baseball playoffs

[tschock]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

not at all, anything that can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence I bare no burden to prove a negative, the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim to the positive

Your 'assumption' is that it is a "small impact"? You are claiming this without evidence. So I am dismissing it until you prove otherwise. You made that claim, not me.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by tschock

Your 'assumption' is that it is a "small impact"? You are claiming this without evidence. So I am dismissing it until you prove otherwise. You made that claim, not me.

I am claiming nothing,simply rebutting the dismissal of facts with "intangible" driven arguments that ,due to their lack of provability, have very little meaning.

Fans like to talk about "team chemistry" as being vital, but we can point at teams that didn't get along that played very well as well as the opposite.

Do the intangibles have zero effect? Probably not

Do they have an effect we can measure? nope

If we can't measure it is debating it's efficacy pointless? pretty much

I mean, if you think a happy race car driver is faster, that's fine for you to think that, but unless you can prove it what value does it carry?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

I am claiming nothing,simply rebutting the dismissal of facts with "intangible" driven arguments that ,due to their lack of provability, have very little meaning.

Fans like to talk about "team chemistry" as being vital, but we can point at teams that didn't get along that played very well as well as the opposite.

Do the intangibles have zero effect? Probably not

Do they have an effect we can measure? nope

If we can't measure it is debating it's efficacy pointless? pretty much

I mean, if you think a happy race car driver is faster, that's fine for you to think that, but unless you can prove it what value does it carry?

You seem to think baseball is like a giant APBA game where given enough at bats or innings pitched all players will approach the stats predicted by their cards. Every game is the same, and players are essentially fixed in their abilities, and over time everyone will regress to their mean (if I am using that term correctly, I forget my statistics). I don't buy it; to me even if I can't prove it statistically I can confidently say there are players who perform better or worse under the pressure of big games or situations and anomalies are not just sample size. In other words, I don't buy this reductionist approach. Yeah, I am sure you can identify some logical flaw in the argument, but I think you are making some unwarranted a priori assumptions as well.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Jays offense has gone back into a deep sleep apparently.

Big, much needed, do or die win today for the Jays!

Glad to finally see their bats come alive and score some runs.

If I were the Indians, I'd be a little worried right about now as I think the Giant has been awoken!

[chaddurbin]

up 3-0 i don't understand the need to throw kluber out there on 3 day rest...at worst you have a free game and if it's 3-1 you can let him go tomorrow. now probably the soonest he comes back is game 7...the jays should feel good about the majority of tribes' SP is out.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by chaddurbin

up 3-0 i don't understand the need to throw kluber out there on 3 day rest...at worst you have a free game and if it's 3-1 you can let him go tomorrow. now probably the soonest he comes back is game 7...the jays should feel good about the majority of tribes' SP is out.

He didn't pitch that badly, 2 runs 4 hits in 5 innings. I can understand Francona wanting to close this thing out, and his aggressive managing has largely paid off recently. I probably would have saved him for the next game but I think it's difficult to criticize the decision too harshly.

[KCRfan1]

Heard an interesting take today.

Going into the playoffs, beware of the team with the biggest chip on their shoulder. The Indians may not be the best team on paper, but they do have the biggest chip on their shoulders. And that goes a long way.

This brings the human element back in the game, and players / teams who rise to the occasion.

[irv]

Originally Posted by irv

Big, much needed, do or die win today for the Jays!

Glad to finally see their bats come alive and score some runs.

If I were the Indians, I'd be a little worried right about now as I think the Giant has been awoken!

Guess the Indians weren't too worried after all.

Great job by their starting pitcher today! Well deserved win by the whole club.

Good luck in the World Series.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

I am claiming nothing,simply rebutting the dismissal of facts with "intangible" driven arguments that ,due to their lack of provability, have very little meaning.

Fans like to talk about "team chemistry" as being vital, but we can point at teams that didn't get along that played very well as well as the opposite.

Do the intangibles have zero effect? Probably not

Do they have an effect we can measure? nope

If we can't measure it is debating it's efficacy pointless? pretty much

I mean, if you think a happy race car driver is faster, that's fine for you to think that, but unless you can prove it what value does it carry?

I can't imagine you really believe all this stuff... or at least I'll tell myself that in hopes of not getting fully hooked. I also cannot imagine you believe the "clutch is myth".

