- for example, hitters who can adjust their approach in different situations seem to have a small advantage -- that ability is dwarfed by the normal differences in overall performance. In other words, in the bigger scheme of things, it's the best players who do best in the clutch."
Take the cases of David Ortiz and Derek Jeter, the widely recognized kings of clutch.
Over the past three years, Ortiz has batted .296 in all situations, .331 with runners in scoring position. Jeter has batted .315 in all situations, .310 with runners in scoring position.
Some difference, but not much.
Still, every time Ortiz launches one of those extra-inning bombs for the Boston Red Sox, it leads "SportsCenter" and resonates far more in the psyche than anytime he might fail. And when Jeter wins Game 4 of the 2001 World Series with a home run, he gets dubbed Mr. November, never mind that he batted .148 for the series.
Did I write this article somehow? Is this like a Fight Club-style thing where I split my personality and got a job writing for a Pittsburgh newspaper under the pseudonym Dejan Kovacevic? If not, I'm really enjoying reading this. What's next?
Oh, and Eckstein's clutch reputation? His average with runners in scoring position is .280, one point lower than his regular average.
I would have added that in Games 1-3 of the WS last year he was 2-13. Then he went 4-5 and 2-4 and won the MVP award and no one has shut up since.
The strongest anti-clutch argument on the Pirates' roster can be made by Freddy Sanchez.
He won the National League batting title with a .344 average last summer, and his .386 mark with runners in scoring position was the team's highest. Only Pujols' .397 mark was higher in the league.
Seems plenty clutch.
Not the case at all, he maintains.
"To me, it's pretty simple," Sanchez said. "If you're hot going into that clutch situation, you have a good chance. You're already feeling good. Obviously, there are times when a hitter can tense up, and there are some better mentally prepared than others. All I can say is that, for me, when I go up to the plate, it's not about the men on base. It's about how I'm feeling."
He rolled his eyes, remembering those four consecutive strikeouts in a game last week in Milwaukee.
"Trust me: If I'm feeling lousy at the plate like that, I'm not just going to walk up there with bases loaded and get a hit because I'm some great clutch hitter."
Freddy Sanchez: FJM's new favorite non-Red Sox. (I can't resist pointing out here that he used to be. Hometown pride.)
Still, come on ... no such thing as clutch?
What, then, of Reggie Jackson launching those three home runs in a World Series game?
He hit 563 HR in the regular season. He was excellent at hitting HR. It was probably his greatest skill. One day, in a big game, he hit 3.
What of Michael Jordan nailing that last-second jumper to sink Utah?
He was the best basketball player ever in history.
What of John Elway driving a stake through the heart of Cleveland?
This one kills me. In the eyes of basically everyone, Elway was a Choke Artist, a Big-Game-Failure, until Terrell Davis came along and the Broncos won two Super Bowls, and suddenly all of Elway's terrible SB performances were forgotten and he became Clutch. So incredibly stupid. The guy was always good. He ran into some awesome coaches and defenses in Super Bowls. Then one day, with a more complete team, he won. Like Peyton Manning. And Kobe. And Shaq. And McNabb getting over the NFC Championship hump. And like 1000 other examples.
What of Mario Lemieux burying that rebound behind Ed Belfour to raise the dome at the Igloo?
He is probably the second-best hockey player ever in history. He scored a lot of goals.
Those focusing on the numbers would lean toward the notion that those were elite athletes simply being themselves.
Yessir.
But those inside the games -- players, coaches and managers -- are almost universal in their belief in clutch.
Of those who feel otherwise, Pirates pitching coach Jim Colborn said, "Dead wrong. There is an element in certain people that allows them to focus at their peak and get into a zone when the situation is more important."
Well. I'm not "inside the game," which invalidates my opinion in the eyes of some. But isn't this quality merely one aspect of what determines a "good" player? And thus, isn't it sort of making our argument for us? In other words, the players one thinks of as "clutch" are just always good. Or, in Eckstein's case, "clutch" is simply a false notion, since very basic statistics show that he is no better in "clutch" situations than in regular situations. The end.
