Besides being a masher, Barry Bonds is another thing....a playoff choker

Barry is a punk. There was a story in Baseball Weekly that says that he is on his own and has an enterage that is annoying to the rest of the team. I don't like him as a player either. BIG EGO!

 

You might as well throw Jeff Bagwell on there, he is actually WORSE in the playoffs then Bonds, I think that Ted Williams, one of the best hitter in the history of baseball actually has a WORSE batting average in the playoffs then Barry Bonds, and there were about 5 other Hall-of-Fame players I read somewhere who had worst batting averages in the postseason so you can't just say Bonds is a choker.

 

This "choking in the playoffs" bit is a complete myth, pure and simple - born out of an insignificant sample size, and increased exposure.

 

I live in the Bay Area so I get to hear about the Bonds situation very often. Bonds has this notion that he should be treated a lot better than his 24 other teammates. He's a cancer in the locker room. He has his own section of the locker room with a leather recliner and a big screen TV that nobody else is allowed to touch or watch. He doesn't talk much or at all to his 24 other teammates. Instead of riding the player bus, he rides the bus with the Giants coaches and broadcasters. Intead of stretching with his teammates, he stretches by himself with his trainer. His teammates don't like him- after his 500th homerun, NOT ONE of his teammates came out to congratulate him, only his son and the bat boy.

I would take Bagpipes over Bonds anyday.

 

Would you mind expounding on this? I'm curious. I've always thought that someone was a choker, until they proved otherwise. What do you mean by sample size?

 

The problem with saying that people "choke" in the playoffs is that there is just too little information to make that judgement on.

Playoffs each year last for a possible maximum of 19 games(5,7,7), and for most, significantly less. That is simply not enough time to get the pertinent information on whether or not a person is choking. To make an evaluation, on what are relatively a handful of at-bats, isn't possible.

 

Thanks for the response. I guess I just look at it a different way. The playoffs are a whole new ballgame. You either step up, or you don't...it's a now or never situation. It's really like that in every sport. It takes a different kind of player to excel in the playoffs vs. the regular season. Some players don't do much in the regular season, but do great in the playoffs -- Mario Elie and Robert Horry are examples. Some do great during the season but suck in the playoffs -- I think we know some of those (Bagwell, Biggio, Bonds). Some do great in both the playoffs and the regular season -- Kevin Garnett fits this mold. And then there's the guys that do great during the year, but still manage to top that in the playoffs -- these are the legends. Hakeem fits that category. I guess I always view the playoffs as separating the men from the boys. Of course you get less games to prove yourself, everyone knows that--but that's why only the best excel in that type of situation.

 

Sure you would. You know you were ecstatic last night when Bonds hit the pinch-hit homer to put the Giants ahead in the ninth inning!

 

Isn't Viscaino(sp?) a good post season player? I know he hit a game winning homer for MY Yankee's in recent years.

 

<B>. The playoffs are a whole new ballgame. You either step up, or you don't...it's a now or never situation. It's really like that in every sport. </B>

In baseball, though, taking a small sample will create some real wacky results. For example, "clutchness" is really overrated. We use things like Average with Runners in Scoring Position, or Late-and-Close, or 2-out RBIs, etc to determine how "clutch" a batter is. However, those stats vary immensely year-to-year, and many players might be good at one and bad at the other. Without at least ~100 or so at-bats, there's too much random chance involved in baseball.

For example, Alou is known as a "clutch" player because of his awesome World Series - but he's something like a 0.200 post-season batter outside of that WS (I think). Some other guy -- maybe Reggie Jackson -- was a 0.180 hitter but had some clutch playoff HR's late in his career and is now known as a clutch hitter.

Over a small sample size as the Astros have had (11 playoff games), it's difficult to determine anything. For example, if you took player's BA's after 11 games of the season, you'd have scrubs batting 0.700 and stars batting 0.000. I agree that certain players probably can't handle the pressure, but there's no evidence from the numbers that particular players are not just unlucky. BTW, Bagwell had an OBP of 0.350-400 in the 2000 playoffs, if I remember right.

