Dale Murphy Should be in the HOF. Period.

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • babaoriley
    SBR MVP
    • 12-11-06
    • 2316

    #1
    Dale Murphy Should be in the HOF. Period.
    As mentioned in Kellen's Hawk thread, I'm posting my full email to Rob Neyer on 12/17/07 after an article he wrote (look it up in his archive if you wish). Here it is (actually this is two separate emails as you'll see the break):

    Considering the recent steroid implications, I thought this email I sent you 2 and a half years ago is a tad more relevant.

    P.S. Great article about HGH. A few more articles like that and you may find yourself on the road to arguing the relative merits of cocaine vs. caffeine in a few years. I've taken the liberty of bold-facing the more relevant passages, in case you have A.D.H.D. or just simply don't have the time to read such a long screed (entirely plausible).



    > From: ME
    > To: rob.neyer@dig.com
    > Subject: Underrated: NO DALE MURPHY??? Neyer, do your homework!!!
    > Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 18:40:38 -0500


    > "If you're a coach, you want him as a player. If you're a father, you want him as a son. If you're a woman, you want him as a husband. If you're a kid, you want him as a father. What else can you say about the guy?" -- Joe Torre about Dale Murphy
    >
    > Let's see...
    > Dale played with a lackluster supporting cast for 10+ years (try having Rafeal Ramirez, Glenn Hubbard, Bob Horner, Bruce Benedict, Jerry Royster, -should I go on... OK, I will-, Ken Oberkfell, Gerald Perry, Albert Hall, Chris Chambliss & Claudell Washington prominently involved)... The pitching was atrocious, at best (Rick Mahler, Pascual Perez, Craig McMurtury, Zane Smith, Gene Garber, Rick Camp, Pete Falcone, and a hapless lot of other, even LESS memorable pitchers were the main "support"... So, my argument is as follows: Murph played for a perennial loser (actually, a perennial JOKE), with absolutely NO offensive support, No pitching, and no hope of making the playoffs... Yet, ye "sportswriters" forget: the Braves were the Devil-Rays of the 80's. Period. So, the implications are:
    > A) No offensive support: Pitchers could pitch around Murph AT WILL
    > B) No pitching: Again, opposing pitchers could pitch around Murph AT WILL (when you're up by a few runs, as most Braves' opponents were, then you obviously pitch around the best... Scratch that... ONLY offensive threat on the team). Need evidence? Notice that Murph was, by all accounts, a free swinger, yet he managed to finish in the top 10 in NL BB every year from '82-'88 (about 2,000 total BB; most of them of the "intentional-yet non-intentional" variety).
    > More figures (keep in mind, NO steroids):
    >
    > 1) 2 consecutive MVP's (could have been more, had he had adequate offensive support)
    > 2) 7 All-Star selections ('80-'87, the only exception being the strike shortened ’81 season)
    > 3) 5 consecutive Gold Gloves
    > 4) 4 consecutive Silver Sluggers
    > 5) 740 consecutive games played (he rarely missed a game for a bottom-feeder team)
    > 6) Number of Top 10 finishes in the NL per statistic (number of times in which he led NL in parentheses, then career totals where applicable):
    > Home Runs- 9 (2) 398 total
    > RBI- 6 (2) 1,266 total
    > Runs- 6 (1) though he finished 2nd twice and 3rd once... Remember, he was the Braves SLUGGER, not table setter)
    > 7) OPS 6 (1) with 3 2nd place finishes
    > 8) TB 7 (1, but ALL top 5 finishes)
    > 9) Runs created (possibly most important) 7 (led the NL 4 times!!!)

    >
    > Next, the intangibles: "At a time when athletes shun their role model status and are routinely suspended and banned from their respective sports for unlawful conduct, Dale Murphy shouldered the responsibility of being a role model to thousands of children and generously gave of his time and money to numerous charities. Dale is a man of extraordinary talent and character. Unfortunately, many baseball fans suspect that Murphy will be the next victim of the Baseball Writers' oversight and never be voted into the Hall of Fame.
    >
    > Apparently 400 home runs is pretty much a free ticket to Cooperstown but 398 home runs, back-to-back MVP awards, 5 straight Gold Gloves, and 740 consecutive games, not to mention his character and unsurpassed community service record, is another story. Whether or not Murphy is given his due by the BBWAA" remains to be seen. Quote from http://members.aol.com/brave3/murphy.htm.
    >
    > So:
    > - No steroids, juiced balls, corked bats, etc.
    > - Team loyalty. 'Nuff said.
    > - No known vices. A devout Mormon; a role model at a time when the '86 Mets (amongst others) lived as though they were auditioning for V.I.P. status at Studio 54.
    > - 30/30 club member (quite rare for a player of his stature-- 6'5'' and role-- slugger)

