get past negatives associated with the “rush” and DO AS WELL IN THAT SITUATION AS THEY DO IN NORMAL SITUATIONS.

So why not define what those adrenaline inducing situations are and then see who maintains their performance? And after the 7th inning isn’t good enough – sometimes you have a 5-10 run lead and there is no adrenaline.

Heck sometimes, in the first inning of the first game of the season (blasphemy I know) can be more adrenaline inducing than the 8th inning of a game Greinke or Carpenter is dominating and has a 3 run lead.

I recall all too well the effect unnecessary adrenaline had on Jack Clark in 1985 when he dropped a foul popup shortly after arguing fruitlessly with Don Denkinger, for example

Of course that cannot be found because if a player did improve over the norm by very much they would soon be trying to find a way to do it all the time.

Let me lay out what I think we can all agree are a few facts:

1) Situations in sports create adrenaline
2) Adrenaline can seriously impact how you handle those situations.

I.E. if a rising heartbeat and dry mouth etc get in the way of your performing, then you will be said to “choke” while if you succeed you will be said to be “clutch.”

Simply put a clutch hitter is someone who gets past the interference of adrenaline and related aspects of tough situations and who can use the extra “rush” to

No sweet dude, happens to us all. And I wanted to actually offer my apologies for being snippy with you in my response. Have an idiot trying to argue % isnt x/100 in the other thread and think it coupled with a couple buzz phrases (“stat head”, “not easy”, “predictive”) must have created a red-flag effect.

Did want to point a couple things out though with regards to hitting stats – BB%, K%, BB/K, ISO, HR/FB (if you know FB), LD%, etc… They are all very simple stats. And the complicated stats you allude to are often complicated mainly because of a serious of individual easy parts being factored together to provide a singular statistic.

Yup, that was too short of a statement. Happens when I’m at work sometimes.

I was not stating (or not trying to state) that stat heads want things to be difficult, just that for ONE stat to be predictive, it will likely need to be more complicated than “fans” want.

I was also talking about a hitting stat, that is “comprehensive” like Joe is trying to create. Again, I should take more time with some of m posts, but I am “trying to work” here.

that said, you offer two excellent examples of simple stats that I think are predictive.

“The issue with Joe’s stat, or any attempt to make a new “easy” stat, is that it won’t be as predictive as stat heads want. The issue with stat head stats is that they are complicated to understand.”

This is one of the all-time worse statements I have ever seen.

Stat heads would love for stats to be easy – they just generally are not.

And how do we know this? Two of the most important stats to a “stat head” with regard to pitchers are BB/9 and K/9. These stats are as easy to figure out as ERA, if not even easier since the rate used is specifically given in the name of the stat – where ERA implies ER/IP and does not give the “Per 9″ rate used.

“A month he made zero contributions. And I’m sorry, that’s a big deal, especially if the team misses the playoffs by a few games.”

Ok, valid. But then you have this issue. If two players are fairly close on value provided, but one provided that value over 100 games and the other over 80 games, which was more valuable? Well, the number of games played doesn’t matter in a counting stat – only the end results. If the second person did it in 80 games, he actually played much better giving his team a chance to win a much higher percent of those specific 80. The player with the same value spread over 100 games gave his team much less of an opportunity to win, he just spread his out over a longer amount of time giving him the same value to his team then the other guy.

Now, of course, in our specific situation we are talking two players without an equal value but still have the problem I outlined above where the Value Per Position scale needs to be considered. If you put it on this scale (since we have to have both positions represented)
Tex 302 + Average Catcher
J.M. 266 + Average 1B
Which of the two of those do you think will be higher?

So where it might seem like a big deal that Tex played more games, if his counting value over the games played based off his positional average or expectation is lower then that of Mauer, then Mauer was more valuable to his team on the season even though he missed that time.

The issue with Joe’s stat, or any attempt to make a new “easy” stat, is that it won’t be as predictive as stat heads want. The issue with stat head stats is that they are complicated to understand.

As a fan, something like Joe’s stat (if we also subtract outs) is fine.

As an exec, trying to build a team, I’d need more.

http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2006/07/empirical_analy_1.php

that shows a leadoff hit or walk is worth .877 runs, a leadoff double 1.147, a single that advances a runner to third with one out is worth 1.187 runs, etc. I’m sure I am overcomplicating this, but wouldn’t that be more “exact”?