Clutchiness

Clutchiness is Dead; Long Live Clutchiness!

2007-04-12T21:12:00.001-04:00

As you may recall, I started this Clutchiness project because "it deserves to be tracked ... It had to be tracked. I had to track it." It turns out a lot of people have taken to the stat, and win-probability stats in general, thanks in no small part to the work of Tangotiger and Dave Studeman.

And so it is with a bit of satisfaction that I am closing this iteration of Clutchiness tracking, as that task has been taken up in full force by the incredible FanGraphs. In fact, with their resources, FanGraphs is able to implement a recent development that I simply wouldn't be able to anyway: in short, rather than attempting to neutralize "leverage opportunity" using a player's season-long LI, the stat now neutralizes each individual plate appearance. Tango gives a great example of the difference this makes, and a more in-depth discussion of the change here.

I have to give all the credit and thanks possible to Tango, for the inspiration and his help, to Studes, for pointing people this way, and to David Appelman for his work making FanGraphs one of the most invaluable resources there is for baseball research.

Get Your Regular Season Numbers

2006-10-02T22:53:00.002-04:00

Both the clutchiness numbers and the leaderboard have been updated through the end of the regular season.

I am aware that my leaderboard and FanGraphs' leaderboard are slightly different (especially at a rather important spot). I haven't checked the exact reason, but it's such a small difference numerically that I wouldn't worry about it.

Leaderboard Updated

2006-09-15T18:41:00.000-04:00

The leaderboard has been updated, and once again finds the Pujols/Jenkins duo at the top.

After a brief drop below +2 clutchy wins, Pujols re-established himself as the year's clutchiest hitter. More importantly, he now sits just 0.15 points of WPA short of David Ortiz' 2005 mark of +8.48. Barring injury, Pujols will move into the third spot for seasonal WPA since 2002 (the Fangraphs era, if you will), with only Barry Bonds' 2004 (12.68) and 2002 (9.83) seasons in front of him.

Clutchiness Updated

2006-09-15T18:15:00.000-04:00

The clutchiness numbers have been updated through September 14th.

Leaderboard Updated

2006-09-08T00:34:00.000-04:00

The leaderboard has been updated, and sees Geoff Jenkins regain the title of the season's clutchiest hitter.

Among the new faces are MVP candidate Carlos Beltran and the first Marlins representative, in Hanley Ramirez.

Clutchiness Updated

2006-09-08T00:12:00.000-04:00

With apologies for the extended delay, the clutchiness numbers have been updated through September 6th.

Update Postponed...

2006-08-29T18:08:00.000-04:00

With Tropical Storm Ernesto coming ashore in the next few hours, I anticipate my power and internet going out soon enough. More importantly, I anticipate a few more pressing matters than updates. After the storm and its cleanup, I'm traveling once again. As such, I don't expect an update until sometime this weekend or the Monday holiday. Individual clutchiness numbers, as always, can be found at FanGraphs.

Thanks for your patience.

Leaderboard Updated

2006-08-25T17:50:00.000-04:00

Move over Pujols and Jenkins. There's a new duo atop the leaderboard: Melvin Mora and Derek Jeter. Check it all out here.

Clutchiness Updated

2006-08-25T17:49:00.000-04:00

The clutchiness numbers have been updated through August 24th.

Leaderboard Updated

2006-08-18T16:54:00.000-04:00

The leaderboard has been updated through August 17th.

Clutchiness Updated

2006-08-18T16:30:00.000-04:00

The clutchiness numbers have been updated through August 17th.

FanGraphs Grows

2006-08-11T18:11:00.000-04:00

The excellent FanGraphs, which supplies the updates for LI and WPA that make this place possible, has gotten even better. In addition to tracking WPA for this season, they have added WPA data and game graphs for 2002-2005.

As highlighted by tangotiger, check out David Ortiz' 2005, and compare to this year's leaders:

Ortiz 2005 WPA: +8.48 wins
Pujols current WPA: +6.66 wins

Ortiz 2005 clutchiness: +3.6 wins
Jenkins current clutchiness: +2.235 wins

Just going by the jumps I've noticed while doing this site, I'd venture that Pujols has a shot at besting the WPA mark, but that clutchiness number is likely out of reach for either Geoff or Albert. Tango, who has had an eye on this sort of thing far longer than I have, ventures it to be "likely... one of the greatest clutch seasons of all time."