    >
    > Yes, Murph didn't play 15-20 years. Yes, his decline from '89 on was obvious. And, most importantly; yes, he's the proud owner of ZERO World Series trophies. But Murph played in an era when baseball was still, for the most part, a game; and he played the game with passion and class. He never asked to be traded, never held out for a higher contract, never blamed his team's failures on his teammates, and never bought into his own hype (a la '86 Mets). As a kid, I remember making the trek to Fulton County Stadium several times, and the image that is forever etched in my memory is that of Dale Murphy: smiling, playing a GAME that he truly loved while respecting the fact that it was also a job, and above all, I remember Murph standing around before batting practice and after games, patiently signing autographs and taking pictures for the kids who wore his uniform number 3 in their respective little leagues. (Getting the #3 jersey in Little League was similar to snagging the #23 in Basketball youth leagues).
    >
    > Murph wouldn't have made it in today's game. He would never have bought into the "performance-enhancing drugs" act... He would have been embarrased and appalled by the frenzied, over-the-top greed of today's ballplayers, and equally so by the lack of team loyalty. Murph defined the Atlanta Braves of the '80's, much like Ozzie and the Cards, Ripken and the Orioles, Schmidt and the Phils, Brett and the Royals. Most importantly, though, he was a role model---in every possible way--- to a throng of adoring Braves fans, including myself. If the Hall of Fame refuses to allow Dale Murphy membership, then the Hall of Fame will soon cater to an exclusive club of over-hyped, overpaid, and genetically deformed, mutant sluggers with "questionable" training habits.
    >
    > Rob, as a fellow baseball fanatic, I assumed that these stats wouldn't have escaped your trained eyes and unrivaled researching. Sadly, I was wrong.
    >
    > P.S. Putting Brooks Robinson on the "Most overrated" list was quite possibly the most ignorant statement I've ever read by you (and I've read my share)... Well, good luck getting Reggie Smith into the HOF. He's as memorable as Dale Murphy (in bizarro world), and best of luck to you as you seemingly sink into the blissful abyss of senility (albeit a bit early).
  • pokernut9999
    SBR Posting Legend
    • 07-25-07
    • 12757

    #2
    Always my favorite, class guy all the way !!!
    Comment
    • Kellen
      SBR MVP
      • 01-19-08
      • 3484

      #3
      "If you're a coach, you want him as a player. If you're a father, you want him as a son. If you're a woman, you want him as a husband. If you're a kid, you want him as a father. What else can you say about the guy?" -- Joe Torre about Dale Murphy


      That is a hell of a quote and right on the money. One class act talking about another class act.
      Comment
      • babaoriley
        SBR MVP
        • 12-11-06
        • 2316

        #4
        Originally posted by pokernut9999
        Always my favorite, class guy all the way !!!
        Personality/greed wise, he was like Stephon Marbury crossed with Latrell Sprewell.... Except the exact opposite.
        Comment
        • pokernut9999
          SBR Posting Legend
          • 07-25-07
          • 12757

          #5
          First road trip with the Braves he asked who to turn in his left over meal money to.
          Comment
          • awhitejackson
            SBR MVP
            • 11-15-07
            • 2265

            #6
            I remeber watching him growing up and was always impressed...His character seems unflawed...good thread
            Comment
            • babaoriley
              SBR MVP
              • 12-11-06
              • 2316

              #7
              Hey donjuan, using your analysis from the Hawk thread, and your prior snarky statement that MVP's also don't matter (and that anyone arguing the relative merit of MVP's should be taken out of the gene pool), I'm wondering why exactly you feel Murphy doesn't belong in the HOF (and Dawson for that matter). According to your criteria, OPS, Runs Created, and the like are measurables that should be taken into account and Murph posted the following.
              # of Top 10 finishes in the NL in each statistic (Times Led League in Parentheses):
              OPS 6 (1) with 3 2nd place finishes
              TB 7 (1), but ALL were top 5 finishes
              Runs created (possibly most important) 7 (led the NL 4 times!!!)

              And he did this while playing for a cellar dwelling Braves team that had no pitching and no support around Murph.