The beauty of postseason anything is that once these guys reach their sport's respective pinnacles, they have to perform, right then a there. No BS about small sample size. Would you argue that Madison Bumgarner's 0.25 ERA over 36 innings in WS play is too small to matter? or his 18 scoreless innings in winner take all Wild Card games (2 complete game road shut outs). Or on the flip side when some other Cy Young worthy guy like David Price gets blasted over a similar post season sample size?

Sure you can argue that these guys' playoff sample sizes are too small to judge, and were they perhaps to get 162 games of postseason, they'd eventually perform to their career averages. I think that argument is BS, but I'll humor it. Sure some guys like Jeter are incredibly consistent, post season or regular (that's great), but there are also some that clearly fold while others rise. Check out guys like Ryan Vogelsong, Matt Cain, Timmy, Javier Lopez, Jeremy Affeldt, etc... all who's post season #'s far exceed regular. Anyway, the problem with the small sample size argument is that many of the guys in the post season (this year included) will probably NEVER get another chance to perform. That's one of the beauties of these moments... Howard Emke, Don Larsen, Francisco Cabrera.. this post season, Conner Gillaspie. Some guys step up that moment and grab it. It doesn't matter, and is not even worth arguing that sample sizes are too small, or that performance would have evened out over a longer duration, BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT GUARANTEED THOSE EXTRA GAMES!!

Let's consider "clutch" play, or its opposing force-- choking. Do you think Nick Anderson wasn't aware of the situation when missed 4 straight free throws, any of which would have iced the game? I guess he'd have made his next 14, but too bad they lost before he could. Do you think Gary Anderson wasn't aware of the situation when he shanked a 25 yard FG, after going the whole season without a miss? People are human and some guys let these moments get the best of them. You could argue that Gary Anderson's miss was too small a sample size to judge, and if he'd had 30 more attempts at a game winning NFC championship game chip shot, statistics show he'd make them all... too bad his team didn't make 30 more NFC championship games in order to give him 30 more opportunities at chip shots to take them to the Super Bowl trip. On the flip side, guys like Vinetieri, Montana, Bumgarner, Reggie Jackson are just wired differently, and I can assure each of their respective managers and coaches have recognized this. In the everyday business/professional world, I come across different people all the time, and these types of traits show through. Some guys know they'll win and do, while some guys always seem to be preparing for the worst. Whether Bill James' stats can prove this or not, it is very real, and has a definite impact on outcomes.

With regards to intangibles and team chemistry, I think there's a lot there and though again probably nothing that can be proven via baseball's metrics. That doesn't mean they're not important, even essential to a team's success, just that mathematics don't yet understand. There are players who time and time again not only rise to the occasion, but help bring others around them along for the ride. Not to keep coming back to the Giants, but MadBum vs the Mets is a prime example. The guy is napping on the bus to CitiField, is dead calm before, during and even after the game. I think his calmness feeds into other players' confidence. Joe Montana breaking the ice by spotting John Candy before his game winning 92 yard TD drive in SB XXIII is another prime example. On the flip side, there are examples like the aforementioned Nick Anderson, or what I watched this year in SF with Santiago Casilla and an eventual meltdown within the entire bullpen. Funny thing about that latter, the SF bullpen was pretty good in every inning but the 9th. You think those guys weren't affected by the pressure the came with that moment?? And do you think it's not important that a manager can try to wade through these very human emotions (flaws or strengths), in addition to statistics, to determine who's best and when?

Re- chemistry, Matt Duffy wrote a nice little article on Derek Jeter's web site. He said that when he made the jump to the Giants straight from AA ball, there was no hazing. Instead he was immediately engaged by all star caliber players like Hunter Pence who went out of their way to make him comfortable. That comfort showed early in his MLB career as he was confident enough to try (and succeed) to score from 2nd on WP to tie game 2 of the NLCS in the 9th. This is a late season call up, a rookie who barely made the postseason roster, and was put in to pinch run down 1 run in the 9th. If he gets thrown out at home, the game's over. If he stays at 3rd, no one thinks worse of him... yet he had the guts in that moment to take home. I think the ease he felt within that clubhouse may have gone a long way into how aggressively and instinctively he played that. Sure teams like the 1970's A's and Yankees were at each others' throats (Reggie Jackson is a common denominator) but I think most guys play better when they're comfortable (not all of course, see Barry Bonds or Kobe who needed the chips on their shoulder), and that most winning teams have had very good chemistry... though I do admit winning begets good chemistry, while losing has the opposite effect.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Nick starts from the assumption that only that which can be proven to be true, and by statistics, matters. So he's narrowly defined his own universe. If you reject that assumption, which I do, his arguments fall apart. The real debate here is about the defining assumptions, not particular implementations.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Nick starts from the assumption that only that which can be proven to be true, and by statistics, matters. So he's narrowly defined his own universe. If you reject that assumption, which I do, his arguments fall apart. The real debate here is about the defining assumptions, not particular implementations.