He cited, from his playing days, Joe Rudi, a career .264 hitter who had a reputation of elevating his level every postseason for the Athletics, at least as measured by the intangibles of timely hits and key defensive plays.
"Believe me: For all the great players in that lineup, Joe Rudi was not the one you wanted to face. He just had a knack."
You're not going to believe this. I was not familiar with Joe Rudi's postseason stats, so I looked them up on my Computational Machine. Kovacevic goes out of his way to mention that Rudi was a career .264 hitter. Want to guess what his career postseason average was?
Did you guess: .264? You're right.
In his career, Rudi went .264/.311/.427. Postseason: .264/.329/.386
He was essentially exactly the fucking same in the postseason. 3 HR in 140 postseason AB. 179 in about 5500 regular season AB. So, his HR rate was actually higher in the regular season. (Small sample size alert in the PS, obviously. But what do you want me to do?)
Perhaps anecdotally Rudi did all kinds of amazing Lemke-esque shit in some postseason games. A lot of middle-of-the-road guys do a lot of better-than-that things in postseason games. Endy Chavez made like the greatest catch I've ever seen in the NLCS last year. Does that mean he is a "clutch" fielder? No. It means he is a pro baseball player, which means he is one of the best 600 or so baseball players in the whole wide world, which in turn means that he has the ability to do extraordinary things in specific situations. Other players, who are better than Endy Chavez, will do those amazing things more consistently. Is this really hard to grasp for anyone? Really?
Some players, the argument can be made, do become better in trying situations. But those cases -- and this is one area where statisticians and those inside the game tend to agree -- are much rarer than those where performance decreases.
In other words, the absence of clutch might be more prevalent than a rise to a clutch level. The athlete rises to the level of competition and, in doing so, maintains similar numbers. And the rest ... well, for every Joe Rudi, there are many more like Barry Bonds and Alex Rodriguez.
Uh oh.
Bonds has a .300 career average and a home run every 12.9 at-bats. But in the playoffs, as the still-bitter baseball fans of Pittsburgh can attest, his drop-off is dramatic: His average in seven playoff appearances is .245, and the home runs come once every 16.7 at-bats.
Bonds had six pretty crappy postseasons. Then he had four awesome ones after he started using steroids. They are all small sample sizes. Also, would you have pitched to Bonds in 1990 if he had Steve Buechele hitting behind him?
Rodriguez is having a superhuman April, but that will do nothing to quell doubts about his clutch value. He has batted .306 in the regular season for his career, .280 in the playoffs.
Basically the same.
The home runs come once every 14.3 at-bats in the regular season, once every 22 at-bats in the playoffs.
Dumb way to look at this. Here's a better way. And please, after I go through the trouble to type this out, let's end this.
1997 ALDS: 5-16, 1 HR, .313/.313/.563 (Very Good)
2000 ALDS: 4-13, .308/.308/.308 (Eh)
2000 ALCS: 9-22, 2 HR, .409/.480/.773 (Monster)
2004 ALDS: 8-19, 1 HR, .421/.476/.737 (Monster)
2004 ALCS: 8-31, 2 HR, .258/.378/.516 (Very Good)
2005 ALDS: 2-15, .133/.381/.200 (Bad, though he got on base)
2006 ALDS: 1-14, .071/.071/.071 (Terrible)
In seven series, he has two absolute beasts, two very good series, three kind of crummy ones. How can you say this guy falls apart in the postseason? In 2000-04 he went 25-72 with 5 HR and 7 2B. Now hear this, people:
Derek Jeter's Career Splits: .317/.388/.463
Derek Jeter's Career Postseason splits: .314/.384/.479
Mr. Clutch is actually Mr. Exactly the Same No Matter What Month You Are Talking About. He is Mr. Equally Excellent Hitting SS Every Month from April to November. He is Mr. Outrageously Similar Statistics Every 30 Days.
