Jump to content

Tenacious D

2019 MLB Hall of Fame

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

Other than Milt Cuyler, I agree.¬†¬†ūüėČ

I remember being so excited about Milt Cuyler.

Kiki not so much...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who are we kidding?

A Michigan boy making good - you were excited by Hazen Shirley.

I remember when Joe Falls (who probably was old enough to remember Kiki) went all in on the Milt Cuyler train.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Buddha said:

I think Verlander is now built up as a playoff god because he won a world series and was so good in the playoffs for Houston.

But I think he deserves it.  As does Jeter, and that Arod does not (not that he deserves the complete choker label).  

We'll agree that Jeter is a great shortstop that belongs in the HOF even if he is massively overrated by Yankee fans and the national media overstates his playoff accomplishments.

I think defining 'clutchness' is pretty impossible, but leaving that aside, Arod and Jeter were different kinds of hitters. ARod was primarily a mistake hitter with a big swing. He was pitchable if you had good stuff. Jeter was a quick bat guy. I guess I wouldn't be surprised a hitter like Jeter night have less drop off with pitching quality than Arod. If the net result is that people think Jeter was more 'clutch' then I imagine a lot of guys with Jeter's bat speed end up looking clutch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

ARod was a **** of a lot more than a mistake hitter.

I don't like the guy, but come on.

It's not an insult - it's shorthand for a hitting profile. ARod was a way stronger hitter, but he also typically had more holes in his plate coverage where you could get him out than Jeter did. ARod put up the higher career ISO Jeter was a better hitter for average. Without going through the complete career head-to-heads for both guys I'm saying that it doesn't seem that surprising to me if ARod had more relative drop-off against playoff pitching than Jeter based on their hitting skill-set.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless I see an analysis that ARod had more holes in his plate coverage, I'm not buying it on the basis of a .310 lifetime batting average versus a .295 lifetime batting average.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m with Biggs here, even if the argument may be mostly semantics or labeling or whatever. Jeter didn’t strike out as much as arod. Arod hit for more power. But arod wasn’t like some of those power guys who traded some batting average for home runs. Maybe a guy like Nelson Cruz would fit that profile. I don’t know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Buddha said:

I remember being so excited about Milt Cuyler.

Kiki not so much...

Great Kiki's in sport:

  • Kiki Vandewegh
  • Kiki Cuyler
  • Kiki Coutee
  • Jimmy Key Key

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Chili Mac Davis said:

Great Kiki's in sport:

  • Kiki Vandewegh
  • Kiki Cuyler
  • Kiki Coutee
  • Jimmy Key Key

Fun fact: Kiki Cuyler‚Äôs nickname was not pronounced ‚Äúkey key‚ÄĚ, but ‚Äúcuy cuy‚ÄĚ, short for the first syllable of his last name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/3/2019 at 3:21 PM, tiger337 said:

Yes, WPA mostly sucks and I don't use it much.  I was just using it crudely to illustrate that Jeter was not the playoff god everybody says he is.   OPS works too though.   

My issue with WPA is not what it measures, because it does indeed measure the thing it’s intended to: the importance of the run being scored in the moment, due to leverage. The run that breaks the tie in the ninth inning is more crucial, has higher leverage, than the run in the fourth inning that extends a lead to seven runs, or even the run scored by the leadoff hitter in the first. Platitudes aside about every run being just as important as every other in a game at the end of the day, I think most serious baseball people would agree with this.

My issue with WPA is that it’s not a predictive stat in any sense. Just because someone has the highest WPA does not mean he is the best clutch player. As with someone who has high RBI totals, high WPA totals have something to do with how often a player is put into situations to accumulate the stat.

When it comes down to it, I believe that for the most part, the best clutch players are also the best players overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Fun fact: Kiki Cuyler‚Äôs nickname was not pronounced ‚Äúkey key‚ÄĚ, but ‚Äúcuy cuy‚ÄĚ, short for the first syllable of his last name.

I have read that he had a stutter and one player called him Cuy Cuy Cuyler because of that and it stuck.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chasfh said:

When it comes down to it, I believe that for the most part, the best clutch players are also the best players overall.

Bingo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tiger337 said:

I have read that he had a stutter and one player called him Cuy Cuy Cuyler because of that and it stuck.   

Correct.  It played on his stuttering condition.

Another fun fact about Cuyler.  Despite stuttering in day to day speech, he sang without a stutter and had a beautiful singing voice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

Despite stuttering in day to day speech, he sang without a stutter

This is apparently not unusual. There seems to be something about working from memory recall (you already know the lines to the song - you aren't formulating them as you sing) which can break a stutter. James Earl Jones was attracted to acting as a youth because acting out lines broke a stutter he suffered with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chasfh said:

My issue with WPA is that it’s not a predictive stat in any sense. Just because someone has the highest WPA does not mean he is the best clutch player. As with someone who has high RBI totals, high WPA totals have something to do with how often a player is put into situations to accumulate the stat.

That's not a big issue.  There's no rule saying that every stat has to be a predictive stat.  The issue is that people sometimes want to use it a predictive stat.  