              Now, personally, I think the fact that he was one of the defining players of the 80's should be good enough, especially in light of the 2 MVP's, 5 consecutive Gold Gloves, 30-30 club membership (when it was still rare), finished in the top-10 in BB (a sure sign that he was being pitched around)... I'm just curious as to why you feel Murph and Dawson don't belong in the HOF. And while you're at it, please let me know if Ozzie Smith and Gary Carter should be in the HOF and tell me why or why not.
              Comment
              • donjuan
                SBR MVP
                • 08-29-07
                • 3993

                #8
                1. I never said Dale Murphy doesn't belong in the HOF prior to this post.

                2. He has a career OPS+ of 122. That is good and all, but not HOF material for an OF.

                3. He had a career EqA (adjusted for all-time) of .285. That is not HOF material for an OF.

                4. Gold Gloves, Silver Sluggers, etc. are all awful metrics of how good he was since they are voted on by morons.

                5. His actions off the field, while nice, do not qualify him for the Baseball Hall of Fame.
                Comment
                • babaoriley
                  SBR MVP
                  • 12-11-06
                  • 2316

                  #9
                  Originally posted by donjuan
                  1. I never said Dale Murphy doesn't belong in the HOF prior to this post.

                  2. He has a career OPS+ of 122. That is good and all, but not HOF material for an OF.

                  3. He had a career EqA (adjusted for all-time) of .285. That is not HOF material for an OF.

                  4. Gold Gloves, Silver Sluggers, etc. are all awful metrics of how good he was since they are voted on by morons.

                  5. His actions off the field, while nice, do not qualify him for the Baseball Hall of Fame.
                  First off, congrats on posting in a reasonable format. I will reply to you with the same courtesy. Taking into account the relative dead-ball feeling of the 80's, the feeling that the HOF should, repeat should be a monument to the sport that paints a picture, provides a timeline of the sport's history. The 80's, as a whole, have been sorely ignored and misrepresented. Ozzie, Sandberg, Gary Carter all in the HOF, but not Murph? When I think 1980's I think Murph before I think Carter or Sandberg.

                  That said, you say that morons vote for Gold Gloves, Silver Sluggers, etc. and you've already stated your opinion that MVP's are worthless. Now, if we're going strictly by the numbers, I think we can all agree that there are quite a few HOF'ers that don't quite fit the bill (Mazeroski, for one). But by your standards, awards are meaningless. By the HOF committee's standards, awards are usually meaningful and they certainly are at least reflective of the perception that came with that player by the writers of his era.
                  Comment
                  • matskralc
                    SBR High Roller
                    • 11-26-07
                    • 202

                    #10
                    Murphy played 14 full seasons. I count 5 ('82-'85, '87), maybe 6 ('80) HOF-level seasons. The other 9, he was merely good ('79, '86) or even worse: average. That's not a HOFer.
                    Comment
                    • donjuan
                      SBR MVP
                      • 08-29-07
                      • 3993

                      #11
                      OPS+ and EqA adjusted for all-time take into account the periods in which players played.

                      You're not going to get much argument from me about Gary Carter not belonging in the HOF. He's marginal, at best. However his career WARP3 of 111 is significantly better than Murphy's 82.2. In fact, Maz has a similar career WARP3 to Murphy, which should tell you something.
                      Comment
                      • babaoriley
                        SBR MVP
                        • 12-11-06
                        • 2316

                        #12
                        Originally posted by matskralc
                        Murphy played 14 full seasons. I count 5 ('82-'85, '87), maybe 6 ('80) HOF-level seasons. The other 9, he was merely good ('79, '86) or even worse: average. That's not a HOFer.
                        Please break down Gary Carter, Joe Carter, Ozzie Smith and Ryne Sandberg using those same criteria.
                        Comment
                        • donjuan
                          SBR MVP
                          • 08-29-07
                          • 3993

                          #13
                          By the HOF committee's standards, awards are usually meaningful and they certainly are at least reflective of the perception that came with that player by the writers of his era.
                          Perception does not equal reality, though. IMO, the HOF should be about the best baseball players, not who certain writers liked. Can you not see that having the likes of Woody Paige and Bill Plaschke decide who goes in the HOF (based on awards voting as well as actual HOF voting) is ridiculous?
                          Comment
                          • LVHerbie
                            SBR Hall of Famer
                            • 09-15-05
                            • 6344

                            #14
                            Dale is a yes, andre is a definite no....
                            Comment
                            • donjuan
                              SBR MVP
                              • 08-29-07
                              • 3993