So check out the "new" FanGraphs data for yourself. From Barry Bonds' monster 2004 to Cristian Guzman costing the Nats more than 4 games, there are all sorts of stories waiting to be retold through WPA.

Leaderboard Updated

2006-08-11T18:04:00.000-04:00

Lots of action on the updated leaderboard.

Geoff Jenkins retakes the top spot from Albert Pujols. David Ortiz, perhaps responding to recent talk, shoots up to fourth in the majors, second in the AL behind Melvin Mora. The overall leaderboard, which includes all players with more than one clutchy win added, grows to 26 players.

Clutchiness Updated

2006-08-11T18:03:00.000-04:00

The clutchiness numbers have been updated through August 10th.

Leaderboard Added, David Ortiz, Clutch Stars

2006-08-07T20:48:00.000-04:00

No longer will we be left to jot down numbers on a napkin to determine that Curtis Granderson is the seventh clutchiest player in the bigs. Just check out the leaderboard for your MLB and league leaders in clutchiness.

A few things to note:
-- The MLB leaderboard lists all players with clutchiness numbers above 1. As of this update, it totals 22 players.
-- The AL and NL leaderboards are top tens. You'll note that this means some AL players on the MLB leaderboard are not on their league's page, while the NL leaderboard includes players with clutchiness numbers less than 1.

And perhaps most ripe for discussion: David Ortiz. His clutchiness has been the subject of quite a bit of talk recently. Hit the jump for what the numbers say, and to welcome a new member of the Clutch Stars.

Bill Simmons got some amazing numbers from Elias and ordained Ortiz "the best clutch hitter of his generation." Matt Sussman suggested that maybe that distinction isn't such an open-and-closed case. Seth Mnookin said Sussman's critique was... well, let's say, misguided at best.

So what do you see on the leaderboard? Ortiz sits 14th in the majors, 8th in his own league, and 2nd on his own team. Certainly the issue of Ortiz' "clutch" ability is based in more than just this season. But if these are the performances that are many are using to cement his legacy, clutchiness says not so fast my friend.

And finally, at the All-Star break, I examined a select group of players that I deemed Clutch Stars. These were the players who were already expected to be top players (1+ LevOPS Win) yet were going above and beyond that in high leverage situations (1+ clutchiness). Only three made the cut: Ortiz, Derek Jeter, and Albert Pujols, in ascending order of value and clutchiness. As of this update, that group would welcome one new member (Jermaine Dye), while also seeing Ortiz jump past Jeter in terms of total value (WPA).

Clutchiness Updated

2006-08-07T17:19:00.000-04:00

The clutchiness numbers have been updated through August 6th.

Clutchiness Updated, Note

2006-08-05T01:27:00.000-04:00

First of all, the clutchiness numbers have been updated through August 3rd.

I've been working with a feature of Excel that may open the door to daily updates (yet to be decided). I tried to use this update to teach myself how to work it, and it's definitely promising, but between that novice state and my limited time due to moving, I wasn't able to include pitcher's batting stats. So while their WPA numbers are updated, their rate stats are not, and thus their clutchiness numbers are incorrect. Hopefully that specific aspect is not your sole interest.

Remember: next update will be Monday.

Update on updates

2006-08-03T13:31:00.000-04:00

~~First of all, there will be a full update posted later tonight.~~

As for the site, I'm in the process of moving, so after tonight, the next update will be Monday, August 7th. Starting then, I will be updating the numbers every Monday and Friday. It has become harder and harder to find three hours throughout the day to work on updates, and obviously once the next day's games are played, any partial work is rendered useless. So I figure that by setting designated updates, I'll be better able to plan my schedule, and you won't be left wondering when the next update will come. Hopefully this should work out for everyone.

Update: *sigh* I'm really sorry, but there's more packing than I had anticipated, so I'm going to have to postpone the update to tomorrow evening. Though if you read the comments to this post, you'll see there may be a flicker of hope for the return of daily updates soon. As for tonight, I apologize.

Clutchiness Updated

2006-07-30T20:18:00.000-04:00

The clutchiness numbers have finally been updated, and are now current through July 29th.

