Monday, September 26, 2005

Baltimore Orioles vs. New York Yankees - 9/22/05

Wow. The Yankees are back in first place. I would have never expected it.

For the end of the year, it was another $5 night at the stadium, so I got the chance to see the team one last time in '05 (unless some miracle scores me playoff tickets). This was quite a year for me and Yankee games. Please enjoy the photos.


This is where our seats were. Jorge Posada hit his 2nd HR in the area just to the left of this photo.


A-Rod should be the MVP. Let's face it, his offensive numbers are so similar to David Ortiz's and he also plays in the field! This "clutch" stuff I've been hearing about is total garbage. Not to mention, A-Rod, while he won't get a triple crown, is pretty damn close. As of today, 3rd in batting average, tied for 1st in HR and 4th in RBI. Granted Ortiz is 1st in HR and RBI but he's not even in the top 10 in BA.


Bruce Chen pitched very well against the Yankees earlier this year. Fortunately this game wasn't earlier this year.


Mike Mussina pitched a great, great game. But he was limited to under 80 pitches.


These fans were trying to start the wave. I think the people who like the wave the most are the ones trying to start it.


Coaches (counterclockwise from top left) Luis Sojo, Dave Cash, Rick Dempsey and Roy White. Only Dempsey stands in the white box by the base. Why does that box exist? Nobody ever stands in the box.

18 comments:

PJ said...

I know I'm late with the comment, but why is this "clutch" stuff garbage?

I'm not saying Ortiz should be necessarily be MVP, but it seems like production in key situations should count for something. Especially if it wins games. And while I'm not exactly sure what constitutes someone winning an MVP, it doesn't seem right for it to be PURELY stat-based.

And if Ortiz played 1st base but was lousy, would that change anything? I understand that A-Rod has had a great season, but it does bother me a little that the main argument against Ortiz is that DHs shouldn't win MVP.

Blogman said...

The reason I say clutch is garbage is because it seems like all the clutch arguments are based purely on anecdotal evidence. "Seems like he's always winning / tying the game."

My point is, it's purely subjective what a "clutch" situation is. If your team is down 4-1 and you hit a solo HR to make it 4-2, and the team eventually wins the game, is that clutch? Not as glorified by the press. I'd like to see someone define a number of "clutch" situations and see how Ortiz and A-Rod have performed in those situations. Maybe then I could be swayed.

As for the defense side, yes, it does matter a little bit. Consider, if as a hitter a player is responsible for creating runs, then as a fielder he is responsible for preventing runs. Thus, A-Rod creates and prevents runs. If A-Rod is an average fielder, then the runs he prevents are negligable over the "average" replacement. But he's considered a decent fielder and so he provides a bonus. An extension (although a bit shadier) would also be that A-Rod makes Jeter better since he covers more ground than the average 3B. Fielding metrics are tricky so it is hard to make this the sole arguement.

Blogman said...

In fact, A-Rod may be better in the clutch than some say when you get down to it. Ortiz is better in certain clutch situations but this breakdown takes apart the "clutch" and "valuable" arguments.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/how-not-to-use-statistics-why-david-ortiz-shouldnt-be-mvp/

PJ said...

I don't really agree with this guy's column. Let it be known that I didn't read too carefully, just skimmed to get the basic gist of what he was saying.

First off, I put more value on "clutch" situations. I understand that a run in the 1st inning equals a run in the 9th inning mathematically in the final score, but you can't dismiss a player's ability to be put in a situation where he HAS to come through. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that why teams have closers? Isn't that why Mariano Rivera is a future Hall of Famer? Because he consistently comes through in the do-or-die situations?

A home run in the 1st inning is important, yes, but when you have 8 innings to play (and twenty-some more chances to hit a home run), is it more or less difficult? It's not the same situation, and it's not the same pressure. And absolutely, ability to produce under pressure should be a factor in an award like MVP.

As far as the DH role...can't say I'm too keen with the "every fielder has the ability to DH" argument. I can't argue that A-Rod's defense isn't light years better than Ortiz's offense. But even though I'm not a hardcore baseball fan, I'm hard pressed to ever remember when a player's defensive ability was ever debated for the MVP award. I'm not saying it shouldn't be, only that up until now, it hasn't. And if the Red Sox played Ortiz at 1B, like they did in 2002, would this argument exist? What if he played in the field, but had a terrible fielding percentage? And would he not even be an every day starter in the NL because he truly CAN'T play defense?