                              #15
                              LVHerbie,

                              I posted this in the other thread:

                              Let's play a game called name that player:

                              Player 1: 133 OPS+, .379 OBP, .304 EqA, 103 WARP3
                              Player 2: 119 OPS+, .323 OBP, .283 EqA, 101.7 WARP3
                              Player 3: 121 OPS+, .346 OBP, .285 EqA, 82.2 WARP3
                              Which, if any, of these players belongs in the HOF?
                              Comment
                              • durito
                                SBR Posting Legend
                                • 07-03-06
                                • 13173

                                #16
                                woody paige is a ****ing moron
                                Comment
                                • donjuan
                                  SBR MVP
                                  • 08-29-07
                                  • 3993

                                  #17
                                  I missed this gem before:

                                  Putting Brooks Robinson on the "Most overrated" list was quite possibly the most ignorant statement I've ever read by you
                                  Yeah, career EqA of .263 and OPS+ of 104. That's pretty much the definition of ordinary. Unless you are suggesting people think Brooks Robinson was ordinary, he is definitely overrated.
                                  Comment
                                  • dannyt76
                                    SBR Wise Guy
                                    • 06-29-07
                                    • 779

                                    #18
                                    Originally posted by LVHerbie
                                    Dale is a yes, andre is a definite no....
                                    Agree with you on this.
                                    Comment
                                    • donjuan
                                      SBR MVP
                                      • 08-29-07
                                      • 3993

                                      #19
                                      Dannyt,

                                      See my post with the 3 "hidden" players in it. Can you guys which player is which?
                                      Comment
                                      • donjuan
                                        SBR MVP
                                        • 08-29-07
                                        • 3993

                                        #20
                                        Bump for Baba.
                                        Comment
                                        • Deuce
                                          BARRELED IN @ SBR!
                                          • 01-12-08
                                          • 29843

                                          #21
                                          Who?
                                          Comment
                                          • babaoriley
                                            SBR MVP
                                            • 12-11-06
                                            • 2316

                                            #22
                                            Originally posted by donjuan
                                            I missed this gem before:



                                            Yeah, career EqA of .263 and OPS+ of 104. That's pretty much the definition of ordinary. Unless you are suggesting people think Brooks Robinson was ordinary, he is definitely overrated.
                                            You're a complete and total tool, donjuan. How many times have you read my original post? Please post your complete baseball HOF (comprehensive, of course) but do it in YOUR F*CKING THREAD. I expect no intangibles. Base your entire HOF on WARP3, EqA, OPS+ and whatever other stats you think completely and totally define a player. I want stats, baby! Give me stats!!! And not the stats that the HOF depends on... I want the new-gen stats. Get on it, pronto. P.S. your db+ rating has skyrocketed over the last 24 hours.
                                            Comment
                                            • NEP Dynasty
                                              SBR Wise Guy
                                              • 10-17-06
                                              • 858

                                              #23
                                              Originally posted by babaoriley
                                              You're a complete and total tool, donjuan. How many times have you read my original post? Please post your complete baseball HOF (comprehensive, of course) but do it in YOUR F*CKING THREAD. I expect no intangibles. Base your entire HOF on WARP3, EqA, OPS+ and whatever other stats you think completely and totally define a player. I want stats, baby! Give me stats!!! And not the stats that the HOF depends on... I want the new-gen stats. Get on it, pronto. P.S. your db+ rating has skyrocketed over the last 24 hours.
                                              Don Juan lives in his own world, don't worry about him.
                                              Comment
                                              • donjuan
                                                SBR MVP
                                                • 08-29-07
                                                • 3993

                                                #24
                                                Ah, the typical angry lost-the-plot ramblings of Baba, when confronted with evidence. Let's get to the good stuff:

                                                You're a complete and total tool, donjuan. How many times have you read my original post?
                                                Did you think that the length of your email to Neyer would obfuscate the many idiotic points you make in it or something?

                                                Please post your complete baseball HOF (comprehensive, of course) but do it in YOUR F*CKING THREAD.
                                                What, exactly, a comprehensive list of players who belong in the HOF has to do with Brooks Robinson being overrated is pretty unclear.

                                                I expect no intangibles. Base your entire HOF on WARP3, EqA, OPS+ and whatever other stats you think completely and totally define a player. I want stats, baby! Give me stats!!! And not the stats that the HOF depends on... I want the new-gen stats.
                                                Well this would be logical since these are stats that actually matter, unlike, to pick 2 meaningless stats off the top of my head, broken bats w/RISP or RBIs.