A note on traded players: all the numbers you see for a player are his stats with that team. When a player amasses ten at-bats with a new team, his numbers will appear on that team's page, and will be taken off his old team's page. So for all the most recent trades (Carlos Lee, Bobby Abreu, etc.), as of this update, they're all on their old clubs.

Hello World

2006-07-27T13:37:00.000-04:00

Wow.

So, if you're reading this, odds are you're coming in from The Hardball Times, where studes deemed this little old project link-worthy, or from a site that picked up on THT's mention. However you got here, let me thank you for stopping by, and offer a huge thanks to studes and anyone who posted an entry anywhere about Clutchiness.

Now that you're here, you probably have some questions. Over on the right, you'll see links to The Stat, The Site, and The Inspiration. Each of these should help you make sense of the numbers you'll see around here, but if you have additional questions, hit up the comments or the email link, also on the right.

Finally, I should note that it's actually pretty fortuitous that you're all here today. The few pre-THT visitors will note that updates have been a bit sporadic over the last week or so. I've been finishing up a big project in that whole "real world" place, but it came to a close earlier this morning. Which means we should be back to nearly-daily updates starting today.

Check back towards the end of the day, when the numbers will be updated. Yes, though the formulas are automated, the data entry is still by hand.

And once again, thanks to tangotiger, studes, and every person reading this post.

Clutchiness Updated

2006-07-24T18:17:00.000-04:00

The clutchiness numbers have been updated through July 23rd.

Clutchiness Updated

2006-07-23T17:11:00.000-04:00

Well, mostly updated. The seasonal WPA numbers for the Brewers and Reds have not yet been updated on FanGraphs, and thus are not updated here. Moreover, I had already updated their OPS numbers, so at the moment, their clutchiness numbers aren't even old -- just flat wrong. But I figured I've been unable to update for so long that I'd get this update up now, and finish the Brewers and Reds when FanGraphs updates. And if that happens before tomorrow's update, I will make a note of it here.

All of which is to say that, for the other 28 teams, the clutchiness numbers have been updated through July 22nd.

Update Postponed...

2006-07-21T18:55:00.000-04:00

The good news is that my internet is back up and running. The bad news (depending on much you're in need of a Clutchiness update) is that it's 7pm on a Friday and I can think of a few more important things than banging out an update that will take longer than usual due to all the backlog. Tomorrow, all will be made good and we will be back to (usually) daily updates. I swear.

Technical Difficulties

2006-07-18T09:20:00.000-04:00

My home internet connection is currently down, and apparently will be so for a few days. Check back Friday for the next Clutchiness update. Thanks.

Clutchiness Updated

2006-07-16T21:11:00.000-04:00

The clutchiness numbers have been updated through July 15th.

American League All-WPA Team

2006-07-11T20:02:00.000-04:00

Here they are, the top performing players by WPA at each position (including a rare appearance by pitchers) thus far.

C: Joe Mauer (Twins) - 2.043 wins added
1B: Jason Giambi (Yankees) - 2.409
2B: Mark Loretta (Red Sox) - 1.243
3B: Melvin Mora (Orioles) - 2.209
SS: Derek Jeter (Yankees) - 3.177
LF: Manny Ramirez (Red Sox) - 2.506
CF: Curtis Granderson (Tigers) - 2.21
RF: Jermaine Dye (White Sox) - 3.258
DH: David Ortiz (Red Sox) - 3.4

SP: Jeremy Bonderman (Tigers) - 2.83
RP: Jonathan Papelbon (Red Sox) - 3.68

National League All-WPA Team

2006-07-11T19:52:00.000-04:00

And your top performers on the senior circuit, as judged by WPA and separated by position.

C: Josh Bard (Padres) - 1.2 wins added
1B: Albert Pujols (Cardinals) - 5.523
2B: Chase Utley (Phillies) - 2.318
3B: David Wright (Mets) - 2.619
SS: Jose Reyes (Mets) - 1.357
LF: Barry Bonds (Giants) - 2.856
CF: Ken Griffey Jr. (Reds) - 2.01
RF: Bobby Abreu (Phillies) - 2.575
DH*: Nomar Garciaparra (Dodgers) - 2.36

SP: Brandon Webb (Diamondbacks) - 3.29
RP: Trevor Hoffman (Padres) - 3.01

*Presuming the WPA All-Star Game were to be played in an AL park, Nomar would get the nod as the player with the highest WPA who doesn't lead his position.