wrong, I start from the fact that anything that can't be proven is pointless to debate. I'm sure intangibles play an important part in baseball, but it's like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. With no frame of reference, no structure on which to debate, we'd have nothing but philosophy discussions.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

wrong, I start from the fact that anything that can't be proven is pointless to debate.

Well, that has to be the silliest or most ass-backwards opening statement I've seen today. If something can be proven, would there be any point to even debate it?

In other words, wouldn't debating something that is proven be the height of pointlessness?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

wrong, I start from the fact that anything that can't be proven is pointless to debate. I'm sure intangibles play an important part in baseball, but it's like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. With no frame of reference, no structure on which to debate, we'd have nothing but philosophy discussions.

Enjoy your fangraphs, I'll take debates even if they are philosophical and empirical in part.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Enjoy your fangraphs, I'll take debates even if they are philosophical and empirical in part.

wtvr makes you happy booboo

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

wrong, I start from the fact that anything that can't be proven is pointless to debate. I'm sure intangibles play an important part in baseball, but it's like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. With no frame of reference, no structure on which to debate, we'd have nothing but philosophy discussions.

Just another form of your a prior assumption -- who says only that which can be conclusively resolved is worth debating?

[KCRfan1]

Heyward is useless to the Cubs.

This guy kills more rally's at the plate than preventing opponent runs.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by itjclarke

Let's consider "clutch" play, or its opposing force-- choking. Do you think Nick Anderson wasn't aware of the situation when missed 4 straight free throws, any of which would have iced the game? I guess he'd have made his next 14, but too bad they lost before he could. Do you think Gary Anderson wasn't aware of the situation when he shanked a 25 yard FG, after going the whole season without a miss? People are human and some guys let these moments get the best of them. You could argue that Gary Anderson's miss was too small a sample size to judge, and if he'd had 30 more attempts at a game winning NFC championship game chip shot, statistics show he'd make them all... too bad his team didn't make 30 more NFC championship games in order to give him 30 more opportunities at chip shots to take them to the Super Bowl trip. On the flip side, guys like Vinetieri, Montana, Bumgarner, Reggie Jackson are just wired differently, and I can assure each of their respective managers and coaches have recognized this. In the everyday business/professional world, I come across different people all the time, and these types of traits show through. Some guys know they'll win and do, while some guys always seem to be preparing for the worst. Whether Bill James' stats can prove this or not, it is very real, and has a definite impact on outcomes.

man you forgot to mention Jon Starks as well...

[Peter_Spaeth]

I think Kershaw should start every game from now on, and if they need a reliever, they can bring him in.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

I tend to think SSS is largely at play here with a bit of bad luck on BABIP and perhaps a little more aggressive approach by batter's faced in the playoffs.

career (regular season)

K/9: 9.81 BB/9: 2.44 HR/FB: 7.0% BABIP: .271 ERA: 2.37 FIP:2.55


career (playoffs)

K/9: 11.20 BB/9: 3.07 HR/FB: 10.7% BABIP: .311 ERA: 4.83 FIP: 3.04




this tells me that he's getting a little bit unlucky on balls in play(either by placement or bad defensive range behind him) and plays a little more to league avg in HR/FB as his K's go up as do walks, but not so much as to be a problem really.

If he were to have say 60 more playoff games I would expect to see his era and fip closer toward his regular season avg.

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

Argument from incredulity.....

any given performance can be good or bad, to claim that said performance is a reflection on a person't ability as an entire is fallacious. (ie: "Kershaw is a bad playoff pitcher") Those players you mentioned had great playoff numbers, but not in any sample size great enough that we can start making honest attributions of "clutch" or "big game pitcher" to them. The sample size isn't large enough.