                                                However, since you are obviously being sarcastic, I'd love to hear how intangibles should factor in (other than players who literally change the game like Jackie Robinson). Should we throw in heart? Or grit? Screw objective stats that remove bias. Let's get as subjective as possible by throwing in "intangibles" which have almost no effect on a baseball game! Excuse me while I vomit.

                                                P.S. your db+ rating has skyrocketed over the last 24 hours.
                                                Cheers.
                                                Comment
                                                • babaoriley
                                                  SBR MVP
                                                  • 12-11-06
                                                  • 2316

                                                  #25
                                                  Originally posted by NEP Dynasty
                                                  Don Juan lives in his own world, don't worry about him.
                                                  I would put him on Ignore (to join the poster known as Greek) but I'm patiently waiting for him to post his picks, even if it's just for a short, brief stretch, and I'd hate to miss them...
                                                  Comment
                                                  • donjuan
                                                    SBR MVP
                                                    • 08-29-07
                                                    • 3993

                                                    #26
                                                    Don Juan lives in his own world, don't worry about him.
                                                    Is that the world of reality where super-duper-clutchman extraordinaire David Ortiz has the following stats:

                                                    Career: .288 AVG, .383 OBP, .940 OPS
                                                    RISP, 2 outs: .278 AVG, .405 OBP, .915 OPS

                                                    Just curious, mind you.
                                                    Comment
                                                    • NEP Dynasty
                                                      SBR Wise Guy
                                                      • 10-17-06
                                                      • 858

                                                      #27
                                                      I dunno about you Donny Boy, but the walkoff HR in Game 3 of the 2004 ALDS, followed by the walkoff HR in game 4 of the ALCS, followed by a HR in the 8th inning of game 5 of the ALCS, followed by the walk off single in game 5 of the ALCS, would be, in most sports fans minds, clutch. Maybe you are the brilliant exception.
                                                      Comment
                                                      • babaoriley
                                                        SBR MVP
                                                        • 12-11-06
                                                        • 2316

                                                        #28
                                                        Don, The fact that you just said "I missed this gem" says to me "I read and reread your initial Neyer email to try to pick it apart as much as possible, finally stumbling on the Brooks quote", which basically confirms that you are indeed in need of companionship.
                                                        Comment
                                                        • babaoriley
                                                          SBR MVP
                                                          • 12-11-06
                                                          • 2316

                                                          #29
                                                          Originally posted by donjuan
                                                          Is that the world of reality where super-duper-clutchman extraordinaire David Ortiz has the following stats:

                                                          Career: .288 AVG, .383 OBP, .940 OPS
                                                          RISP, 2 outs: .278 AVG, .405 OBP, .915 OPS

                                                          Just curious, mind you.
                                                          It's WHEN he was clutch that mattered more than how often he was clutch.
                                                          Comment
                                                          • donjuan
                                                            SBR MVP
                                                            • 08-29-07
                                                            • 3993

                                                            #30
                                                            I dunno about you Donny Boy, but the walkoff HR in Game 3 of the 2004 ALDS, followed by the walkoff HR in game 4 of the ALCS, followed by a HR in the 8th inning of game 5 of the ALCS, followed by the walk off single in game 5 of the ALCS, would be, in most sports fans minds, clutch. Maybe you are the brilliant exception.
                                                            What part of small sample size don't you understand?

                                                            Here's a fun article on why the concept of clutch hitting is so convoluted:

                                                            The idea that there are batters whose hits are more noteworthy for their timeliness than for their quality is probably as old as the game itself. Efforts to measure "clutch-hitting" systematically include the RBI, one of the three most universal batting statistics, and more recnt1y, the "game-winning hit". It is my own belief that clutch hitters, even if a few perhaps exist, have a negligible effect on the out-come of a pennant race.



                                                            The question of whether or not clutch hitters exist should be a fundamental issue in Statistical Analysis. Pete Palmer and I believe that one can explain most of the final season standings as some properly formulated total of the individual players' records. For example, the BRA considers only total bases, walks, hits, and so forth, without reference to the game situation when these occurred. Certainly a home run which occurs late in a tie game is more valuable to a team than one which occurs in a one-sided game. But Pete and I have always suspected that it is a matter of luck, not "clutch-hitting", if a particular player gets more than his share of dramatic hits. Should there however be evidence that we are wrong, then statistical analyses must somehow be revised to reflect the timeliness as well as the quantity of hitting.



