Yeah, this is way off base man. Imagine all the useless at-bats Gomez, AJ Reed, Preston Tucker, Colin Moran, Tyler White, Colby Rasmus, hell even Castro among others absorbed last year. Now imagine all of those being taken over by Reddick, McCann, and Beltran. Even Aok, a consistent as hell .280 hitter, is big upgrade and he doesn't even figure to start! Now account for all the funky things that went on last year - terrible regression years for Keuchel/McCullers, terrible start, some really unlucky losses, and a mind-boggling catastrophic performance from the Rangers. With all that we were still able to win 84 games, which is no easy task. With all the additions we made, plus a little injury luck with McCullers and bounce-back years for Keuchel/McHugh, plus Bregman/Gurriel playing a full season, the Astros project to be WAY better next season. Plus I doubt we're even done making moves. This is not a homer statement, it's just a fact. If you really can't see how this team is supposed to be good, than I don't know what to tell you man.
According to the "Book of Baseball" (a great read by the way, if you're interested in sabermetrics or just baseball in general) and after exhaustive research found that there was no evidence of any sort of "clutch gene". Maybe there is an isolated instances, but I kind of doubt it. Baseball is almost like a game of rolling the dice to me. Not even the most old-school, statistic hating manager in baseball will pinch-hit a "clutch" hitter over a consistently more talented one. Nor would any GM in his right mind pick a more "clutch" player over a player that is overall more productive. I could maybe buy the importance of "clutch" or "killer instinct" in football or basketball, but definitely not baseball. Maybe for closers, but I think that has more to do with some people ******** their pants and losing it under pressure than others inherently playing better under high leverage situations.
And yet here you are, here we are, on ClutchFans. Clutch hitting also factors in the fact you hitting against closers. That alone should convince you of the difference. They are frankly tougher at bats. And the stats bear in out, most hitters have a lower clutch OPS than their regular OPS. Almost every team has a lower OPS in clutch at bats than regular at bats. The data supports there is a difference in the high leverage situations and situational hitting. The Astros are dead last and only added players who are negative, it's an unresolved problem.
Why do you say that Reddick, McCann, Aoki and Beltran are "negatives"? EDIT: And you are essentially saying that the Astros did not improve offensively by replacing Rasmus, Gomez, Gattis (as DH), Valbuena, Reed and Castro with Bregman, Guriel, McCann, Aoki, Beltran and Reddick.
Maybe there is a "clutch factor", but there would be no way to tell even if there was. Taking just someone's "clutch" performance only is such a small sample size that its basically random and therefore useless. I don't remember the exact details, but the study was basically this: Here are the Top 10/20/30 Clutch Hitters for 2000-2003. Here are the worst hitters in the clutch from 2000-2003. From 2004 on, was their "clutch" stats at all predictive? The answer was no, as the top 10 "clutch" hitters hit no better in "clutch" situations than the 10 worst. Just curious, who are the "clutch" hitters you wish we got?
Believe what you want but I personally don't buy into the whole clutch gene stuff, for baseball anyways. For handicapping purposes I try to tune out all the noise and focus on the factors that actually win and lose games. And I sure as hell don't (or any successful bettor) bet on "clutch" teams, I'll tell you that
You do realize 2 years is not a trend, right? Have you ever taken Stats 101, and do you know what a bell-curve looks like? With 30 teams, there's likely to be a few on each extreme just by random luck. You should not be claiming analytics if you don't understand this very basic fact. It's weird that you're willing to rely so heavily on his data, but ignore his fundamental conclusion for your own random non-scientific one just because it fits your narrative. Read this: Now read it again: And again: Repeat until it sinks in.
That is trend enough, how many more years do you wait before addressing an area you are dead last in and the leaders are first in?
The site gives all of their clutch OPS and clutch statistics for win/share and they are all in the negative on it. I never said we didn't improve offensively. I said they didn't improve enough to win the world series because they didn't address the major problem of situational hitting. We added OPS, but what kind of OPS? For example, if Reddick is batting in the 9th inning when runners are on base, and they turn him around, he's abysmal. So his high OPS becomes useless in the last three innings. In fact, he becomes a liability. Getting turned is one of the major reasons he has a negative clutch rating. So while he helps offensively, and has good contact rate, it's only slight improvement for us as he likely won't help when the team traditionally fails.
Question: does hitting a two run homer while up 3-0 in the fifth qualify as clutch? Because I'll take a game being put further out of reach more often from our lineup. I think these signings should be helping us play in less games requiring clutch which should be a big goal. Great teams don't win close games, they make them out of reach.
If you look at Beltran as an example; his clutch rating was positive for most of his career, and was extremely high in 2004-2006 where he was +2.8, but in the last 6 years he is -2.3. Great OPS the entire time in the 800's, but when it matters, those are wins and losses.
You said they "slightly" improved. I assume Reddick would be abysmal if they turned him around considering he isn't a switch hitter.
Agree, but do you think the pitching staff right now is going to give us a 3-0 lead in the 5th? That's why we are talking so seriously about the lineup and the lineup in the clutch. They've got to get 5 runs right now to be in the game at the end. But I agree with the principle, outscore 'em, it's why Encarnacion can put those problems away.
I think this offense will put more games out of reach than last year, and that the pitching underperformed. So yeah, I think we are better off than we were.
I don't think you knew that. Here is what you wrote: if Reddick is batting in the 9th inning when runners are on base, and they turn him around, he's abysmal.
Given that 25% of teams would be negative for 2 years in a row by random luck, then no, 2 years is not a trend. And making decisions about your team based on random results is not only unhelpful, but it leads you down a rabbit hole of solving the incorrect problems. Please do not ever pretend to claim anything you are talking about is anaytics - your "analysis" is the worst of all worlds. You take some arcane stats that you don't understand and can't describe how they work or the underlying rationale behind then, and then you run with it and create even worse misguided analysis. It's amateur hour, basically the exact opposite of analytics.
Did they consistently have to score 5 runs to win lasy year? BTW, I'm for the Quintana trade, The pitcing staff as currently constructed isn't a championship quality staff, but it isn't the dumpster fire you're making it out to be.
Nobody has ever used that phrase to describe a player's splits before, ever. Just admit you thought he was a switch hitter.