My point is not that Ortiz's value isn't diminished because he's a DH--certainly that's an area of his game where he is not very valuable. My point is that the Sox could (and would) put Ortiz in the field if there were no such thing as the DH. And if they did, nobody would be talking about how Ortiz' defense was so bad that he didn't deserve to win MVP. And if that's the case, then why should a DH MVP be so outrageous/ridiculous?

As I've said before, I'm not convinced Ortiz should be MVP, but the clutch hitting (which your article does support with stats, not just anecdotes) IS an important factor. The defensive issue I can understand, but ultimately I don't see why it should be the biggest hurdle in Ortiz' way.

Blogman said...

Your Rivera argument is poor only because Rivera is dominant statistically. That is to say, his ERA of 0.75 is the lowest of all time (as of now). Is there a statistically equivalent pitcher who people do not regard as clutch? A better question would be, "Is Derek Jeter really clutch in the post-season?"

To the task at hand. No DH has won the MVP. So yes, this is a big deal.

What are we defining as clutch? Ortiz finishes the season with a 1001 OPS and Rodriguez a 1031 OPS. In close and late situations, they shake out as Ortiz 1160, and Rodriguez 1060. Both have elevated their game close and late. With RISP the situation is different, Ortiz is about the same, 1006, and Rodriguez's statistics are slightly declined, 842. So there's a slight edge to Ortiz. (The close and late and RISP OPS numbers are from about 2 weeks ago, so things may have changed either way.)

But is that enough to outweigh that Rodriguez is a more complete player and statistically better? Let's not forget Rodriguez's 21 SB's, and higher numbers in nearly every statisitcal category (in not just basic triple crown stats like AVG and HR, but also geeky stats like OPS, win shares, runs created, value over replacement player - vorp and GPA - park adjusted OPS). Both, probably benefit from their lineups (Jeter, Sheffield, Giambi) or (Damon, Ramirez, Varitek).

Finally, with the defense. Yes, Ortiz must be enough of a liability in the field to not put him out there. Why? Because a replacement DH is a better hitter than a replacement at any other position. So why not put Ortiz in the field and put an "average" DH out there instead of an "average" 1B or "average" RF. If this is the case, then why not field him and put some other person at DH for better lineup production? His performance in the field must to some degree negate this advantage.

I think there's an amount of sentimentality to people seeing Ortiz tie up a number of games and thus "valuing him higher" while A-Rod is shaking some mythical rap of "not being very clutch." This whole "clutch" thing is being used to differentiate two players who have been close statistically (but are they really?). Have you ever heard "clutch" mentioned so much in an MVP debate prior to this? It's a manufactured reason to try and make Ortiz the MVP. By the way, the intangible "value" to his team is usually the main reason people pick one player over another, and there's another MVP caliber player on the Red Sox, Manny Ramirez (45 HR/ 144 RBI / .292 AVG / .982 OPS). Ramirez has nearly identical numbers to Ortiz (47 HR / 148 RBI / .300 AVG / 1.001 OPS) and there's nary a peep about the possibility of him being MVP.

PJ said...

Let me address the Rivera thing: at what point is he just another "really good" pitcher? What is his value to the pitching staff? Why is he a closer, and not a starting pitcher if he has such a low ERA? Is he a liability as a starting pitcher?

My point is that one of the key characteristics for a closer is that he can handle the pressure of the 9th inning, which some guys just don't have the makeup for. Just try and tell me that's not important. I picked Rivera as an example, because he's one of the best closers in the league and you are a fan of his team. How can Rivera be a bad example because his ERA is so low? The guy's JOB is to be "clutch", that is, he is always pitching in high pressure situations, so if anything his stats are a reflection of his "clutch"-ness. It is my understanding that not all good pitchers can handle pitching in those kinds of situations.

As for Ortiz' defense, I'm not trying to say that he's good on defense. I'm saying that I don't remember defense and fielding percentage ever coming into play in the MVP award before. And if Ortiz were playing 1B and dropping balls and missing throws, but still hitting forty-odd homers and leading the league in RBIs (or whatever), tell me who would point to his shoddy fielding and say he shouldn't be MVP?

As for "clutch" being anecdotal...sure, maybe. But just because it's anecdotal doesn't mean it isn't true. I saw a fair amount of Ortiz 9th-inning HRs or walk-off singles on SC this year, and even his bickering, finger-pointing teammates seem to agree that he's the greatest clutch hitter they've ever seen. So don't tell me that being "clutch" is a manufactured reason...not only does it add value to a player, but arguably it's what separates the really good players from the legendary players. A-Rod may get an unfair rap for not being clutch enough, but when a guy hits enough late-game HRs and RBIs that the casual fan can notice that...well, I think it counts for a lot.

