RISP hitting and "clutch" hitting, statistically irrelevant, but is it?

by kurby on Jul 30, 2008 2:37 AM EDT Comment 21 comments

First let me start by saying that I am a new fan to baseball. When ever I submerge my self in any interest, I attempt to read and learn everything I can about it. I must say that I have learned so much about baseball that I couldn't even fathom before I looked into it. From what I have read and seen, "clutch" hitting is overrated and not statistically reliable. I have seen the facts and the numbers and I believe it. Each at bat is essentially the same (with minor flunctuations for situations) and so your ability to get a hit and drive in runs is the same. However, there is that part of sports that numbers just can't quantify. Its that human element. I think sometimes those sabermetrics die hards forget that this game is played by PEOPLE and not machines.

What I'm wondering, is even for those who are die hard numbers and sabermetrics people, how much do you actually believe in clutch hitting (aside from numbers)? It seems like clutch hitting and RISP is our big problem. Well obviously it has been. Is it something we can't do anything about? Do we just have to wait for the stats to even themselves out?

Heres some numbers:

Rays: OPS/Runs .748/468

Angels OPS/Runs .721/474

Angels have also been scoring runs when they need to, which leads to the best record in baseball.

Is RISP hitting just luck and something that should even out eventually, or is there more to it?

0 recs | Comment 21 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

For practical purposes, it's luck.

The jury is still out (to some extent) on whether or not “clutch hitting,” in the sense the term is typically used, is a repeatable skill. Some players have career batting lines that might indicate that they perform better or worse in high leverage situations, but correlation does not equal causation. I tend to believe that some players do have a tendency to perform at a lower level in “clutch” situations, but I also believe that it is generally a fleeting issue which is caused by an existing cold streak. For example, Adrian Beltre had a period of time this season where he was the victim of some atrociously bad luck, which caused his numbers to take a nosedive. It was clear to many people that he was pressing terribly with runners in scoring position, with predictable results. When his luck improved, his struggles with runners in scoring position went away for the most part.

I have a hard time believing that any player who is completely incapable of performing in high leverage situations will last very long in the major leagues. Likewise, I am extremely skeptical of the belief that some players perform better in high leverage situations than they do in normal situations; I think the numbers tend to bear this out, and I find the underlying logic extremely difficult to accept.

To address your more specific question; as far as I’m concerned, team-wide struggles with runners in scoring position should almost always be attributed to bad luck. Over the course of a given season, a team is likely to have over 6,000 plate appearances. So many things come into play with that large of a sample; an individual player would need somewhere in the neighborhood of ten seasons to tally that many. So, you have to consider luck, opposing defenses, individual hot and cold streaks, injuries, etc. It’s not impossible that struggles with runners in scoring position could be caused by a team-wide inability to hit in high leverage situations, but I’d certainly call it implausible. It’s far more likely that other factors are the cause.

FanShots are underrated.

by acblue on Jul 30, 2008 3:54 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs

Also, just for fun:

Rays, overall:
.257/.335/.407, .742 OPS
.296 BABIP

Rays, RISP:
.244/.339/.378, .716 OPS
.272 BABIP

Angels, overall:
.261/.322/.399, .721 OPS
.292 BABIP

Angels, RISP
.280/.358/.424/, .783 OPS
.307 BABIP

The question comes down to whether or not you think these numbers are sustainable. I do not believe that they are. The Angels are long overdue for some regression (with RISP and in general.) And while the Rays do have a slightly lower OPS with RISP, the difference is entirely SLG, which is far less significant than OBP in terms of run production. Others might draw different conclusions, but to me it’s pretty clear that the difference in runs scored can be attributed almost entirely to luck.