A stat is only as good as how people use it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, bobrob2004 said:

That's not a big issue.  There's no rule saying that every stat has to be a predictive stat.  The issue is that people sometimes want to use it a predictive stat.  

A stat is only as good as how people use it.  

You're right, there's no rule that every stat be a predictive stat. Wins isn't a predictive stat for pitchers and RBI isn't a predictive stat for hitters, and lots of people like those stats just fine.

Some people like numbers for numbers' sake. Nothing wrong with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Gehringer_2 said:

This is apparently not unusual. There seems to be something about working from memory recall (you already know the lines to the song - you aren't formulating them as you sing) which can break a stutter. James Earl Jones was attracted to acting as a youth because acting out lines broke a stutter he suffered with.

I attended school with a kid that stuttered pretty badly.  On our Sr. trip he drank for the 1st time in his life.  Started talking smoothly as a politician.  The next morning it was back to the same guy we'd heard for a dozen years.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chasfh said:

My issue with WPA is not what it measures, because it does indeed measure the thing it’s intended to: the importance of the run being scored in the moment, due to leverage. The run that breaks the tie in the ninth inning is more crucial, has higher leverage, than the run in the fourth inning that extends a lead to seven runs, or even the run scored by the leadoff hitter in the first. Platitudes aside about every run being just as important as every other in a game at the end of the day, I think most serious baseball people would agree with this.

My issue with WPA is that it’s not a predictive stat in any sense. Just because someone has the highest WPA does not mean he is the best clutch player. As with someone who has high RBI totals, high WPA totals have something to do with how often a player is put into situations to accumulate the stat.

When it comes down to it, I believe that for the most part, the best clutch players are also the best players overall.

Right, I would never use WPA as a measure of true talent or for future expectation.  it is only useful in retrospect and even then only in limited situations.  I wouldn't use it to determine who is the best clutch player.  I would only use it as evidence of who performed the best in the clutch in the past.  I think the best use of WPA and its derivatives is for measuring relief performance.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a science teacher in high school with a serious stuttering problem.   He was a good teacher, so students respected him, but sometimes he would butcher words so badly that there would be some nervous laughter in the room.  He taught physics and most of the punks didn't take physics or it would have been a lot worse.  It was painful watching him struggle.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, LooseGoose said:

I attended school with a kid that stuttered pretty badly.  On our Sr. trip he drank for the 1st time in his life.  Started talking smoothly as a politician.  The next morning it was back to the same guy we'd heard for a dozen years.  

LOL. I'm sure it's not true in *all* cases (what about human behaviour ever is?) but stress is a factor in stuttering for many - so there is a certain logic there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tiger337 said:

Right, I would never use WPA as a measure of true talent or for future expectation.  it is only useful in retrospect and even then only in limited situations.  I wouldn't use it to determine who is the best clutch player.  I would only use it as evidence of who performed the best in the clutch in the past.  I think the best use of WPA and its derivatives is for measuring relief performance.  

That's the context in which I normally hear it used, mainly for closers, and again, I think of it like I think of RBI: those who are given the most opportunities to rack up the stat are the ones who lead in the stat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, chasfh said:

That's the context in which I normally hear it used, mainly for closers, and again, I think of it like I think of RBI: those who are given the most opportunities to rack up the stat are the ones who lead in the stat.

But if you fail in those situations, you will be penalized by WPA.   You will never get an RBI subtracted even if you fail.  

Some people like WPA/LI better, but I personally find it so complex even conceptually that I have to spend a couple minutes explaining it to myself any time I want to use it, never mind trying to explain it to somebody else.    

Ultimately, I don't think there is a good go to stat for relief pitchers.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, chasfh said:

That's the context in which I normally hear it used, mainly for closers, and again, I think of it like I think of RBI: those who are given the most opportunities to rack up the stat are the ones who lead in the stat.

I normally don't like 'clutch' type analysis much - not in the least because it runs into sample size issue etc, but It was interesting that when Prince and Cabrera were both in the lineup for the Tigers, Prince tended to lag Cabrera in RBI % by a lot more than the difference in their batting averages. Then again, their RBI % are not independent either since you have to look at the fact that since Cabrera could be one of the guys on base in front of Prince, he would in general be slower and less likely to score than the guys on in front of Cabrera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, tiger337 said:

But if you fail in those situations, you will be penalized by WPA.   You will never get an RBI subtracted even if you fail.  

Some people like WPA/LI better, but I personally find it so complex even conceptually that I have to spend a couple minutes explaining it to myself any time I want to use it, never mind trying to explain it to somebody else.    

Ultimately, I don't think there is a good go to stat for relief pitchers.  

IDK, when it comes to relievers if you don't let anyone get on base, you are going to be a pretty good reliever. I think the marginal value/reliability of information beyond WHIP may not be as large as the more complex stats are in other areas of the game. The bigger problem with relievers is just small sample size, and that confounds any statistical measure. We look for the dependable quality of a starting pitcher to emerge over couple of seasons, maybe 300-400 innings. That's half a career for a reliever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

√ó