You want to talk about SBs and triple crown stats...sure, whatever. Those are all valid points for A-Rod to be MVP. I'll concede those points, because I'm not really dealing with them, nor do I follow baseball enough to be knowledgable about those kinds of things. I won't argue that A-Rod is a better baseball player. But that's not what the MVP award is necessarily for...or it would probably go to A-Rod every year. It basically comes down to what MVP means, and since MLB has other awards based purely on statistics, I tend to place less importance on obscure nerdy stats for this one...

You're right, I've never heard the clutch argument used so much in an MVP race prior to this, but on the flip side, I haven't heard much talk of defense either. That's my point. Not that defense isn't important (because it is), but that it never comes into play for MVP, so why does the defense issue suddenly apply to the DH position? Would it be fair to call the DH position a "manufactured reason" for A-Rod to be MVP? (don't answer that, I don't really want to get into it)

Has any other player gotten a reputation for being as clutch as Ortiz? (that's not rhetorical, I don't really know) If not, then why is the clutch argument a so-called "manufactured" reason?

PJ said...

An admittedly suspicious argument here, but why have AL pitchers won MVP? They don't swing a bat!

Blogman said...

Pitchers: They rarely win for exactly that reason - they don't play every day! The last pitcher to win in either league was a closer (Eckersley in '92) and prior to that was starter Roger Clemens in '86. It's a rare occurrence. Also pitchers have their own awards.

Rivera: It's not relevant. He's not a starter not because he can handle the pressure but because he in fact, is not good enough. For whatever reason, not enough pitches or endurance, he can't do it. He initially tried to be a starter but was shifted to being a closer because of the nature of how he pitches, not because he handles pressure. What makes Rivera impressive is his statistical dominance and the length of time he's remained so. Players like Frankie Rodriguez of the Angels and Eric Gagne of the Dodgers have the chance to be like this but aren't there yet because they haven't done it over a long period of time.

Like I said, I think the "clutch" thing can be best compared with Derek Jeter in the postseason. Everyone says he's so "clutch" because they remember great hits and plays he had in the postseason. But nobody ever produces statistics saying that. Andy Pettitte also had a reputation for being clutch in the postseason but again, if you look at the statistics, that's not really the case. It's selective memory.

And yes, A-Rod, if he is excellent every year, would be an MVP candidate, but this year his candidacy is particularly strong because he is on a contender, has had one of the best seasons on the league, and really, nobody else on the team is an option. If anything, you have to concede that Manny is equally productive on the Red Sox as Ortiz and thus, Ortiz isn't even the most "valuable" to the team!

PJ said...

Is this a new record for number of comments on this blog? I think so. I should get some sort of prize.

So you're really saying that closers don't need any sort of ability to pitch in high pressure situations? That's different from most everything I've ever heard about the nature of being a closer. Why even have a "saves" stat then? And Rivera's success in the postseason isn't impressive? It's not a tribute to his ability to consistently handle pressure situations? The fact that the Yankees turn to him in those key moments isn't significant? He's just another statistically dominant guy? I almost can't believe you're saying this. How is this irrelevant? How can you overlook that part of his talent? How can you overlook that part of the closer's role?

Manny is equally productive yes, but the key for me is that his behavior reportedly distracts the rest of the team, and his attitude sucks every now and again. I think it's worth it because his productivity is so high, and certainly the media overreacts to a lot of it, but it seems like a productive player who causes his organization to almost trade him probably shouldn't be getting any MVP awards anytime soon. As I recall, he was in the mix for MVP until his tantrum around the trade deadline. Oh, and he hasn't been as clutch as Ortiz. =P

But seriously, this is a perfect example of why MVP isn't (and IMO shouldn't be) just purely production-based. Manny produces, yet people stop talking about MVP when his behavior appears to be taking away from the team's success. It's Most Valuable Player, not Most Productive Player.

Again, MVP is a subjective award, and I'll reiterate that stats shouldn't necessarily be the whole story when it comes time to choose MVP. You should know that stats don't tell the whole story anyway, especially in sports. Given this, why shouldn't the number of memorable (anecdotal) home runs in key situations not matter? Is it because you can't back it up with stats? If you consistently do things that cause people to remember them, that doesn't count for anything? Or because you're not convinced it's true? Because A-Rod doesn't capture people's imagination in the same way Ortiz does, people don't remember his big plays? Or because people don't remember the plays that Ortiz doesn't make? I understand clutchness is anecdotal, but what makes it NOT true?

Blogman said...

I wrote a response to this a few days ago and it got erased.

This is the longest comments thread on the KFB as far as I know.