Your First Half Chokers... All Of Them.

2006-07-10T22:45:00.000-04:00

Deciding on the parameters to be a Clutch-Star was pretty easy: be great in all situations, and especially so in high leverage situations. But defining the chokers presents a few problems. Can someone who should be merely bad, but is terrible in WPA, be labeled a choker? By the same token, can someone who should be terrific, but is merely very good in WPA, really be considered a choker? Should it just be players with positive expected wins and negative WPA, even if there are others with worse clutchiness numbers? After the jump, I'll present the numbers; you make the decisions.

Perhaps the easiest way to start is to show you the shortlist of contenders, so here are the 27 players who have cost their teams at least one win because of their (lack of) performance in high leverage situations.

As you see, the names practically run the gamut of performers, from the best hitter in baseball by VORP to the worst hitter in baseball by WPA. Indeed, these two men deserve special recognition.

Honorable Mention: Travis Hafner
LevOPS Wins: 3.66
WPA Wins: 2.524
Clutchiness: -1.136

The perception seems to be that Hafner didn't make the All-Star Team due to a combination of the game's location (the NL's Pittsburgh) and his league's manager (hello Paul Konerko). But if, as I suggested last week, Mark Loretta's selection was helped by his perception by virtue of his clutchiness, it stands to reason Hafner finds himself on the other side of this coin. Not having a nightly highlight of late inning heroics doesn't help keep his name in the national consciousness. And if the MVP vote comes around, and people dismiss Hafner because of the Indians record, perhaps we will point to his clutchiness and say that he has no one to blame but himself. Well, himself and Aaron Boone... and Jhonny Peralta... and Jason Johnson... and... well, let's move on.

Dishonorable Mention: Ronny Cedeno
LevOPS Wins: -1.398
WPA Wins: -2.434
Clutchiness: -1.036

Again, can you really consider it choking if your numbers say you should be terrible anyway? As hard as it is to define a choker, it may be equally as difficult to pick the worst hitter on the Cubs. Juan Pierre has a .321 OBP, and yet that puts him smack in the median of Cubs batters with 100 PAs. Neifi Perez scrapes the bottom at .269, but has been allowed to waste "only" 173 plate attempts. And so my vote would go to Cedeno, with this scary note: as bad as so many Cubs have been, Cedeno is worst in both Leverage-adjusted OPS Wins and WPA Wins -- and it's not even close.

Now then, with those two out of the way, allow me to skip the Cedeno-esque "should be bad; are even worse" chokers (you can thank me later, Garret Anderson) and focus on the two other groups that stand out: the choking stars and the deceivers.

*The Choke-Stars*
These are the men who choked away more than one win, but who have put up such good numbers that they're still adding positive total value on the season. In the interest of space, if you'd like to see their OPS Wins and WPA Wins, just refer back to the choker list

Miguel Tejada: -1.016 clutchiness
Mike Lamb: -1.118
Chipper Jones: -1.224
Alex Rodriguez: -1.245
Trot Nixon: -1.248

And the captain of the Choke-Stars, proof that a lack of press hides both your good and your bad:

Jason Bay
LevOPS Wins: 2.280
WPA Wins: 0.655
Clutchiness: -1.625

*The Deceivers*
Yeah, the name leaves a lot to be desired. Any suggestions would certainly be appreciated. But I was trying to get across the message that, over the half-season, these men have put up OBP and SLG numbers that say they should have contributed positively to their clubs... when in actuality, they posted negative WPA. Thankfully, for my purposes, of those who qualified for the overall choker list, those with more than one LevOPS Win stayed positive and became a Clutch-Star. Which means that everyone you see here, while having a positive LevOPS Win expectation, should not have been expected to contribute an entire win. Thus, while the nature of being a Deceiver suggests their chokiness was especially harmful, their clutchiness numbers aren't necessarily any worse than the rest of the choker list.