And for the record, in that huge 2004 ALCS against Boston, which earned ARod the reputation as a non-clutch player, Jeter went 6-30, .200/.333/.233.
The Pirates' Jason Bay never has known playoffs, but he batted .346 with runners in scoring position in 2005, then saw that drop nearly 100 points to .242 last season and to .133 in the early going this year. Surely, some clutch factor was involved.
How is that the conclusion?! The conclusion should be: in small numbers of data points, there is bound to be enormous fluctuation. This is like saying: yesterday it was sunny, today it poured. Surely, some Fertility God disapproved of our elk sacrifice.
"It's not so much a matter of raising your level in a clutch situation. It's a matter of keeping your level the same," Bay said. "Baseball is predicated on the idea that the people who are the most successful are the ones who do things the same way most consistently. It's not an emotion game like football or hockey, where you can go bust some skulls."
Jason Bay: possibly replacing Freddy Sanchez as FJM's new favorite non-Red Sox.
Bob Walk, among the living Pirates to have participated in a playoff game, is very much a believer.
"There are some guys who are better hitters in tough situations, and the stats will show that, too," he said.
I think we have sort of disproved that...with actual stats. I like it when guys just say "the stats will show it!" without actually looking at stats.
"They take a different approach to the plate. They're maybe not thinking so much about themselves and trying to pull the ball or hit it out of the park."
No. They take the exact same approach, and are already good, so they perform well.
"The guys who are successful don't have that fear of failure. Some guys have that, believe me."
I believe this. I also believe that they are good baseball players.
There is no bigger proponent of clutch in the Pirates' clubhouse than the man in charge.
When his team wins, Jim Tracy invariably points to "big" hits that were delivered. When the team loses, he points to the lack of same.
If you win a baseball game, ipso facto, you have gotten some "big" hits. If you lose a baseball game, ipso facto, you have failed to get some "big" hits. This is tautology, Mr. Tracy. Tautology, I say! (I mean, even if you are up 15-5 in the seventh inning and you fall apart and lose 16-15, you could look back and say, "If we had only cashed in on that bases-loaded-nobody-out in the fourth..." You get the idea.)
Even after the Pirates were blanked on three measly hits in their home opener April 9, Tracy lamented, "We had chances."
Yes. At least 27 of them. Like in every game.
Tracy's view is reflected in how he forms his lineup, bucking the modern thinking that the highest on-base percentage players should be stacked at the top. Instead, he favors the more traditional approach of getting the runner on, moving him along and getting a "big" hit.
How's that working out for you, Jimmy?
"Isn't that what makes teams good?" Tracy said when asked about his value of clutch. "It's what separates you from the pack, your ability to take the big at-bat. You don't expect somebody to hit 1.000 with runners in scoring position, but you have to get your share of hits in those situations. Look at the upper echelon of clubs, and that's what you look for. And if we can get to that point, we've got a chance to become a pretty decent team."
Amazing. Just amazing. I don't know where to begin.
What makes teams good, offensively, is not making outs. And of course you have to "get your share of hits" in any situation. But what in the world would prevent you from putting your high OBP guys at the top of the line-up? Baseball Prospectus has proved that line-up order doesn't really matter that much, but the higher in the order you are, the more AB you get. And the higher your OBP, the fewer outs you make, so -- given those extra AB -- you will increase your chance of winning baseball games. This is not black magic, people. This is straightforward logic. Delivered in a exaggeratedly strident tones over a blog.
It could not hurt. The National League's highest average with runners in scoring position last season was the .286 of the Los Angeles Dodgers, and they were one of the four playoff teams. The other three also ranked above the league average.
But then, so did ... the Pirates? Their .266 mark ranked seventh, even though they finished with the fewest runs and were nowhere near the playoffs.
So what does that teach us? It teaches us that it's not that crucial a stat, relatively speaking, because if the team isn't getting anyone on base, you can hit .300 with RISP and you won't score as many runs as other teams with lower BA and SLG with RISP. See?