Closers: Do they really need a greater ability to pitch in high pressure situations than any other reliever? Is their job any more high pressure than the middle reliever (who comes into the game more often with runners on base or the score tied)? Isn't it possible that the last three outs aren't necessarily the highest pressure for a given game? Perhaps this is just some sort of myth that is perpetuated by closer agents and baseball "tradition." Certainly if the 4-5-6 hitters are up in the 8th then the 7-8-9 in the 9th, the 8th inning is where the real "save" occurs, right?

Like I was saying, Rivera's success in the postseason is better reflected by his statistical dominance and also by doing something no other player does, and that's have a ton of two inning saves. It's not like there's some other closer who does the same amount of work but gets less recognition somehow. This is why you have made a poor comparison with this A-Rod and Ortiz situation.

Manny Ramirez's distractions for the team are probably minimal. There's no way his nuttiness detracts from the team, and in fact, whatever team he's been on has been successful.

To answer your questions:
Memorable usually means the press has filtered things out for people and so yes, this is definitely a biased and unreliable way of determining "clutch" and "value." Press bias is obvious in the way that Terrell Owens is villified and yet Jamal Lewis hardly spoken about.

I guess you can suggest that some players raise their games in tough situations. But I've yet to see it proven to the point where it's reproducable. I suppose my definition of a clutch player would be someone who consistantly raises his game in a tight spot. Hard to prove. Just because a guy has a few great hits in tight spots doesn't mean anything, especially if he's a great hitter to begin with! If you have 300 AB's in the season and 20 of them are in "tight" spots, how can you say that those 20 AB's in a statistically significant? Example: Bubba Crosby of the Yankees has 1 HR this year and it won a game in walk-off fashion. So we can say every time Bubba hits a HR, it's clutch and wins games. But does that really make him a "clutch" player? I remember it because he's one of the least likely players to hit a HR. Did he raise his game in that moment? It's not easy to determine.

PJ said...

This argument is getting to the point where neither one of us is going to convince the other which is right. Yet, I feel compelled to continue anyway.

1) You seem to think that the "closer" role is half-myth, half tradition. I'm surprised by this. I used to wonder about this one a lot, because it used to seem to me that closers weren't any different than other bullpen pitchers. But after watching the 2003 Red Sox consistently struggle with their pitching in the 9th inning, I'm more inclined to believe that there is something about certain pitchers' ability to close out a game. Sure, it's possible that the 9th inning isn't the most high pressured point in the game. But then why don't you ever see managers put in their best reliever in the 8th, then put in a less good reliever in the 9th? For instance, why don't the Yankees pitch Rivera in the 8th and Gordon in the 9th? Would you ever see Torre make a move like that? According to you, the results would be the same. Does anyone else agree with that?

Why are there "setup men" and "closers?" Why is there a stat for "saves?" Why does "closer by committee" never work? Why not bring in your best reliever in the middle of an earlier inning with men on, then use a slightly less effective guy in the 9th with nobody on? Seems to me like it can't be solely based on tradition. I guess it's possible that tradition plays a part in this, but you'd think that if it were more effective do it differently, someone would. But NO manager does this. NO one.

Even if we don't use Rivera as an example, my point is that ability to produce in high pressure situations is clearly a skill that gets recognition in the sport of baseball: the closer role. I was not drawing an analogy between A-rod/Ortiz and Rivera/???; I'm merely pointing out that the mere EXISTENCE of the closer role (and the fact some excellent relief pitchers aren't as effective in the closer role) tells you that ability to produce under pressure IS a big deal. This goes for any closer; I just used Rivera to illustrate this point. Any good closer will do just fine as an example of my point.

If you still don't buy the argument, we'll agree to disagree on this point and move on...

2) Manny...he's nutty for sure, but it never detracts from his production. Does it detract from his teammates? Who knows? BUT, he asked (and got) several days off during the pennant race, and he repeatedly asked to be traded this season and it almost happened. If a guy is willing to abandon his team during a pennant race, that pretty much goes against the idea of Most Valuable Player if you ask me. Again, if we're talking about Most Productive Player, it's a different story.

I know you'll probably hem and haw about how his off-field behavior doesn't mean anything, and I'd agree that the media probably overblows this aspect of Manny. But the point is that the organization was willing to part with him WHILE they were in the middle of a pennant race. Regardless of your opinion of Manny's behavior, no way can you make a case for him to be MVP.

The big picture for this point is that despite similar production, heck yeah Ortiz is definitely the MVP of his own team. So that's not a valid point for saying Ortiz doesn't deserve AL MVP.

3) I agree that "clutch" play is difficult to define. And yes, I understand that it's not easily backed by stats, and that it's not easily determined.

