As we all know, FanGraphs features an assortment of interesting data, figures and numbers. One of the more interesting measurements that they include on a player’s page is his respective clutch rating. While I won’t get into the math (it can be tedious), the basic logic behind clutch score is as follows (as explained by Eric Seidman):
This brings me to the first major point: Clutch has different definitions and to understand this statistic we need to be on the same page. No matter how important the media makes clutch performance out to be, it does not refer to performing well with the game on the line. Instead, it refers to performing well in these types of situations relative to all others. The statistic can be summed up by the question, “Does the player raise his game in important situations?” If not, he is not clutch, no matter how great his numbers are in high leverage plate appearances.
The second major point is that being clutch or not being clutch is NOT the same as being good or not being good. You do not need to raise your game in crucial situations to be a great player and those who do raise their games are not necessarily the most talented. A player with a .200 BA that hits .300 in crucial situations is, and should be, considered more clutch than someone with a .333 BA in all situations. The .333 is a better The Incredibles BA but it is not clutch because it did not constitute a raising of the game.
With that said, here are the Yankees’ individual clutch scores, in order, from the highest (most clutch) to the lowest (most unclutch):
Johnny Damon 1.12
Alex Rodriguez 0.63
Melky Cabrera 0.58
Jorge Posada 0.44
Brett Gardner 0.28
Depth Charge movie downloadMark Teixeira 0.19
Derek Jeter -0.19
Hideki Matsui -0.42
Nick Swisher -0.53
Robinson Cano -2.15
The guys with positive scores have all elevated their hitting in high leverage situations. Conversely, the guys with negative score have not. Remember though, with clutch score it’s possible for good players to fall victim to themselves as the scores are relative to the player. In addition, here’s an interesting tidbit regarding these figures—Robinson Cano’s score is not only the lowest on the team, but it’s also the lowest in all of baseball (among those with regular playing time). And while that’s certainly problematic, it’s not particularly surprising
.
What do you think about these scores?
Related posts:
I’m surprised about Matsui. I seem to recall some big hits and he usually seems to bring the runner on third home. Informative stuff, Chris. Moshe Mandel(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
Chris H. Reply:
July 14th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
I’m also surprised about Matsui’s score. Despite the score, I’d still pick him in a big spot any day. Chris H.(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
I think the concept is truly bs. This is the kind of thing that generally evens out over time. I mean everyone says A-Rod isn’t clutch and Jeter is the clutchiest clutchest ever.
Back in history, everyone says Reggie Jackson was the most clutch ever because of his world series performances. Go back and look at his ALCS performances. They weren’t clutch. So its a big pile of bs. All of it. DaveinMD(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
Chris H. Reply:
July 14th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
I like the way they’ve measured it here, though, in relation to the player’s individual numbers. If a player rises above and produces numbers that are above and beyond his own in high leverage situations, I think there’s something to that. I still think that people get so caught up in this notion of “being clutch,” though that they forget what comes before such situations (like if A-Rod hits a bomb in the 2nd inning, giving the Yankees a 3-run lead, that’s not seen as “clutch” although it was tremendously important). Chris H.(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
I agree with Dave. If ‘clutch numbers’ didn’t vary so widely from one year to the next, its proponents might have a case.
One ‘clutch’ stat I never see listed in any of these formulas is getting on base when leading off late in close games. oldpep(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
So a guy who hits .333 with RISP is LESS clutch than a guy who hits .300 with RISP. That is idiotic. So what if a guy hits .100 points higher in RISP situations. He still hits worse the guy with the .333 RISP. This is not clutch. Clutch is coming through with RISP. Period. Not how much better you are at it then your regular numbers. Peaches(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
Chris H. Reply:
July 16th, 2009 at 2:37 am
I’m not sure if I follow you here. If a guy who normally hits .333 hits .333 in high leverage situations, then no, he is not clutch but he isn’t “unclutch” (his score is 0, essentially). He isn’t clutch or not—he just is, I guess. If a guy is hitting .200 and hits .300 in high leverage situations (which wouldn’t happen with the Yankees or with many other clubs—you’re not going to find such a disparity), then yes, he would be considered a big clutch performer because he elevates his game in a big spot and does so tremendously. A guy with a higher clutch score is more likely to deliver in a big spot when compared to what he normally does. Think of it this way, the guy who is always delivering with RISP is the most clutch guy there is, right? Well, if he is always delivering with RISP, I’m assuming his numbers in high leverage situations are ridiculous. If this is the case, then his clutch score would be phenomenal when compared to his “regular numbers.”
It’s mind-boggling when I think about it… ha. Chris H.(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
I get what you are saying Chris but the whole concept in general doesn’t feel right to me. Jeter is the clutchest Yankee we have(based on past experiences and his reputation). Correct? It is not because he raises his RISP numbers dramatically(as the above article has proven), it’s because he comes through “when it counts” so to speak. A-Rod is generally considered NOT clutch by most Yankee fans and according to the above article he is the 2nd best on the team. I just don’t think this is an accurate way of defining clutch. I could be way off but it just seems that being “clutch” is not about how much better you are in those situations than in general but how often you come through in them. Another way to look at it, if you had 1 at bat to win the World Series, would you want a guy who hits .200 all season long pinch hitting or a guy hitting .333. I would prefer the guy w/ the 1/3 chance as opposed to the guy with the 3/10 chance. Every time. He just comes through more often and is thus considered more “clutch” for my tastes. Peaches(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]