Robinson Cano: -1.010 clutchiness
Mark Teixeira: -1.024
Jonny Gomes: -1.090
Torii Hunter: -1.197
Austin Kearns: -1.237
Tim Salmon: -1.297
Troy Glaus: -1.317
Jamey Carroll: -1.373
Matt Diaz: -1.397
Shea Hillenbrand: -1.504
Jose Castillo: -1.510
Jose Vidro: -1.555

And the biggest Deceiver of them all, poster boy for sample size warnings:

Chris Shelton
LevOPS Wins: 0.746
WPA Wins: -0.813
Clutchiness: -1.559

So there you have it. Who gets your vote for the biggest chokers of the half-season? Is it Bay, who was the least clutchy player overall but still posted a positive WPA? Is it Shelton, who closely follows Bay but does so while having the distinction of being a Deceiver? Is it Trot Nixon, only 4.1 WPA percentage points from being the only player to put up numbers worthy of one win while actually having negative added value? Or is it a player like Tejada, Teixeira, or A-Rod, whose reputations and contracts say they shouldn't be on the list at all? Hit up the comments with your thoughts.

Clutchiness Updated

2006-07-10T22:42:00.000-04:00

After an unexpected interruption, the clutchiness numbers have been updated through July 9th.

First-Half Clutch Stars

2006-07-03T23:57:00.000-04:00

Between now and next week's All-Star Game, I'll examine the clutchiness numbers in various ways to determine some of the half-season's top players. Who's on the All-Clutchy Team? How about the All-OPSers? And the payoff post: the All-WPA Team.

But to start, I wanted to highlight just three men. Well, technically I wanted to highlight anyone who met a certain criteria; it turns out there are only three. But one could argue these are the three most valuable clutchy players so far: the Clutch-Stars. And their names shouldn't be surprising.

The criteria is simple: put up numbers worthy of more than one Leverage-adjusted OPS Win Above Average; add more than one win in terms of WPA; and still manage to have added one clutchiness win (as a reminder, clutchiness measures the difference between actual WPA Wins and expected LevOPS Wins). So without further Apu, the only three men to meet this criteria thus far, your Clutch-Stars:

David Ortiz - For all the talk about Big Papi's walk-offs over the past few weeks, he's actually been the least valuable and least clutchy of the three Clutch-Stars. Perhaps even more surprisingly, until recently, he wasn't even the clutchiest player on his team. People often criticize the actual All-Star fan vote for being based more on perception than reality, so with Mark Loretta topping Papi in clutchiness for most of the season, his selection as the AL's starting second baseman shouldn't surprise. But I digress. Papi's Clutch-Stars numbers:

LevOPS Wins: 2.011
WPA Wins: 3.079
Clutchiness: 1.068

Derek Jeter - Captain Intangibles served as the inspiration for this site, when his clutchiness pace as of June 21 caught the eye of Tom Tango. At that time, Jeter led the Yanks in win probability added with 3.2 wins. Here we are just short of two weeks later and Jeter... still leads the Yanks in win probability added with 3.2 wins. Meanwhile, he raised his rate stats a bit, so his clutchiness number has actually gone down. Regardless, as his Clutch-Stars numbers show, the Legend of Derek Jeter continues:

LevOPS Wins: 1.765
WPA Wins: 3.189
Clutchiness: 1.424

And finally, as if there weren't enough ways to say "he's been outstanding" already, may I present your leader in WPA:

Albert Pujols - Seriously, what else is there to say about Pujols at this point? His rate stats say he should have added an incredible three and a half wins thus far; instead he's actually raised his game in high leverage situations and is destroying everyone in WPA Wins with more than five (nearly two more than Jeter, second in the Majors).

LevOPS Wins: 3.428
WPA Wins: 5.059
Clutchiness: 1.631

What can you take from this, besides a sense of awe? One of the points you'll see again and again the "does clutch hitting exist?" debate is that the best hitters in the clutch are also the best hitters period. The Clutch-Stars agree. The three men you see here are also the three top hitters in terms of WPA, and recognized as three of the top hitters of the half-season by nearly any metric. But while others with that distinction have found it difficult enough to meet their seasonal numbers when in high leverage situations (and we'll examine them in the coming days), these three haven't just performed as well as they "should"; they've exceeded even those already excellent numbers. And that's what being a Clutch-Star is all about.

Clutchiness Updated

2006-07-03T23:44:00.000-04:00

The clutchiness numbers have been updated through July 2nd.

Clutchiness Updated

2006-07-01T17:38:00.000-04:00

The clutchiness numbers have been updated through June 30th, except for the Yankees. I will keep checking in with Fangraphs to see when the Yankees seasonal numbers are updated, at which point I can do my update. If it happens before tomorrow's update, I will make a note of it here.