That having been said, that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist either. Kind of like when Rehnquist said he couldn't define pornography but he knew what it was. I feel like you're saying you can't statistically prove that someone is a clutch producer, because the sample size for clutch situations is too small. That's probably true, but clutch situations can't occur too frequently almost by definition. Which would then mean that you can't rely on statistics to argue for or against someone being "clutch."

So if you can't rely on numbers to convince you of clutch play, then you either don't believe in its existence (which I don't think is the case here) or you have to use anecdotal evidence to make your case. Admittedly anecdotes can be faulty and are easily twisted by sports media, but honestly I haven't heard you discuss much why Jeter is NOT clutch in the postseason or why Ortiz was NOT more clutch for the Sox than A-Rod was for the Yankees. In fact, I haven't heard anyone make the case that A-Rod should be considered a "clutch" guy, nor have I heard anyone make the case that Ortiz really isn't as clutch as everyone thinks he is.

What I have seen is your blog entry saying that "this clutch stuff is garbage" and that Ortiz being clutch has not unequivocally, irrefutably been proven. And that's really what I take exception to. Clutchness seems to be a tough sell to you because it can't easily be supported by stats, nor can it be quantified or measured/compared. So at what point do you point to a player and say "yep that guy is clutch, since he tends to come through in tight spots." Or do you not consider any players to be clutch? Is clutchness a myth, a byproduct of luck, belief, and media hype?

Blogman said...

Here goes:

1) Just because everyone in baseball does it, doesn't make it true. Closer by committee in Boston in 2003 didn't work according to the media but that doesn't mean it doesn't work or that it couldn't work! We don't even know if the Red Sox roster was appropriate for closer by committee. Boston had four players with 10+ saves and finished with the wildcard, and they began the year with the "committee" and ended with a solo closer. The April record was 18-8 and the September record was 17-9, so closer by committee couldn't have been that horrendous.

Use of the closer is as "conventional wisdom" as batting a right handed hitter as pinch hitter instead of a left handed hitter. But ten years ago conventional wisdom was to evaluate hitters on batting average, and now it's to evaluate them on on base percentage + slugging. So we can't take conventional wisdom as fact. Baseball strategy hardly changes. Tony LaRussa is credited for bringing in the individual relief / hitter match ups to the game and that's only the last 20 years or so.

Now in fact, the results should be better if Rivera is used in more crucial situations earlier than the 9th inning. Of course a new problem is introduced if Rivera is used in the 8th. If he goes 1-2-3, does he just finish off the game in the 9th or do you put in someone worse? Maybe he gets tired and blows the game or maybe Gordon comes in and screws up. My point is, in a lot of ways, using the closer in the 9th eliminates the decision-making process from messing up the results. If you always use certain relievers in the 7th, 8th, 9th, then nobody can criticize you when it doesn't work (unless it continuously doesn't work and you keep going to form).

A lot of statistics in baseball are strange, just look at the "hold" which should be just as critical as the "save" but nobody uses it. By the way, you also get saves for 3+ innings at the end of the game regardless of score, so no, the "save" doesn't imply that it's a pressure situation (you could get a save for pitching the 7-8-9 while your team is up 10-0).

I still don't see how the closer is necessarily a more difficult position than any other reliever. Do all hitters get better in the 9th inning? Then we could really say there's no such thing as "clutch" hitting (but that's another story). Using your best pitcher at the end of a game "shortens" the game in a sense but wouldn't you say that the real save in Friday's White Sox victory goes to El Duque for escaping a 7th inning, nobody out, bases loaded jam with no runs scoring? In other words, put the best reliever in whenever he's needed and not worry about which inning it is.

2) Manny / Ortiz - I think you're giving way too much credit to the sports media and frankly, clubhouse effects here. Winning leads to chemistry, not the other way around. That's what I believe and so I have a lot of trouble adding any "clubhouse" factors to a player's value.

3) A clutch event does exist, sure. But how can we determine if a person is continuously clutch? Derek Jeter, who is considered to be clutch definitely made the last out of at least 3-4 games this year where a hit would have made a big difference. He also hit a HR to narrow the difference in game 5 the other night to put the Yankees at 5-3. The HR was definitely "clutch" but probably doesn't get counted in "clutch" stats because it didn't put the team in a tie or ahead, but it was still a very valuable hit. So how are we measuring clutch here? A-Rod hit into a DP in the 9th inning which was definitely "not clutch." Yet everyone conveniently forgets that he won the series against Minnesota last year in the playoffs on his own. My problem with labeling players as "clutch" is that every time someone says that they provide evidence like "I saw him win this game, and this other game." Well, good players make plays that win games on a regular basis. That's what makes them good, right? Ortiz is one of the best hitters in baseball today. So how do we differentiate "clutch" from "good"? This is my point. The statistics show he is good. Now show me that he's "clutch" and is actually performing beyond his normal ability. And yes, I believe that this requires statistical evidence. Isn't repeatbility how we judge things in baseball anyway? Brady Anderson hit 50 HR for Baltimore in 1996 and never hit any more than 25 in any other season in his 15 years of playing. Did he have a great year? Yes. Was he a power hitter? No, because we see, after many years, that he doesn't hit a lot of HR's. Something must have just been different that year.