Clutch is a myth as a skill, the numbers bare this out, good pitchers pitch good, bad hitters hit bad, in any given start a bad/good player can do lots of different things with lots of different results, but the data says that when the sample size reaches a certain threshold they will perform at or around their career averages.

OPS against is a flawed stat as it overvalues slugging and undervalues OBP (and ignores BABIP)


Baseball is a results game, it has statistics that tell us how people performed. If you ignore the facts in favor of whim or emotion you are guilty of confirmation bias and an argument based on this isn't worth the paper it's written on. btw, your poly-sci comparison is also a fallacy as predicting the likelihood of a war is not the same as studying the results of a baseball game. you use stats, you just don't use the new ones, but it's the same thing just more refined.


ETA: after his last start Kershaw's FIP in the playoffs is 2.92 (vs 2.55 for his career) his xFIP (park and league adjusted) is now 3.09 (vs 2.92 for his career) he is striking out 1 more per 9 in the playoffs, walking only .5 more per 9 he has been hurt by BABIP and HR/FB which shows he has been unlucky.

I would suggest that you watch Kershaw's games instead of just looking at stats. Kershaw's ERA is high because he has been shelled. When you give up a series of hard hit balls, your BABIP is going to be higher. He is not giving up 4, 5, 6 runs in innings because other teams have been lucky. It has been because Kershaw has pitched poorly and the other team has pounded him.

I'm not sure how you come up with luck involving giving up more HRs. Again, it is Kershaw making mistakes and getting pounded. What HR that he allowed was bad luck?

It is funny that you claim someone else's post is "myth" because your claims about Kershaw are myth. BABIP is influenced by defense and how hard balls are hit much more than luck. The highest BABIP for a season: Babe Ruth. The highest BABIP for a career: Ty Cobb. I guess you think those guys weren't very good, they were just the luckiest players of all time. However, if you watch the innings where Kershaw has given up runs, it is not because of weak seeing eye singles or bloop hits, it is because of a series of hard hit balls. There is no bad luck involved, in fact it would be Kershaw who would have had to have been incredibly lucky to have not given up big innings.

This article might explain it a little better in the context of false claims this season that the Cubs staff has been good because of luck and defense.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...heir-own-luck/

That leads to a larger takeaway from our models: Leaguewide, the impact of pitchers’ contact management is more than twice that of defense, which seems to contradict the traditional defense-independent pitching theory that most pitchers have little ability to prevent hits on balls in play.

Still, we can conclude that the Cubs’ historically low BABIP through their first 69 games isn’t merely luck. One way or another, the Cubs have earned a lot of those outs.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I think Kershaw should start every game from now on, and if they need a reliever, they can bring him in.

I think we would of seen what would have happened if Urias started instead of Kershaw pitched in the National series....giving up the first runs of the game always the toughest...putting up early zeros means a lot even if you give up runs later on when your team is already ahead

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by itjclarke

I can't imagine you really believe all this stuff... or at least I'll tell myself that in hopes of not getting fully hooked. I also cannot imagine you believe the "clutch is myth".

The beauty of postseason anything is that once these guys reach their sport's respective pinnacles, they have to perform, right then a there. No BS about small sample size. Would you argue that Madison Bumgarner's 0.25 ERA over 36 innings in WS play is too small to matter? or his 18 scoreless innings in winner take all Wild Card games (2 complete game road shut outs). Or on the flip side when some other Cy Young worthy guy like David Price gets blasted over a similar post season sample size?

Sure you can argue that these guys' playoff sample sizes are too small to judge, and were they perhaps to get 162 games of postseason, they'd eventually perform to their career averages. I think that argument is BS, but I'll humor it. Sure some guys like Jeter are incredibly consistent, post season or regular (that's great), but there are also some that clearly fold while others rise. Check out guys like Ryan Vogelsong, Matt Cain, Timmy, Javier Lopez, Jeremy Affeldt, etc... all who's post season #'s far exceed regular. Anyway, the problem with the small sample size argument is that many of the guys in the post season (this year included) will probably NEVER get another chance to perform. That's one of the beauties of these moments... Howard Emke, Don Larsen, Francisco Cabrera.. this post season, Conner Gillaspie. Some guys step up that moment and grab it. It doesn't matter, and is not even worth arguing that sample sizes are too small, or that performance would have evened out over a longer duration, BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT GUARANTEED THOSE EXTRA GAMES!!