The statistic that correlates most closely with scoring runs is on-base percentage ---- how many times a batter reaches base safely, whether by hit, walk or hit batsman -- and this is backed by every spreadsheet back to the late 19th century.
Where were you a paragraph earlier, man? I just typed all that shit for nothing?
Last year, the Pirates' on-base percentage was .327, third lowest in the league. This year, it is .303, second lowest.
Huh. So, Tracy is a bonehead?
But then ... so is their .190 average with runners in scoring position, which might bolster Tracy's case.
If their team OBP is .327, they can hit .500 with RISP and they still won't win anything. Tracy's "case" is that they need a high BA with RISP, and that OBP doesn't matter so much. That's like saying that the important part of the alley-oop is the slam dunk, and it doesn't matter so much whether anyone bothered to lob you the ball.
So, in the end, I guess I made fun of Jim Tracy. Dejan Kovacevic gets a check-plus, because I think if you read between the lines he is on the side of Facts and Truth. Freddy Sanchez and Jason Bay get gold stars. Ronny Paulino and everyone else who would rather pitch to Albert Pujols than to David Eckstein get a punch in the face and an exhortation to seek counseling.
Ray was a Yankees fan, and a solid dude. Took care of himself. Worked out. Looked you in the eye when he talked to you, that kind of thing. I liked Ray. Sometimes we would talk about baseball. Then, when Scott Brosius retired, he told me that one day -- mark his words -- Scott Brosius would be elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame.
That's when Ray and I basically stopped talking.
Ray, if you're out there, I'd like you to meet Chris Girandola of MLB.com. Chris, Ray. Ray, Chris.
Chris would like to make a HoF case for Mr. Brosius. And because of this, my right arm is trying to stop my left arm from typing a series of sentences following the form of: "Saying Scott Brosius should be in the Baseball Hall of Fame is like saying X should be in the Y Hall of Fame." (Send your entries to dak@firejoemorgan.com.)
For Yankees fans looking back during these Alex Rodriguez days, Scott Brosius might be considered as the antithesis of A-Rod.
Well, more or less. Compared to other major league players, Brosius was not that great at hitting the baseball. Alex Rodriguez is very very good at hitting the baseball. He likes to hit it far.
A-Rod has had his troubles at third base, defensively, but at other times in his career, he has been well above the defensive average by most accounts. Brosius was known as an excellent defensive third baseman. I have to speculate, however, that this reputation was built a little too heavily on his famous "barehanded roller" plays, at which he was said to be the best ever. You know, that play that comes up maybe once a month for every baseball team, where a dude has to barehand a ball with his hand. Torre and McCarver would have you believe that Brosius is basically the only 3B in the history of baseball who was able to make that play.
Of course, what the author is undoubtedly referring to in this whole "A-Rod antithesis" thing is their differences in performance in high-pressure situations. Critical junctures. What's that word? Ah, yes.
"Clurtch."
For the amound [sic] of pressure that goes along with playing in New York, Brosius had a knack for timely hits, including his game-tying two-run homer with two outs in the bottom of the ninth in Game 5 of the 2001 World Series.
In addition to the above described tater, his most Leyritzian of accomplishments, Brosius also single-handedly won game 3 of the 1998 WS by hitting two bombs against the San Diego Dads. In Game 3, he had a key RBI double that proved to be the game winner. That series was a lopsided sweep; in 2001, of course, the Yanks went on to lose to the D-Backs.
You might remember the bottom of the ninth inning of Game 7 in 2001. Jay Bell laid down a shitty bunt, picked up by Mo Rivera, who quickly tossed to get the force out at third. Replays showed that Brosius had plenty of time to get Bell at first on a double play, but instead, he held the ball. Jay Bell would go on to score the winning World Series run. In other words, the last time Scott Brosius was involved in a professional baseball play, he basically choked on the biggest stage possible. He also didn't fare too well in game 2 of that World Series: see "GOAT."