The media is definitely part of this hype as well because we all like dramatic stories and such but so much of what's written in sports media is not based in any sorts of evidence. This particularly applies to heroes and goats.

PJ said...

1) I'm not saying that everyone doing it makes it correct. But there must be something to it, or else no one would track saves and the role of closer wouldn't exist. Do certain situations have a more optimal strategy? Sure. That doesn't disprove this particular point.

I think you're wrong on this, but since we're not really making any headway, we should probably just abandon this point.

2) Not really arguing importance or nonimportance of clubhouse effects here (although I do disagree with you). But Manny almost getting traded isn't just some rumor that was posted on an Internet message board; serious talks DID take place. The point is that the organization that knows him best (better than you or I) is of the opinion that his production isn't worth whatever else he brings with it. Let's say this fact exists in a vacuum and we don't consider anything else that was reported/editorialized by the media; the argument that Manny is more valuable to his team than Ortiz suddenly loses a lot of its weight.

Again, the point here is that Ortiz is the Red Sox MVP (if not the MPP), and your arguments to the contrary don't hold much weight here.

3) This point really seems to be at the core of our incessant posting.

So given that you can't find statistical evidence to prove that good players are clutch, what are you supposed to go on? Anecdotal evidence is all you have. It's not as strong as statistical evidence, but in the absence of contradicting statistical evidence, what makes the anecdotal evidence wrong? I don't watch the Yankess. So make the case that A-Rod produced in high pressure, game-changing situations and Ortiz didn't. Because anecdotal evidence and reputation don't back that up, and that's all we have.

In the end, you're basically telling me that a subjective label such as "clutch"ness shouldn't be considered for a subjective award like MVP. That a non-quantitative factor should get no consideration for the MVP. That numbers and stats are the only tools you have to determine who is the Most Valuable Player. In the end, I guess this is a fundamental disagreement that's not going to be resolved anytime soon.

Blogman said...

1) I did a little more research on the closer by committee stuff. The end result is that when the media doesn't like your idea they will do everything they can to make it sound bad. So when the Red Sox didn't have a proven closer in 2003, and they had some blown saves early in the season, everybody pounced on the bullpen.

Theo Epstein in Feburary 2003
The "closer by committee" concept (if we must call it that) has more to do with usage than it does with personnel. We still want a truly dominant reliever (or two, or three, or four). We just won't hold him back for the ninth inning so he can chalk up a save. The goal is to put the best pitcher in the game to get the most critical outs, period.

I don't really like "closer by committee." Anybody have a better name?

Two Bill James quotes
The first:
Suppose you have one reliever who is clearly better than anyone else on your staff. What is the very best way to use him, so that he will have maximum impact on the won-lost record of his team?

....The very optimal usage pattern, I believe, would be to....bring in your man when you're ahead by one after seven innings, when you're tied after seven innings, or when the game is close and the relief ace isn't tired.

Second quote
“I have never advocated anything remotely resembling a closer by committee. Neither, for that matter, has anybody else connected with the Red Sox, as far as I know. It's a straw man argument.” – Bill James

And this is becoming conventional wisdom - see Ken Williams, GM of the White Sox:
``I've always believed in closer by situation. Some people might call it closer by committee,'' said Williams. ``What happens if David Ortiz and Manny Ramirez come up in the eighth inning in a tight situation. I don't think you save your guy (traditional closer) for a matchip in the ninth when that's the situation that comes up in the eighth.''

So in other words, it may not even be the optimal strategy. For example, errors are also tracked but not a good measure of how good a fielder someone is. You can only get an error if you get near the ball so players with larger defensive ranges actually get more errors because they have more chances. Again, for whatever reason, a lot of baseball conventional wisdom has not been changed.