Let's consider "clutch" play, or its opposing force-- choking. Do you think Nick Anderson wasn't aware of the situation when missed 4 straight free throws, any of which would have iced the game? I guess he'd have made his next 14, but too bad they lost before he could. Do you think Gary Anderson wasn't aware of the situation when he shanked a 25 yard FG, after going the whole season without a miss? People are human and some guys let these moments get the best of them. You could argue that Gary Anderson's miss was too small a sample size to judge, and if he'd had 30 more attempts at a game winning NFC championship game chip shot, statistics show he'd make them all... too bad his team didn't make 30 more NFC championship games in order to give him 30 more opportunities at chip shots to take them to the Super Bowl trip. On the flip side, guys like Vinetieri, Montana, Bumgarner, Reggie Jackson are just wired differently, and I can assure each of their respective managers and coaches have recognized this. In the everyday business/professional world, I come across different people all the time, and these types of traits show through. Some guys know they'll win and do, while some guys always seem to be preparing for the worst. Whether Bill James' stats can prove this or not, it is very real, and has a definite impact on outcomes.

With regards to intangibles and team chemistry, I think there's a lot there and though again probably nothing that can be proven via baseball's metrics. That doesn't mean they're not important, even essential to a team's success, just that mathematics don't yet understand. There are players who time and time again not only rise to the occasion, but help bring others around them along for the ride. Not to keep coming back to the Giants, but MadBum vs the Mets is a prime example. The guy is napping on the bus to CitiField, is dead calm before, during and even after the game. I think his calmness feeds into other players' confidence. Joe Montana breaking the ice by spotting John Candy before his game winning 92 yard TD drive in SB XXIII is another prime example. On the flip side, there are examples like the aforementioned Nick Anderson, or what I watched this year in SF with Santiago Casilla and an eventual meltdown within the entire bullpen. Funny thing about that latter, the SF bullpen was pretty good in every inning but the 9th. You think those guys weren't affected by the pressure the came with that moment?? And do you think it's not important that a manager can try to wade through these very human emotions (flaws or strengths), in addition to statistics, to determine who's best and when?

Re- chemistry, Matt Duffy wrote a nice little article on Derek Jeter's web site. He said that when he made the jump to the Giants straight from AA ball, there was no hazing. Instead he was immediately engaged by all star caliber players like Hunter Pence who went out of their way to make him comfortable. That comfort showed early in his MLB career as he was confident enough to try (and succeed) to score from 2nd on WP to tie game 2 of the NLCS in the 9th. This is a late season call up, a rookie who barely made the postseason roster, and was put in to pinch run down 1 run in the 9th. If he gets thrown out at home, the game's over. If he stays at 3rd, no one thinks worse of him... yet he had the guts in that moment to take home. I think the ease he felt within that clubhouse may have gone a long way into how aggressively and instinctively he played that. Sure teams like the 1970's A's and Yankees were at each others' throats (Reggie Jackson is a common denominator) but I think most guys play better when they're comfortable (not all of course, see Barry Bonds or Kobe who needed the chips on their shoulder), and that most winning teams have had very good chemistry... though I do admit winning begets good chemistry, while losing has the opposite effect.

ok, lots to go through here so give me second to break it all down:

A-yes ,Bumgarner's performance is good, but claiming he is wired differently is not backed up by evidence of a large enough sample size to be legitimate. You can rant about it all you want, but this is a fact. Stop looking at things through fan colored glasses and look at it scientifically


B- clutch situations happen certainly, but clutch as a skill possessed by some player's and not other's does not. This is a fact based upon thousands of pieces of data. People point to Jeter or Papi or any other player, but this is confirmation bias and recency bias. You look at their numbers in the postseason and in high leverage situations, it ends up right around their career numbers. This has been endlessly analyzed and found to be true. Certain player's being "clutch" is a myth. as sure a myth as Bigfoot or Chupacabras.


C-Matt Duffy thing: anecdotes, while nice, are not evidence (nor is the plural of anecdote, evidence) team chemistry exists, but there is no evidence that it is required to perform well as too many teams who had player's who hated each other have done well (late 70's Yankees, 2000's Giants) Plus, when you consider how much expanded playoffs has increased the level of randomness into the results, I would say that chemistry means less now than ever before


D-the thing with fans is, we like to believe stuff is true about player's we like/hate , the media knows this and thus these myths get created about players that aren't true like "he's clutch" or "he's not" or "he's a postseason monster"....etc this is called CONFIRMATION BIAS, and it drives 99% of the bad information out there in sports land. Combine that with RECENCY BIAS (the idea that a person feels recent events are signals of a greater effect that must be changed, like when people say 'player ABC isn't hitting move him in the order" after 4 games. In the regular season you would never do this. But people get kinda silly in the playoffs.