                                                            In order to determine whether clutch hitters exist, we need a measure of hitting timeliness and a measure of hitting quantity. The inadequacies of the RBI and the "game-winning hit" as measures of timeliness have been deplored by many authorities. However, the brothers E.G. and H.D. Mills devised a very clever and irrefutable measure1. The probable outcome of a baseball game was determined by computer play for every one of the almost 8000 possible situations (two out, none on, score tied, top of 2nd; runners at 2nd and 3rd, bottom of 6th, home team trailing by two; etc.) at the average level of hitting for a particular season. Then each participant in every play in every game of the season is given a certain number of “Win” or “Loss” points, according to how much his involvement in the play advances or reduces his team’s chance of winning the game.



                                                            For example, a solo home run in the ninth inning of a game in which one team is leading by six runs is worth only about 5 "Win" points; but Bobby Thomson's home run (in a very important game) increased the Giants' chances of victory from 25% to 100% and was worth 1470 "Win" points. A player's "Win" and "Loss" points are accumulated over a season to yield his "Player Win Average". PWA's for 1969 varied from Versalles' .330 to McCovey's .677 and for 1970 from Doyle's .374 to McCovey's .648. Of course hitting a Thomson timely home run in any game has a substantial effect on a player's whole season's PWA, increasing it by 40 points even for an everyday player.



                                                            The Player Win Average is without doubt a perfect measure of which hitters (and pitchers) are winning and losing games. But its computation, with the requirement of an accounting for every situation in every game, is forbiddingly expensive even when the data are available, and quite impossible in general since play-by-play information is not saved by the major leagues.



                                                            As a measure of the quantity of hitting for players in 1969 and 1970, I will use the Batter Win Average (BW A), a further refinement of the BRA concept discussed in the 1974 Baseball Research Journal. The BWA and BRA depend on a fundamental empirical relationship in baseball play; the number of runs scored in league play is nearly equal to the product of league plate appearances, league slugging percentage, and league on-base average, provided that the on-base average takes appropriate account of reached on errors and grounded into double plays:



                                                            runsL = BFPL*SPctL*[(H + W + HB + ½*SB - CS + ½*Er – 2*GDP)/(AB + W + HB)]L



                                                            (where the subscript L refers to league totals and applies to the individual items in the on-base average).



                                                            Therefore for any individual player one can also use the above equation to compute the number of runs the league would have scored if the player had been replaced in all his plate appearances by an average hitter. The difference in the two league run totals, + or -, reflects the batter's above- or below-average skills in producing runs for his team. A further correction is needed for "indirect runs" -runs resulting from extra plate appearances contributed or denied to his team by a player's higher- or lower-than-average on-base average. The total + or - "offensive run production" (OffR) of a batter is divided by his plate appearances and a normalizing factor reflecting the level of hitting in that season to yield his BW A. The validity of this whole procedure is shown from its improved ability to account for team run-scoring and victories.



                                                            To make these new statistics somewhat tangible, the following table showing the highest and lowest BWA players in each league in 1969 and 1970 is given:



                                                            Season/Player B.A. HR BRA* BFP RC** OffR BWA

                                                            1969 McCovey .320 45 .277 623 172 +76.0 +.130

                                                            1970 McCovey .289 39 .248 638 158 +63.7 +.099

                                                            1969 Killebrew .276 49 .244 709 173 +73.1 +.109

                                                            1970 Yastrzemski .329 40 .247 697 172 +73.5 +.110

                                                            1969 Garrido .220 0 .048 251 12 -16.4 -.071

                                                            1970 Lanier .231 2 .049 463 23 -36.7 -.079

                                                            1969 Cullen .209 I .039 277 11 -21.6 -.086

                                                            1970 Thompson .219 0 .049 318 16 -22.1 .074



                                                            * BRA computed with a –2*GDP term in the numerator of the DBA. But the

                                                            1/2Er term is excluded as no individual player totals exist.

                                                            ** Runs Contributed (Re) = BRA*BFP. Indicates the runs the batter would

                                                            contribute to a lineup of equally skilled batters, not the runs he would con-

                                                            tribute to a typical lineup.



                                                            The BW A is tedious to compute with a slide rule or ordinary calculator but is almost as accessible as a batting average with a programmable calculator such as the Hewlett-Packard HP-65.



                                                            To summarize the discussion so far, both the PW A and the BWA are measures of overall batting skill. The PWA is a pure measure of clutch hitting. As its inventors say: "We have made the when the dominant factor. with no regard for the kind of what that happened." The BWA is pure measure of hitting quantity. Whether a particular home run is meaningless or Thomson-timely, it will still raise the everyday player's BWA by an identical three points. Thus a comparison of the PWA’s and BWA’s of players in the 1969 and 1970 seasons should provide considerable insight into the importance of clutch hitting.



                                                            My first comparison was to confirm a study by Pete Palmer, who had found that PWA's and BWA's are highly correlated. In fact, if one knows a player's BWA, one can predict his PWA with high accuracy using the following equation:



                                                            PWA = (BWA)*(1.37) + .484



                                                            This means that most-about 80%-of the differences among players' PWA's are really attributable to differences in the quantity of their hits, not to differences in the timeliness of their hits. For example McCovey had the highest NL PWA's in both 1969 and 1970 because as his highest BW A's indicate, his chances of hitting a home run were unusually high in any situation, important or not, and because his chances of making an out and thereby reducing the Giant's chances of winning were unusually low, clutch situation or not.



                                                            However, there were numerous players in 1969 and 1970 who had much higher or lower PWA’s than would be predicted using their BWA and the above equation. These deviations from prediction, known technically as residuals, vary from +.067 for Carlos May's 1969 season to -.068 for Fuentes' 1970 season. If one believes in clutch and nonclutch players, the clutch players must be the May's, the ones with higher than predicted PWA's, and the non-clutch players must be the Fuentes', the ones with lower than predicted PW A's. If one does not believe in clutch players, then Carlos May was lucky (along with the White Sox) in 1969 in the timeliness of his hits, and Fuentes was unlucky in 1970. And essentially our central problem "Do clutch hitters exist?" becomes one of "How can you distinguish between skill and luck?”



                                                            Statisticians (the professionals) have devised several ways to decide whether such a set of differences is "significant"-in this case, caused by skill-or "insignificant" -caused by luck. Often one can place an outside limit on the differences that might reasonably be attributed to luck; if the differences are larger than this limit, then there must be other factors involved. In our problem such a limit cannot be rigorously established. Recalling however, that a single Thomson-timely home run will raise a season PWA by +.040, it is my opinion that the observed residuals for 350 player-seasons can scarcely be much larger than what might be expected to result from luck. Furthermore, the overall distribution of residuals is "normal", that is, in a fashion far more consistent with luck than with a pattern in which a few players hit in especially timely fashion.



                                                            There remains one more test which is particularly clear cut and easy to understand. If clutch hitters really exist, one would certainly expect that a batter who was a clutch hitter in 1969 would tend also to be a clutch hitter in 1970. But if no such tendency exists, then "clutch hitting" must surely be a matter of luck. After all, the only means of ever identifying a clutch hitter would be by his consistency, if not from situation to situation at least from season to season.



                                                            Such a test is easily performed, by trying to correlate the residuals for players in 1969 with residuals for the same players in 1970. Not even a hint of such a correlation exists (r2 for 60 National League players was .038 and for 62 American League players was .055). This means that there is no tendency for players who were clutch hitters in 1969 to be clutch hitters in 1970. True, a few of the "clutch hitters" in 1969 were also "clutch hitters" in 1970; but as many became "unclutch" and most became average, exactly as would be expected if "clutch hitting" is really a matter of luck.



                                                            Although I have established clearly that clutch-hitting cannot be an important or a general phenomenon, a stubborn believer might still ask about the few players who appeared to be "clutch hitters" in both 1969 and 1970. As a challenge for such diehards, I present a scrambled list of the most consistent "clutch" and the most consistent "unclutch" hitters in 1969 and 1970. (To be considered, a player had to have more than 400 BFP's and be either "clutch" or unclutch" in both 1969 and 1970.) Remembering that sheer guesswork will make you about half right, can you unscramble the list?



                                                            1. Yastrzemski 5. Andrews 9. Blair

                                                            2. Cleon Jones 6. T. Davis 10. Rader

                                                            3. Sanguillen 7. Freehan 11. Javier

                                                            4. Kaline 8. Billy Williams 12. Alex Johnson



                                                            To give away the first answer in advance, Yaz was the most consistently untimely hitter in the majors in 1969 and 1970. But no one who saw Yastrzemski play in September 1967 would ever believe that "Carl is a good hitter, but not quite as strong when a game or the pennant is on the line"! The full answer to the quiz above is that the odd-numbered batters are the untimely hitters and the even-numbered batters are the timely hitters.