FanShots are underrated.

by acblue on Jul 30, 2008 4:05 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The problem is our team doesn't hit well period

Some of our players have good or decent OPS numbers, but that is due to OBP. OBP loses a lot of value when talking about RISP. A hit is far more valuable than a walk in that scenario. A walk while nice, doesn’t drive runners in. Hits, sac flies, or sometimes just simple contact can drive a runner in (man on 3rd less than 2 outs). As Peter and RJ have shown in previous discussions batting ability does not increase in a statistically significant manner with runners on base. Therefore, OBP should not be used when discussing team-wide ability to hit runners in while they are in scoring position and by extension neither should OPS. Sooner or later someone will have to get a real base hit, sac fly, or some other sort of ball in play to drive in the run. The chances of a bases loaded walk being the cause of a run are fairly small.

So really when talking about RISP ability we are talking about batting average and contact rate. Slugging and OBP just don’t mean much. Slugging is somewhat irrelevant because a single is just as a good as a triple with a man on 2nd in terms of driving the runner in.

So lets take a look at our batting average…

Well its pathetic. Longoria leads the team, Navi doesn’t have the minimum at bats, at a weak .277. I’m not bashing Longoria as that number is respectable given his start. However, .277 should be near the middle of the pack for the team, not at the top. As a team we should expect to get a hit 1 out of every 4 or 5 at bats with RISP. That is simply how our team hits. Right now we are in a little funk, but it is not that far off our expected pace. Batting average is the best figure to use when determining how a team should perform with RISP.

The other aspect of driving runners home is the ability to make contact. How many times have we seen a runner on 3rd with no outs or 1 out not get home? Most of the time it is due to a strike out (or a lazy pop fly to be fair). The opposing team has essentially conceded the Rays numerous runs and we’ve failed to take advantage because we strike out a ton.

Combine those two things and it can be expected that this team would suck with RISP. Now it isn’t expected that they’d be THIS bad, but our current production isn’t as far off from our expected pace as one would wish to believe.

by matthan on Jul 30, 2008 9:27 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Another reason why OBP is irrelevant in this scenario

In order to score w/o a RISP hit it would require two consecutive walks. I’d imagine the amount of runs scored in MLB from two consecutive walks (1st and 2nd then bases loaded) are quite small and insignificant.

by matthan on Jul 30, 2008 9:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That being said..

I believe clutch hitting on an individual basis surely exists. Some players do play better in such a scenario. However, on a leaguewide basis it is insignificant.

by matthan on Jul 30, 2008 9:38 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I think I fall in line with both sides of this argument...

I believe some players are more focused and less stressed in crucial situations. Instead of simply listing out OPS and BABIP, I would be interested to see a player(or team’s) LD%/GB%/FB% broken down for crucial situation, or RISP situations.

I wouldnt be surprised if a guy that is known as clutch over the course of his career had a higher LD%, which is what would lead to the higher BABIP, leading to being called clutch.

FOllow me here, if a guy is more focused, or relish’s the moment…is it that hard to believe he may square up the ball a little more often. I dont see that as being out of the question.

Are there any saber breakdowns that do it by LD% with RISP? I think that would be interesting…

by td32 on Jul 30, 2008 9:56 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Honestly I don't see how someone can really dispute the thought that some individuals can perform better in the "clutch" than not in the clutch

You see examples of it in everyday in life. Of course you have people who do worse in the clutch to balance out the impact.

by matthan on Jul 30, 2008 10:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Baseball isn't like real life.

First of all, we aren’t talking about everyday people, we’re talking about Major Leaguers. 0.1% of the population that plays baseball. So these guys have demonstrated, time and again, their ability to be “clutch” simply to make it to the majors.

Secondly, hitting a baseball is extremely difficult. You can either do it, or you can’t. There’s no time to think about it, you have to react. You have the ability, or you don’t. It’s not like shooting a free throw.

Finally, ALL OF THE EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT EVEN IF CLUTCH EXISTS, IT’S EFFECT IS SO SMALL AS TO BE INSIGNIFICANT.

by Peter Bendix on Jul 30, 2008 11:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry, I disagree...

Every prson reacts differently to different circumstances. Many have similar results though. But there are people who seem to do better then others in situations that cause stress on the body. I dont see why it is so unreasonable to believe a player that is focused better can square up a ball better and have a higher LD% throughout his career when RISP.