E- I find it amusing that so many people these days have become anti-intellectual to the point where they refuse to acknowledge new data in favor of old beliefs. (not saying you in particular, but some on this board surely) Time moves on, better information comes with it, better methods, better tools, better data. That's all modern metrics are They take the same game and dig inside the old stats to create new and better one's that increase our understanding of it! it isn't just a bunch of nerds like so many a-holes like to say. EVERY SINGLE TEAM in baseball is doing this to one level or another. Why? Because it works, and to ignore it is to be left behind.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

E- I find it amusing that so many people these days have become anti-intellectual to the point where they refuse to acknowledge new data in favor of old beliefs. (not saying you in particular, but some on this board surely) Time moves on, better information comes with it, better methods, better tools, better data. That's all modern metrics are They take the same game and dig inside the old stats to create new and better one's that increase our understanding of it! it isn't just a bunch of nerds like so many a-holes like to say. EVERY SINGLE TEAM in baseball is doing this to one level or another. Why? Because it works, and to ignore it is to be left behind.

I wish my 2 posts from yesterday didn't get lost in the cloud, but anyway...

The point is not having blind reliance on ANY metrics, but knowing when to ignore or go against those metrics. It isn't as much intangibles or gut instinct as it is to considering circumstances that aren't measured by said metric. It is more akin to having too many variables that metrics can't take into account in any given situation.

Feel free to provide any metric and situation, and I can easily provide a dozen variables that would affect a manager's decision to go against the *ahem* proven metric.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by tschock

I wish my 2 posts from yesterday didn't get lost in the cloud, but anyway...

The point is not having blind reliance on ANY metrics, but knowing when to ignore or go against those metrics. It isn't as much intangibles or gut instinct as it is to considering circumstances that aren't measured by said metric. It is more akin to having too many variables that metrics can't take into account in any given situation.

Feel free to provide any metric and situation, and I can easily provide a dozen variables that would affect a manager's decision to go against the *ahem* proven metric.

Totally agree. It's fine and dandy to use advanced metrics. To ignore them would be a mistake, but they are just a piece of the puzzle. There are a whole lot of other things at play, and though many may not be "provable", they are still factors in the end result.

To Taylor's point there are any number of circumstances that can and should also play into a manager/coach's decision making beyond just statistics. These may be "in game" related, as in maybe a SP has great numbers vs a hitter, but has gone 8+, walked the guy before and you can tell his mechanics are breaking down as he tires. There could also be a near infinite number or personal considerations... maybe you find out the guy was out partying the night before, or is in the middle of a nasty divorce, or any number of other things that may distract him. Zach Grienke was DL'd due to social anxiety. If you knew this, wouldn't you at least consider it before throwing a guy into a high leverage situation, even if all past statistics show you should? Maybe the stats win out in your thought process, but I'd prefer to consider everything, even if its not all empirical.

Bravos4ever-- to your point C about clutch players, I completely disagree. I had even used Jeter as an example of a guy whose post season stats were very similar to his regular but this is in no way universal in baseball. And frankly, I think maintaining your level of play in high pressure situations against the best either league has to offer is "clutch" in its own right. There are also clearly players whose post seasons have far exceeded their regular season performance, prime example- Reggie Jackson (looking at WS stats). There are also players who consistently floundered in the postseason. With exception of an incredible 2002, Barry Bonds is a guy who comes to mind as an example MVP/HOF caliber of a guy who repeatedly did not perform in the postseason.

I think you would have to agree that confidence in any given moment (AB, executing a pitch, etc) is really important to your own performance (guessing you played some ball at some level, and hopefully can relate). Clearly Reggie felt comfortable and confident in the WS, and am sure his repeated high performance further reinforced this throughout his career (mentioned 2010, 2012, 2014 Giants pitchers fall into this category too). Bonds on the other hand failed to deliver in October (90, 91, 92, 97, 2000) and would guess his repeated under performance ate at him, which in turn may have affected his play. These guys are not robots, are not fully defined by their stats, and will respond to different situations in all kinds of different ways.