                                                            Good hitters are good hitters and weak hitters are weak hitters regardless of the game situation. But there is no reason why a weak hitter shouldn't be fortunate enough to get a series of fat pitches good swings in crucial situations. Given enough time, this might even happen over some player's whole career. Maybe luck was the basis, the reputation of a Henrich or a Reese as a clutch hitter-but let me hasten to add that Henrich and Reese were certainly exceptional good hitters simply on the basis of the quantity of their hits, as we as, perhaps, the timeliness of their hits.



                                                            So fades a legend-but after all, what was really meant when someone was called a "clutch hitter"? Was he really a batter who didn't fold under pressure-or was he a lazy batter who bothered to try his hardest only when the game was on the line?



                                                            Notes

                                                            1. “Player Win Averages", E. G. Mills and H. D. Mills, A. S. Barnes, Cranbury, N.J.,

                                                            1970, describes the method and their 1969 results. Pete Palmer supplied me with their 1970 season results. To our knowledge, no further results exist.
                                                            Comment
                                                            • donjuan
                                                              SBR MVP
                                                              • 08-29-07
                                                              • 3993

                                                              #31
                                                              Don, The fact that you just said "I missed this gem" says to me "I read and reread your initial Neyer email to try to pick it apart as much as possible, finally stumbling on the Brooks quote", which basically confirms that you are indeed in need of companionship.
                                                              I had to stop myself from reading the whole thing initially for fear of my head exploding. Don't let that stop you from making ad hominem attacks instead of actually refuting my points.
                                                              Comment
                                                              • donjuan
                                                                SBR MVP
                                                                • 08-29-07
                                                                • 3993

                                                                #32
                                                                It's WHEN he was clutch that mattered more than how often he was clutch.
                                                                So basically he's been lucky, then? I would agree with that. David Ortiz has made some clutch (read: lucky, timely) hits. That doesn't mean he has some magical clutch hitting ability.
                                                                Comment
                                                                • NEP Dynasty
                                                                  SBR Wise Guy
                                                                  • 10-17-06
                                                                  • 858

                                                                  #33
                                                                  Originally posted by donjuan
                                                                  What part of small sample size don't you understand?

                                                                  Here's a fun article on why the concept of clutch hitting is so convoluted:
                                                                  You are absurd. Do you want the guy to hit a HR every time he is up in a close game. Last time I checked, the goal of sports was to win the championship? Do you dispute this? Therefore, David Ortiz's performance in clutch situations in games in which he helped lead his team to the World Series (twice), would lead him to be classified as a clutch hitter. Someone who thinks they are as smart as you do should be able to grasp this simple statement.

                                                                  Unless of course, you don't think the point of sports in to come up big when it matters, and win titles?
                                                                  Comment
                                                                  • donjuan
                                                                    SBR MVP
                                                                    • 08-29-07
                                                                    • 3993

                                                                    #34
                                                                    You are absurd. Do you want the guy to hit a HR every time he is up in a close game.
                                                                    No, but apparently you do since you claim A-Rod is unclutch.

                                                                    Last time I checked, the goal of sports was to win the championship? Do you dispute this?
                                                                    It is, indeed, the goal. Unfortunately, it comes down to luck a lot of the time.

                                                                    herefore, David Ortiz's performance in clutch situations in games in which he helped lead his team to the World Series (twice), would lead him to be classified as a clutch hitter.
                                                                    He made clutch hits. He does not have some magical clutch hitting ability. Not a difficult concept.
                                                                    Comment
                                                                    • donjuan
                                                                      SBR MVP
                                                                      • 08-29-07
                                                                      • 3993

                                                                      #35
                                                                      Someone who thinks they are as smart as you do should be able to grasp this simple statement.
                                                                      It's not that I think I'm smart. It's that I think I'm a rational, logical human being, unlike just about every member of the BBWAA.

                                                                      Unless of course, you don't think the point of sports in to come up big when it matters, and win titles?
                                                                      The point of sports is to attempt to win. There is a lot of luck involved in that. Personally I'd rather have a team that plays hard the whole game than a bunch of lazy clowns who only try hard in the last minute of close games.
                                                                      Comment
                                                                      Search
                                                                      Collapse
                                                                      SBR Contests
                                                                      Collapse
                                                                      Top-Rated US Sportsbooks
                                                                      Collapse
                                                                      Working...