Maybe I’m wrong, but I’d be curious to see that stat instead of BABIP for RISP.

by td32 on Jul 30, 2008 11:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The main point is that...

Even if clutch ability does indeed exist within the selected sample of professional baseball players, the effect is so small as to be nearly insignificant.

See Tango’s work, among others.

by Peter Bendix on Jul 30, 2008 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I’m assuming you are looking at leaguewide data that says that there is minimal difference between “clutch” hitting and regular hitting. I do not disagree with that.

I am saying that on a person to person basis there is a difference. Some people do better, and some people do worse. The net effect is what you are seeing, which is giving you the illusion that it does not exist. For example if 10 people hit 30 points above the norm and 10 people hit 30 points below the norm the ending normals are going to look like clutch hitting does not exist.

I’ll guess that for the vast majority of players their skills do not increase nor decline in clutch situations. But I think it is a bit foolish to think that a person can not go roster diving and find a solid amount of players that have shown a significant increase or decrease.

by matthan on Jul 30, 2008 11:52 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually,

All of the research compares players to themselves.

The idea is that if clutch hitting exists, it would be a repeatable skill. The same players would consistently do better in the clutch. And that is hardly the case. The few players who do show up consistently in “clutch” situations (and how exactly do we even define clutch?) only add a tiny amount of runs.

by Peter Bendix on Jul 30, 2008 12:47 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Data has shown it is a repeatable skill.

I know Bill James identified certain players over a three year period and found that clutch statistics varied by year and generally group around a players proven ability in all situations.

by tallyray on Jul 30, 2008 12:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's NOT a repeatable skill...

And Peter beat me to it.

by tallyray on Jul 30, 2008 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also we may be discussing two different things...RISP vs Clutch

I agree there should be no difference in hitting with RISP and not. But I do think there is a difference between clutch and not. To me clutch is late in a game for which your team is tied or behind and your team is in the middle of a pennant race. An early June game in the 1st inning is not a clutch scenario even if the bases were loaded.

by matthan on Jul 30, 2008 12:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Anyone who thinks...

that hitting with no one on base and hitting with RISP is the same has never played baseball.

You mentioned the human element. RISP at bats are more important, which creates more pressure for the batter. As with anything in life, there are those who perform just as well when faced with the added pressure and there are those who do not. Whether they overthink the situation or they just freeze up, it is definately going to cause some hitters to perform more poorly than they would if they were not facing the pressure.

The artist formerly known as TonyT

by acelion on Jul 30, 2008 10:12 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

In professional baseball, minors or majors, you’re playing for your job.. that’s stress enough. I would tend to think once you’ve reached the pinnacle of your profession, you’ve hit in plenty of high-leverage situations to the point you’ve become accustomed to the situation and the variations should be minimal.

by RATW on Jul 30, 2008 11:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Another point I'd like to make

The numbers are going to be skewed down because in “clutch” situations the team is typically facing one of the opposing teams better pitchers.

by matthan on Jul 30, 2008 11:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well not necessarily, I'd argue the exact opposite actually - pitchers who allow a lot of baserunners (and thus a lot of "clutch" opportunities)

tend to suck.

If you wanted to argue that “high-leverage” situations were skewed down by better relievers, I’d entirely agree.

The Jose Lopez Watch - 129H - 16 BB - 56 G Left

by seattlebruin on Jul 31, 2008 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pressure is part of the job.

A huge part. You don’t make it to the major leagues if you’re incapable of performing under pressure.

FanShots are underrated.

by acblue on Jul 30, 2008 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This debate is tiring

It’s very akin to fighting over the presence of God. You can show you an empirical study that shows absolutely no proof of the existence of God and that will not sway them, and they will show you a mountain or a riverside, and say ‘How can you not see it?’

For the record, no study has ever shown that clutch hitting (at least when defined as a consistent ability of some players to raise their games) is a repeatable skill.

I like to believe that clutch hitting most certainly exists, much like God. I just don’t believe in clutch HITTERS.

by GomesSweetGomes on Jul 30, 2008 1:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs