Ever notice how "pressure" situations tend to invariably align with how full the stands are? I think "pressure" situations are fan-driven nonsense. So Jonathan Villar isn't feeling enormous pressure to perform right now because his at-bats aren't happening in October? That's just silly. His job, and hundreds of others, are on the line literally with every at bat, pitch, throw, etc. - even in April. In terms of players delivering on larger stages, I believe water eventually finds it level; yes, players can be overwhelmed by moments, perhaps consistently. But I do not believe players get *better* in "pressure" moments - again, fan-driven nonsense. Here are Derek Jeter's career slash lines: Reg Season: .310 /.377/.440/.817 Postseason: .308/.374/.465/.838 The difference, more or less, is 5 HRs over 158 postseason games; an ever-so-slightly above average pace. Otherwise, his mythical postseason career is almost in 100% lock-step with his career numbers. "Clutch" doesn't exist (other than bears and web admins); only varying sample sizes.
I'm specifically NOT cherry-picking, though. He has, from April 6 (ie opening day) until June 1 (which is the last day I was involved in this conversation), been a bad everyday baseball player. I understand Chris Carter is streaky and I get that there's some reflexive defensiveness about him because more casual fans have less of an appreciation/understanding of Carter's value... but if you're arguing ANYTHING other than he's been bad this year, the ONLY way you can make that argument is by cherry-picking favorable statistics (or throwing out the unfavorable ones). Even with this tremendous stretch he's been on since May 15, his .710 OPS ranks 81st among players with at least 200 PAs (out of 116). Personally, I would prefer 4 weeks of .800 than two weeks of .650 followed by two weeks of .950. I'd still rather see what Singleton can do. I don't like building a line-up around feast/famine players.
This is an example of cherry picking. All the meh data is lumped with the horrible data to suggest he was really bad for 25 % of the time excluding the most recent data. At the time, a lot of meh data could be lumped to show a different picture. If you say Carter is streaky, you should not make judgements on him based on in season data like a casual fan.
There is no exclusion. Are you cherry-picking my posts, LOL? From the start of the season through his first ~150 PAs, he was, overall, terrible. And we know this because, on the morning of May 15, his OPS *for the season* was .559. It does not matter if, between April 21-24, or whenever, he wasn't terrible. *THAT'S* cherry-picking. And even taken as a whole, his current .710 OPS ranks 84th out of 116 players with at least 200 PAs, placing him firmly among the 25-30% worst everyday players in MLB. His sustained sucking was long enough that his current hot stretch has only marginally improved his overall season. Instead of it being historically bad, it's simply bad. But that *is* my judgement of Carter - he's TOO streaky. The lows are too low to justify the highs (which are never long enough)
Kind of ignores the quality of the pitching. Playoff games don't roll out a lot of 4th and 5th starters or AAAA pitchers filling out rosters.
Last year, you made the case that Lester was specifically an awesome postseason pitcher and that was the reason for Oakland to get him. How does this fit with that? And I don't mean to call you out specifically - I think a lot of us end up on both sides of this argument. Many people make the argument that Peyton is not a good postseason player. I've argued that Bagwell/Biggio's early postsesaon failures were just random. I'm not sure I understand this. If pressure can affect player performance, why would it only be able to do it one way? Maybe instead of arguing that they get more focused or whatever with pressure, it's that they just aren't as focused when there's not as much pressure. Especially in baseball when there are 1600 innings a season, it's probably fairly easy to get a bit less focused in the first inning of game #70. I don't have any particular data to back it up, but it seems intuitive that if different players react differently to pressure, it could work in all directions. And I'm not saying either of you are wrong - I tend to believe that hitting is such an automatic motion that it's less likely to be affected by pressure, whereas other sports where there is more time to "think" would have more effect - football QB, golf, etc. But I'm not sure a generalization can be made for all players or all sports.
Because he was a TOR starter that had specifically done well in the playoffs. I'm not afraid to make a distinction between regular season baseball and playoff baseball... I'm not sure if that was what we were discussing. I figured we were talking more about being "clutch" specifically at times of extreme pressure (runners on base, rbi situations, save situations). It's pretty much a sample size issue in regards to the playoffs. If they played 162 playoff games, then their performance likely does match their regular season numbers. Without the large sample sizes, you need players who aren't prone to occasional slumps/cold streaks... Basically a consistency metric.
I think we’re basically on the same page. They don’t get better when there’s pressure; rather, they’re more often than not playing *below* potential – for a variety of valid reasons (tired, injured, apathetic, lesser opponent/unimportant game, lazy, etc.). If a player’s physical and mental skills magically (and accurately) grade out as an 8, pressure won’t make that player rise to a 9; that’s nonsensical. He’s not going to suddenly be able to hit better than ever. He might for a game, or even a week here and there – but given enough of a sample size, he’ll eventually settle in as an 8. But because he scuffles and drags a bit throughout a long, difficult season, we tend to see a player “suddenly” maximize their potential when everyone is looking and, “Wow! That guy is clutch!” No; he’s not clutch; he’s simply playing up to expectations. Again, in the simplest terms, if a player is a .300 hitter, he’ll eventually hit .300 in the postseason (if he isn’t overwhelmed by the moment); anyone who thinks he can determinedly will himself to become a .400 hitter because he has clutchy-clutch blood running through his veins is delusional and/or doesn’t understand the concept of sample sizes. And anyone *expecting* a .300 hitter to hit .400 isn’t tethered to reality, IMO.
Random and extremely small sample sizes. Bagwell played in 33 career postseason games; if we throw out 2005, when his shoulder was shot, it's 26 with any expectation of him being productive. It's such an extremely low sample size - and given that they take place over the course of seven years... Plus, it flat-out ignores - blantantly - any and every regular season accomplishment. Manning has started 24 playoff games, which is nearly two full seasons. His sample size, combined with him being the one constant in his playoff losses (different teams, head coaches, supporting cast) makes it a little harder to dodge concerns about his mental strength (a concern that dates back to college). He maybe deserves more slack than given (again, his regular season accomplishments should not be dismissed) - but we have a decent sample to draw some relatively safe conclusions. But do we really think, if given 243 games (which equals 24 NFL starts), that Bagwell would post a .685 OPS? Maybe; but I really doubt it.