Of note: Adam Dunn's Ultimate Grand Slam caps a tremendous three game run of win probability additions. At the start, Dunn had a negative WPA on the season. Then he just barely crossed into the positive with a 5.7 WPA. The next two games saw Dunn hit an eighth-inning, two-out double that drove in the game-winning run, and the aforementioned walk-off slam. And after the dust settled, Dunn's WPA reached 118.2, second on the team.

No Update Today; Changes Coming...

2006-06-30T18:55:00.000-04:00

As stated previously, I'm using FanGraphs for tracking win probability added. For whatever reason, they have updated their daily tracking of yesterday's games, but not incorporated them into the seasonal stats, which is what I use. Since it's about 7pm here on the East Coast, and Friday to boot, I'm calling off today's update.

But when the next update comes, there will be more that's new than just the current stats. For the list of changes, hit the jump.

Tango gave some unexpected but much appreciated input yesterday, which I will be implementing in the next update.

OPS Wins Per PA are now calculated by the formula .025 * ( 1.7*OBP+SLG-1 ) for more precision.

Two new columns appear on the stat page: Leverage Index (LI) and Leverage-adjusted OPS Wins (LevOPS Wins).

Leverage Index is explained here and has been at the crux of clutchiness already. The reason a player's seasonal leverage is being included is to better elucidate LevOPS Wins

LevOPS Wins is simply OPS Wins multiplied by LI.

These two make their appearance because clutchiness is now calculated as WPA Wins - LevOPS Wins. The whole gist of the comparison has been that stats like OBP and SLG are examinations of a player's production over all at-bats equally, while WPA uses leverage to judge value by production in certain, more important (higher leverage) at-bats. But while OPS Wins looks at every at-bat as equal, it also sees them in a vacuum. If the intent of clutchiness is to determine extra value added over what we expect, as Tango points out, it makes more sense to incorporate a player's seasonal leverage total with his OBP and SLG totals to better determine what we value we should have expected him to add. That is to say, if a player has, over the course of the season, come to bat in low leverage situations, we should lower our expectations for how many wins above average he could contribute. Obviously the converse applies as well.

All of these changes are being made in order to better evaluate a player's clutchiness, which is of course the intent of this exercise. It's a bit more work, but I'm glad to do it; anything in the name of clutchiness.

Clutchiness Updated

2006-06-29T15:36:00.000-04:00

The clutchiness numbers have been updated through June 28th

Of note: with his walk-off homer, Alex Rodriguez is no longer the least clutchy Yankee. That distinction now falls to the disabled Robinson Cano.

Clutchiness Updated

2006-06-28T21:28:00.000-04:00

The clutchiness numbers have been updated through June 27th.

Clutchiness Updated

2006-06-27T15:15:00.000-04:00

The clutchiness numbers have been updated through June 26th.

Clutchiness Updated

2006-06-27T05:56:00.000-04:00

The clutchiness numbers have been updated through June 25th.

What Is Clutchiness, The Site?

2006-06-27T04:18:00.000-04:00

So clutchiness exists. It may or may not tell us anything about the future, but it does describe the past. And like all good (or at least, interesting) statistics, it deserves to be tracked. That's where Clutchiness comes in. I was so taken with clutchiness when I first saw it, I wanted to check it for other players. What was Papi doing? Who completely lacked clutchiness? Who was the clutchiest of my beloved Marlins? I had to know. And since I figure I'm not particularly out of the ordinary, it stood to reason that others would want to know. It had to be tracked. I had to track it.

And thus I set out to put together what you see here. There aren't any Excel-able MLB stat pages available to the general public, or that I'm aware of anyway. So the arduous process of simply getting everything in order just to be tracked was begun. This, obviously, leads to a very important caveat: the numbers you see are a combination of MLB's official stats (good), Fangraph's WPA (good), by-hand data entry (not so good) and Excel calculations and storage (also not fantastic). This is not to say you should assume this is all wrong, but that the occasional hiccup in the process may occur. If you spot one, please let me know.

The other main point is that clutchiness depends on WPA, and WPA depends on FanGraphs, and FanGraphs updates many hours after games end. That, combined with the by-hand nature of the project, means that Clutchiness will also update many hours after games end, and probably closer to the next day's games beginning. I intend to update the stats daily, though on occasion I have been known to live an actual life, so there may be days when I am unable to update. Every time the stats are updated, I will make a post noting as such, and the link on the right will state through what date the stats encompass.