As far as the postseason in general, well, you be the judge: 196 AB: .245 / .278 / .418 It is his clutch hitting in the postseason, as well as his solid and, often times, spectacular defensive play, which may give members of the Baseball Writers' Association of America enough impetus to consider him for Hall of Fame induction in 2007.
It is his career .323 OBP, 95 OPS+, as well as his career total of 1,001 hits, which will cause such low voting totals that he will / should be left off all future ballots.
STATFLASH!
Scott Brosius finished in the top 10 in his league 3 times in his career: twice in Sacrifice Flies, and once in HBP!
When Brosius -- who is now coaching at his alma mater, Lindale College, in his home state of Oregon -- reflects on the championship years, he is more humbled than anything else, which speaks volumes about what type of character he brought to the table.
"There was no one guy who carried the load," said Brosius. "There were 25 important players on the team. Still, when I look back on it, I'm awed by the fact I was a part of that team. It was an amazing team and an amazing group of guys to be a part of. I'm glad that I was able to contribute and help them achieve as much as we did."
Listen, dudes. You do not get bonus points for giving credit to your teammates when, in fact, you were one of the lesser players on that team.
Remember, when it comes to HoF voting, the character issue is relevant. The rules for election clearly state: "Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, contributions to the team(s) on which the player played, and the player's ability to field slow-rolling ground balls with one's bare hand and then quickly throw to first base while still running." So we are supposed to look at a player's character -- and Chris wants us to believe that Brosius shows great character and humility by pointing out that the 1996-2001 Yankees were not just a One Brosius Wrecking Crew?
Again, just to review: this dude on MLB.com is saying that Scott Brosius should be in the Hall of Fame, in part because he acknowledges that there were 25 players -- not just him -- on the Yankees. For those of you who may not be familiar with baseball, this is more or less the equivalent of claiming that Anthony Anderson is one of the greatest actors of all time because he once said that "The Departed" featured a "wonderful ensemble cast." Considering that since his retirement, the Yankees have reached the World Series only once, losing in six games to the Florida Marlins in 2003, it would seem logical that a strong case could be made for Brosius to fill one of the seats in the Hall of Fame.
There you go. Because the Yanks have only been to the World Series once since 2001, Scott Brosius should be in the Hall of Fame.
First of all, thank you all for your concerned e-mails as to our whereabouts. No, we were not assassinated by a Joe Morgan-led attack squad, nor were we beaten to death by a 1980 New York Yankee Bat Day Commemorative Bobby Murcer Model Bat wielded by HatGuy Celizic. Dak is in San Francisco, and Junior, Murbles and I were simply working at our real jobs, which, though they dramatically cut down on the time we spend trawling for idiocy on the World Wide InterWeb of Data, are what allow us to feed and shelter ourselves while we trawl for idiocy on the World Wide InterWeb of Data. But thanks for the concern.
More importantly, good news! Our beloved self-same HatGuy, the President and CEO of Let's Yankee It Up! Inc., L.L.C., has, and this is going to come as a shock to many of you, I think, written an article about the Yankees.
But here's the kicker: it's not just an article. It's a stupid article! Double bonus! In fact, it is so stupid, it is called "A-Rod is great — but not in the clutch." Excited? Me too!
Disappointingly, Celizic makes some good points. Undisappointingly, he also lays down some huge boners.
[After the recent Red Sox series] A-Rod went home with his reputation intact as a hitter who doesn’t produce in the clutch and doesn’t win games. We’re hearing more about that reputation in New York these days as the depleted Yankees struggle to score runs.
The Yankees have scored 259 runs this year. That is third in all of MLB.
After a while, you start to wonder what people thought he was when the Yankees traded for him before the 2004 season. He had that huge salary, true, but you can’t judge a player by his paycheck — at least you shouldn’t. You go by what he does on the field. A-Rod was sold as the premier player in the game, and he’s been that, winning a second MVP trophy last season. He hits for power and for average. Once the game’s best shortstop, he moved to third to accommodate Yankees captain and hero for life Derek Jeter and became one of the game’s best third basemen.