 

Yeah, I would. If I was a manager, I wouldn't put up with Bonds' arrogance, no matter how talented he is. Bagwell has led his team to three division titles, Bonds two. Both leave a lot to be desired in the playoffs. I'd take the one that is a leader in the locker room over one that is a cancer in the locker room anyday. Plus Bagpipes is 4 years younger and doesn't get injured as often as Bonds.

 

There is no such thing as a "clutch performer."

We know this because consistent high performance in 'clutch' situations simply doesn't exist. players who hit .370 in close and late situations will hit .200 next year. Guys who choked in the playoffs all their careers will become studs in the playoffs. Then never shine again. People are generally considered clutch because they had a couple of famous hits. Whoopee. The difference between a good and bad hitter is like 3 per month.

Baseball's a game of streakiness and statistical variation. Look at guys like Hidalgo. He went 0-19... then hit above .500 in his next 20 at bats. That's common in baseball.

Barry Bonds is a great hitter. Over a season's course of 500 at bats, that's going to average out. But guess who was hitting .400 in April? Doug Menkiewitz. Richard Hidalgo was struggled for .250, I believe.

There's a very good article about this at: http://www.diamond-mind.com/articles/neyerclutch.htm

 

There is "no such thing as a clutch performer"? What a crock! Why do you guys seem to think baseball is any different from any other sport when it comes to pressure situations? IT'S NOT!!! When the pressure is on, it's a whole new ballgame! You can throw all your averages out the window...I'm sure you all remember the series against Phoenix in '95 when Kevin Johnson scored like 47 points on us and had hit like 22-22 from the free throw line...but guess what...HE MISSED THE ONLY FREE THROW THAT MATTERED! That enabled us to win the game! It's no different in baseball. A game in July IS NOT the same as a game in October...the pressure IS ON, and you either produce or you don't. I don't care if a guy hit .350 during the year, if he doesn't have what it takes to produce in the playoffs, what good is he? You simply do not have many chances to win a World Series...if you only get one chance, and you don't produce...YOU'RE NOT CLUTCH! That's just the way it is in sports. Baseball is no exception.

 

If clutch performers existed, the statistics would bear it out, but they don't.

Let me ask you a question : At your job, what happens when you perform well under pressure situations? You get promoted. The fact is, everyone in the majors can handle pressure situations, or they wouldn't be there.

There's nothing to suggest that one player is anymore "clutch" than another than skewed perceptions.

 

So you're telling me that no one in the majors has a higher career batting average, or a lower career ERA, in the playoffs as opposed to the regular season? I find that hard to believe.

 

The sample size of the playoffs is too small to make a judgement on it.

Take Curt Schilling for example.

He has a 2.?? ERA in the playoffs. Clutch performer right? Except that he's pitched like <b>two</b> games. How can you make a judgement based on such a small sample size? Its impossible.

The statistics say that clutch hitters do not exist.

 

Well, some of the best "clutch playoff performers" (ie, Jim Leyritz?) are suckass regular season players. So are they just incapable of playing without pressure? Do they play below their potential for 162 games? Or are they just lucky?

I'd bet if you built a team filled with "clutch playoff performers", you probably wouldn't make the postseason in the first place...

 

<B>Why do you guys seem to think baseball is any different from any other sport when it comes to pressure situations? IT'S NOT!!! </b>

The reason baseball is different is tha much of baseball involves luck. An average basketball player will shoot around 45-50% in most of his games. He may have some spectacular games and some sucky games here and there, but 80%+ of his games will be pretty damn close to his "average" game.

In baseball, Alou will bat 0.000 or 0.750 in a single game quite often. In baseball, you get (1) fewer opportunities per game (4 at-bats vs 20 shots) and (2) have fewer games (since so few teams make the playoffs and there are fewer rounds). This creates enormous statistical variations. In math terms, baseball players have higher standard deviations than basketball players would.

For example, Bagwell's entire playoff career involves maybe 30 At-Bats. That's like deciding whether Francis is a "clutch" playoff performer based on one playoff game.