Some notes about what the stat pages look like. First of all, I made the completely aribtrary decision to track players with 10 or more plate attempts. As a fan of a team in the NL, I think it's worth knowing which of your pitchers has been clutchy. Not to mention that many, if not most, pinch hitting situations are high leverage; which of your bench guys has gotten it done when called upon? At the same time, this means you'll see numbers fluctuate wildly on nearly a game-to-game basis. Just in the few days I've been putting the database together, I've seen guys go from hero to zero and back again. One swing of the bat can give you a third of a win; it can take it away just as quickly. As with everything, the more data that comes in, the clearer the picture will be.

You will notice some formatting of names in the stats. I did this for some very basic at-a-glance presentation, rather than looking at just numbers. Names in green are players with a positive WPA, regardless of clutchiness. More than anything, this is to make sure people keep in mind that clutchiness is simply a measure of actual vs. perceived value, not a measure of value itself. Players can, and many do, have high clutchiness but negative value; it's simply that they're not as negative as we would expect. And by that same token, many exceptional players have negative clutchiness for simply being good in high leverage situations, rather than their usual great. I hope that by keeping positive WPA easily seen, we won't lose sight of what's really important. Bolded names, whether green or red, are players whose value in one stat is positive and negative in the other. Bolded green means the player has a positive WPA despite an expected negative value. Players bolded red have contributed negatively to their team's win probability, despite rate stats that say they should be helping. Again, this is just a way of showing multiple pieces of information at once. While the players are sorted by clutchiness, the performance of these bolded players is seemingly especially important, regardless of whether their clutchiness itself is especially high or low.

I am already thinking of additional ways of presenting the data, namely a league top and bottom ten. At this point, I can't say whether it would be a daily update or perhaps as part of a weekly round-up. We shall see what the future holds. But with Derek Jeter having an exceptionally clutchy season when I began this project, and David Ortiz contributing back-to-back walk-off hits between Clutchiness' inspiration and this, its initial execution, clutchiness seems to be all over the place. It is my hope that this can become a resource for any and all fans looking to track it.

What Is Clutchiness, The Stat?

2006-06-27T04:17:00.000-04:00

To say there is debate amongst the stat community as to whether clutch hitting exists as a repeatable skill is an understatement. For just the tip of the iceberg, peruse any or all of these works on the subject. Personally, I'm clutch agnostic. That so many smart people have looked at the same issue and come to so many different conclusions leads me to believe the answer, whatever it may be, is still lurking.

That said, one of the most respected of those smart persons is Tom Tango, who co-authored the highly recommended The Book. An offshoot of The Book has been what I call The Blog. It was a post on The Blog that was the inspiration for what you see here.

What struck me in the post was not so much its conclusion (Captain Intangibles is having a clutch season? Shockhorror.) but the almost absurdly simple methodology: by comparing a player's actual value added, in terms of the leverage-adjusted win probability added, to his expected value, in terms of straight OBP and SLG, we can see how much value he added to (or cost) his team by over- or under-performing his seasonal averages in higher leverage situations.

Tango's Jeter example may help illuminate the point better. Back on June 21, when the entry was posted, Jeter's OBP, SLG, and PA described a batter who should have been worth a bit more than 1.6 wins (using Tango's equation where .03 * ( 1.7*OBP+SLG-1 ) = wins above average per plate attempt [see the update below]). But according to win probability, he had added 3.2 wins. In short, if he had performed exactly along his seasonal (if three months can be considered seasonal) averages in every plate appearance, he would have added 1.6 wins over average; his nearly double WPA makes it clear that he was outperforming these numbers in his most important at-bats.

As I said, I'm clutch agnostic. I don't know if clutch hitting as a repeatable, sustainable skill exists or not. But it occurs to me that if it does, the Jeter example probably looks a lot like what clutch would be. At the very least, it's demonstrable proof of already-occurred performance in what we think of as clutch situations. It may not truly be clutch... but it definitely is clutchiness.

Update 6/30: The equation for OPS Wins Per Plate Appearance is now .025 * ( 1.7*OBP+SLG-1 ). For an explanation of this, and other changes to the original clutchiness formulas, please see this post.