The Yankees got what they paid for and what everyone should have expected. What they didn’t get was what A-Rod never was — a great clutch hitter. You heard it when he was with the Mariners and then the Rangers. Both teams failed to win when he was there and got better when he left. Therefore, he’s not a good player.
Now, at this point, if you're like me, and I think you are, you are thinking: "I hate Mike Celizic." Because: "clutch" hitting either doesn't exist or exists in some intangible way that is nearly impossible to measure, and also (as plenty of previous posts on this blog and plenty of Baseball Prospectus articles and the like have shown scientifically) ARod is really really really good at baseball, in every inning, and has plenty of "clutch" postseason hits and HR and everything else. Thus: the previous boldfaced paragraph is one of the dumbest things ever written.
But here's the kicker: HatGuy, out of nowhere, suddenly reveals that he was writing it ironically. Which is an even bigger "what the hell?" moment. Check it out:
That’s nonsense, too. You don’t average 40 home runs, 120 RBIs and 120 runs a season without helping to win games. And three-run home runs that get your team off to what becomes a 12-4 victory aren’t meaningless. If the Mariners and Rangers got better when he left, it was because they got better pitching and more balanced lineups.
So now HatGuy has journalistically like reversed course without warning. I frankly don't think it's very artful, either. I think he just doesn't know whether he believes that ARod is clutch or not-clutch, and is trying to cover all of his bases. Because he flip-flops back again:
Anyway, Seattle is bad again, and whose fault is that? Probably still A-Rod’s. He is, as a recent Star-Ledger piece by Dan Graziano was headlined, “A Lightning Rod.” The $25 million salary draws the attention. And his numbers in clutch situations galvanizes opinion.
Now I'm really confused. Is ARod clutch? Not clutch? Overpaid? Are his teams better when he leaves? What does this guy believe?
There is evidence to back up the claims that he’s not the greatest clutch player in the game. A-Rod has relatively modest numbers batting with runners in scoring position late in close games, numbers that look humble next to those of the Red Sox’ David Ortiz. People remember his failure to produce last year in the playoffs against the Angels and in the final four games of the seven-game loss to the Red Sox the year before in the ALCS. When he hit into an inning-ending double play late in a recent game against the Mets, it was mentioned high in every game story.
I can't believe I have to do this again.
ARod, postseason:
118 AB, .305/.393/.534. 6HR, 9 2B, 19 R.
That's pretty good.
And yes, he has had some high-profile postseason failures, but anyone who saw the Mariners-Yankees series in 2000 when he hit .409/.480/.737 in 22 AB and hit a HR off the top of the left-field foul pole at the Stadium and was basically the only Mariner hitter who showed up...any of those people laugh at junk like this.
On a side-note, has anyone ever looked at Emmy Award-Winning Sportscaster Joe Morgan's lifetime postseason numbers?
181 AB. .182/.323/.348. Now that's bad. But back to HatGuy:
"It'll never stop until I win five or six world championships, and hit a Joe Carter home run to win one of them," Rodriguez said, the New York Daily News reported. "I don't take anything personally. I think it's comical. Anyone who drives in 130 runs has to hit in the clutch. I've done a lot of special things in this game. For none of that to be considered clutch is an injustice."
Any psychoanalysts in the house? I'm guessing this is some hard-core inadequacy coming out in the form of overblown self-confidence. But what do I know?
When he was in Seattle, Edgar Martinez and Ken Griffey Jr. were the guys who carried the team. A-Rod was the complimentary weapon who made Martinez and Griffey that much more fearsome.
.316/.420/.606. 41 HR, 134 R, 132 RBI, 100 BB. Those are Alex Rodriguez's 2000 numbers. .324/.423/.579. 37 HR, 100 R, 145 RBI, 96 BB. Those are Edgar Martinez's 2000 numbers. .285/.384/.576. 48 HR, 123 R, 134 RBI, 91 BB. Those are Griffey's 1999 numbers (his last season in Seattle).