2) Manny IS a viable MVP candidate. The MVP is not about attitude, otherwise Barry Bonds would have never won the award SIX times. Sportswriters like to dramatize things like value but in the end, players major value is in their production. Look at the 1997 Marlins. This is the original mercenary team and was very hard to root for (Kevin Brown, Gary Sheffield, Bobby Bonilla) and they won the World Series. Sorry, Manny was nearly as productive as Ortiz, and thus nearly as valuable. Not to mention he played fewer games with nearly the same production! Also, Manny plays the field ;). Part of what makes Manny a trade target is his large contract, which he can't be blamed for!

3) So with my anecdotal evidence, Bubba Crosby is a clutch player, since the one time I've seen him hit a HR, and even in a late inning situation, it won a game! Come on! That's why I say anecdotes are worthless. Derek Jeter's home run the other night anecdotally was a huge clutch hit and yet they LOST the game so it's not what you remember. Randy Johnson made a clutch performance in game 5 but nobody will remember because he was awful in game 3 and they lost both games. Memory and especially the media's memory is extremely selective. I don't remember enough games this year with A-Rod but he may have been clutch in games they didn't even win (tie the game or start a come back). But here are four anecdotal examples of big performances from Rodriguez:

a) HR in the 9th off Curt Schilling to win against Boston (7/14/05)

b) Starts the comeback to beat the Mets in the 9th (6/26/05)

c) 4-5 in the game that clinches the playoffs and AL East for the Yankees vs Boston (10/1/05)

d) 3 HR, 10 RBI vs Anaheim (4/26/05)

By the way, A-Rod's career postseason batting through 2004 is higher than his regular season batting in terms of OBP / AVG / SLG. People seem to like to discredit this statistical data because they don't see him do it in a big spot. Why should the anecdote hold any more weight than the statistics? (I'm not saying the statistics should weigh more, only that it seems like if the statistics supported the anecdotes, people would be glad to provide evidence).

Also another thing to consider with clutch is getting hot towards the end of the season in the pennant race. That is why Guerrero won in '04 (his hot end of the season got Anaheim into the playoffs). Isn't that "clutch" too, but just more gradual?

PJ said...

1) We're starting to get outside the realm of my baseball knowledge.

As I said before, we're really getting nowhere with this point. I want to drop it, but ooh, you keep putting up arguments that drive me nuts!

Fine. Logically speaking, putting in your best reliever in the tougher situations, regardless of inning, sure does sound like a better way. Why don't more teams do it then? Not saying you're absolutely wrong, only that the near absence of this strategy (and the continued existence of a 9th inning closer) suggests that there's more to the story. Why do teams continually choose the sub-optimal strategy as you describe? Perhaps...mental toughness? Ability to produce under higher pressure situations? Could that make the closer strategy the more effective one? I guess it could be just tradition, stubbornness, and oh yes, the media...but I think you give them too much credit.

In any case, trotting out all these quotes from supposedly smart baseball guys doesn't convince me of anything, especially considering that Epstein and James didn't even implement the strategies that they spoke about! Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think they used Foulke (or even Schilling) in this manner during the past 2 years. Seems like they rarely (if ever) pitched in relief when it wasn't the 9th inning. Oh, and in 2003, once they traded for BK Kim, they immediately put him in the traditional 9th inning closer role. So I'm definitely not buying what these guys are selling.

(somewhat unrelated note: I was pretty surprised at your earlier statement that the Red Sox had 4 relievers with 10+ saves in 2003. Considering the Sox had 36 saves that year, either one of us is mistaken or I suck at math.)

2) The huge contract is a factor, sure. But it's one thing to trade a guy in the offseason or if your playoff hopes are dying; they were in the middle of a pennant race! Forget sportswriters and the hype and everything else. I know you don't think his behavior is a detriment to the team (and I'm skeptical as well), BUT someone with more knowledge of the situation does think so and opened the door to trading him. Did I mention that they were in the middle of a pennant race?

Regarding your point about Manny playing fewer games, well...that may show he's more productive on a per game basis, but why did he play fewer games? Part of it was because he missed some while he was ABOUT TO BE TRADED! Attitude is not usually a huge consideration for MVP, but I think it counts for something, and in this case, it's enough to make Ortiz more valuable to the Sox than Manny.

In conclusion, I'm not conceding that Ortiz isn't "valuable" to his own team just because he has Manny Ramirez as a teammate.

3) We don't have stats that track clutch situations. We just don't. Not everything can be quantified with stats. Every statement can't be verified or supported with stats. Stats are certainly a powerful tool, but not without fault either. I agree that you can't prove to me that Ortiz was or wasn't clutch, or that he was more/less clutch than A-Rod.