Someone tell me how ARod, playing SS, was less a guy who "carried the team" than he was a "complimentary weapon" who "made Martinez and Griffey more fearsome." What kind of retarded claim is that? Don't make me do a WARP analysis to prove that those numbers from a SS are more valuable than those from a DH. Please.
But he never has been a guy to put a team on his back and drag it out of a slump or through the late months of a season. He wasn’t with Seattle, wasn’t with Texas. There was never any reason to expect he would be in New York.
So, we are back to arguing that ARod is not a clutch hitter?
And also, what exactly could this guy have done in Seattle or Texas that he did not do? He played every day and put up MVP numbers every year. You can't just say "he never put a team on his back" without explaining what you mean. What do you mean? You are a bad journalist. Speaking of which, it's been five seconds, so you should stop saying that ARod isn't clutch and go back to saying that the claims that ARod isn't clutch are short-sighted.
Yet, he’s the person everyone points at when things go wrong. In that game against the Mets, the Yankees left 17 runners stranded, but A-Rod got the blame for his late-game double play. In the Monday loss to Boston, A-Rod did more than any of his teammates, but the home run he hit gets devalued because of the game situation.
Nicely done. Now, quickly go back to saying that ARod isn't clutch.
It could be that his deep desire to prove himself worthy is what holds him back in those clutch situations. Derek Jeter can walk to the plate with the pressure ratcheted up to crushing levels, say to himself he has to get on base, and do it. A-Rod can walk up in the same situation, say the same thing, and end the inning, 6-4-3.
Great. Thank you. Now quote a meaningless statistic to prove...nothing, and then explain it with unscientific babble:
And it could also be that his tendency to try too hard may prove to be his undoing in New York. This year, under pressure from the owner and the fans and the media, his average is mired in the .270s, nearly 30 points below his lifetime average. If he were somewhere that didn’t demand as much, he might be giving more.
Batting average? Even for you, HatGuy, that's stupid. So far this year ARod is 47-172. If just six -- six -- bleeders through the infield, or line shots at infielders, or flairs behind second, had fallen in, he'd be at .308, above his lifetime average. So...shut up about BA. And shut up about how NY is such a pressure cooker. ARod played there last year, I think, and won the goddamn league MVP. And by the way, shouldn't you be flip-flopping on whether ARod is clutch by now?
But none of that should say he’s been a failure or even a disappointment. The numbers are there. The MVP plaque is on the wall. The team continues to win the AL East and get into the playoffs, and, if it hasn’t gone to the World Series, it’s hardly his fault alone. Before he got to New York, the Yankees had already gone three years without a World Series win. Since then, all they’ve done is go two more years without a title. But it’s been a total team effort.
What point are you making about ARod right now? Do you even know?
The Yankees could win without him, but that doesn’t mean they should move him.
Who said anything about moving him? He's one of the three best players in baseball, even playing out of position to satisfy Jeter's ego. He makes $25m a year. Who would take him? Why would they trade him? What are you talking about?
He’s still a great player, one who will help a team win a lot of games over the course of the season.
Uh huh...steady now...that's good, Mike...keep it together...
He never was the player who will carry a team to a championship, and probably never will be. But that’s what he’s always been and what the Yankees accepted when they traded for him. If they want a great clutch hitter, it’s not fair to carp about A-Rod. They’ve got the money. Let them buy one.
"When Mike Celizic says Rodriguez never carried a team late in a season, he has a very short memory. September 9, 2005: the Yankees trailed Boston by four games and were just starting a series at the Stadium against those same Sox. Rodriguez went 3-for-5 with a home run, double, 2 runs and 2 RBI to lead the Yankees to victory. Over the final 23 games, the Yankees would go 17-6 to steal the division from the Red Sox. In that stretch, Rodriguez hit .322/.417/.667 with 8 HR, 22 RBI & 21 runs. Oh, and he was a perfect 8-for-8 on the basepaths."