I guess what I'm saying is that in the absence of stats, I think anecdotes, even with their faults, serve their purpose. You remember the more memorable situations, and the more memorable situations are the ones where the drama and the pressure are the highest. So when you're evaluating high pressure play, your memory, even if it is selective, serves its purpose in that evaluation, especially if stats can't easily quantify that pressure. Is it foolproof? No. Is it subjective? Sure. Fortunately, MVP is an award that is voted upon, so subjective reasoning is already inherently part of the process.

Not sure if that made any sense, but in any case, we're not going to agree here. Post something else that I don't like and we'll argue about that.

Blogman said...

Ha! My comments make you mad?

1) There are a lot of problems with moving away from the single closer strategy. Baseball teams in general don't take a lot of risks - there's a lot at stake if you try something different and it doesn't work. Players wouldn't be on board because the closer's contract & value is often determined by the number of saves he has and nobody keeps track of "key situations." Media and fans would get upset the moment that the strategy doesn't work. Look, baseball is full of stuff like this, for example, the pitch count of 100 pitches. Why is it 100 pitches? Why not 95 or 105? Why isn't it different for each pitcher, since each arm is different? Who's to say that 100 pitches every five days reduces arm injury? In the old days (20 years ago) they pitched every four days with no pitch count. There's change in baseball but it takes a lot of time.

2) Manny - ultimately they did NOT trade him because they couldn't find equal value for him! You don't think any other team in baseball would love to have Manny Ramirez? Even if Barry Bonds were on the Red Sox, putting up usual Bonds numbers, the media would love Ortiz for MVP because a) he's the underdog and b) he's "great in the clubhouse." Well, I'd take the 20+ more HR. Proof that the media loves the "underdog" in these races? 2004 Cy Young - Johan Santana wins over Curt Schilling.

3) I just think anecdotes are just dangerous. I hear all the time on WFAN how "Andy Pettitte is so clutch, it's too bad the Yankees let him go." I love Andy Pettitte but if you look at the record, he's put up just as many stinkers in key situations as great games. He's a good pitcher, but the clutch situation is suspect. In terms of evaluating high pressure play, I think people remember things selectively. Which is why I'd like to see, if not statistics, a list of high pressure situations players like Ortiz have been in and how they did. If he struck out thirteen times to end games and won two games with HR's, well then that's not clutch. Nobody produces such a list when they make this "clutch" argument, but it should be easy enough to do! They just say, oh, he won all these games, it's so clutch. Consider Keith Foulke who was incredibly clutch in 2004 and now incredibly unpopular in Boston because he had a knee injury and shaky start this year. Aaron Boone who had a single clutch postseason hit in 2003 but didn't even start that game because his offense was so bad at the time. This is why memory and anecdotes can't be relied upon - because so often, people just believe what they want to believe, regardless of the evidence.

PJ said...

1) Granted. But until teams start ridding themselves of the traditional closer role, I don't see why an untested strategy of closing (with little statistical data to back it up) should be considered a strong argument for why the current popular strategy is faulty, nor does it strongly suggest that the mental aspect of late-game pitching is a fallacy.

I want to respond to the pitch count thing, but I know it will spawn another branch of this argument, so I'll pass.

2) I disagree. If Manny had hit 20+ more HRs than Ortiz, then he'd be the MVP candidate, regardless of his other issues. But since he didn't, and his numbers are similar to Ortiz', the evidence of his potential detriment to the team downgrades him in the MVP race.

3) On the flip side, I'll point out that stats are dangerous as well. Because they're so powerful, it's easy to forget that they don't track everything and can be misinterpreted or parsed in misleading ways. Your point about errors and fielding percentage comes to mind here.

Blogman said...

1) So I understand this correctly - you're saying, the best reliever is the closer, everyone uses the closer in the 9th, therefore since you'd want to use the best reliever in the toughest situations the 9th must be the toughest situations (if the 9th were not the toughest, fewer people would follow this formula). I'm saying, clearly there are situations in the 7th and 8th that can be equally if not more difficult than the 9th. So therefore other players are pitching in difficult situatoins as well. Regardless of closer implementation, I don't see how you can say the closer is more effective than pitching in the clutch over other late inning relievers. In fact, anecdotally, it seems to me like a lot of closers don't pitch well in tie games.

2) I'm not so sure about the performance vs personality situation... see 2000 NL MVP Jeff Kent (BA .334, HR 33, RBI 125, OPS 1650) vs Barry Bonds (.306, HR 49, RBI 106, OPS 1910).

3) Agreed. But if someone actually took the time to compare, for example, side by side, examples of Ortiz "always coming through" instead of, "I remember he did it two other times this year" it would be a little nicer. I'd also feel better about the clutch label if someone could show that even certain players can raise their games consistantly in difficult situations.