DiMaggio is Now Number One - Page 3

dlb · 08-14-2007, 10:43 PM

Quote:

...I'm assuming that you don't have any scientific backing for players "taking it up notch" and in that absense, I am not going to take such a claim seriously.

You are not thinking this through very clearly. If there was such an ability, if a player did have an on/off switch for going to maximum talent, then it would make zero sense to reserve this only for "clutch" situations....

This is the kind of reasoning that comes from people who have never actually played a competitive sport or game. People who do engage in such activities (and especially people who coach them), do recognize that there is such a thing as a clutch situation and that some players do tend to perform better in those situations. The one example that comes to mind most quickly is from basketball, where James Worthy actually played better in the playoffs than in the regular season.

However, coaches tend to believe that clutch players do not have the ability to turn it up a notch when the game is on the line; they have the ability to keep themselves under control when they have to make a play. In short, if you're taking the three pointer in the last second when your team is down two, the key to succeeding is not to raise your level of performance, but to be so well trained that you go through your normal routine to take your best shot, rather than hurrying or otherwise caving to the pressure.

So, a clutch player is not necessarily one who raises his level of play when the game is on the line. He's the one who maintains his level of play when everything depends on him. Anybody who has actually played a sport, especially a team sport, understands this.

LouGehrig · 08-14-2007, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bedir than average

Lou, would you really be more impressed by someone getting 56 straight hits than someone batting over .427?

I see "56 straight hits." Yes, I would be more IMPRESSED because it would be a statistical anomaly. On my team, I would rather have a .427 hitter.

LouGehrig · 08-14-2007, 11:36 PM

Some of those who post have no concept of reality, if reality indeed exists.

Since most of the support for the premises, which are basically flawed, are simplistic, I will present a simplistic example.

What happened to Dr. David Bruce Banner when he got angry is what happens to some individuals in certain situations.

Ask David Ortiz. Ask the 2004 Boston Red Sox.

What is amazing (based on my brief readings of some of the posts, it really, sadly, is not amazing) is that there has been no refutation of my example of the 1984 Tigers or the 1955 Brooklyn team.

Each is certainly a concrete, supported example of a team winning the pennant during the first 40 games of the season. The 1958 Yankees aren't a bad example either.

Let's say an individual is a life threatening situation in which she must "rise to the occasion." Such instances occur daily. Or, when the conflagration on 9/11/2001 occurred, individuals did things they never knew they were capable of doing, due to their situations.

Athletes are no different. Some can react and do what must be done. Others cannot. How about Yogi Berra and Don Newcombe against each other in the WS?

Once again, the premises presented are quite simple to follow. Is it possible for some on this forum to comprehend that they may be REJECTED?

A win is a win is a win, but not all wins are equal. In 1973, in July, the Mets were trailing the Braves in the ninth inning, 7-1. The Mets were staggering in the standings. They scored 8 runs, won the game, and went on to win the division. The win, ONE WIN, was the impetus for more wins.

You can believe what you want, but nothing has been proven. Why? Because there are too many variables to control, and there always will be too many variables to control.

nanwynnfan · 08-14-2007, 11:42 PM

Glad to see we're back on topic, my orifices intact and no blown saves, so to speak.

Since this thread is really devoted to Joe DiMaggio's streak primarily and the random aspects of such streaks occurring, I agee with dlb's observation that clutch must not be defined in such narrow slivers as key AB's in crucial games, but, more correctly as a maintenace of a certain level of production EVEN when pressure seems more intense than other times that are routine.

So as not to hijack the thread into "cluch," I'm opening a new thread on that topic as soon as I reorganize the data I have so far.

It takes this approach to "clutch" so that plate appearances are sufficient enough in number to be statistically relevant.

jtur88 · 08-15-2007, 08:08 AM

"Clutch situation" can be deceptive.

Sutuation A: Two out, nobody on.
Situation B: Runners in scoring position, nobody out.

Which one is a clutch situation?

Situation A, for the reason that the only way the batter can be productive in this PA is to hit at least a double. Anything short of that, the inning is highly likely to end without a run scoring.

Situation B is not a clutch situation. All the batter has to do to be "productive" is put the ball in play, and in most cases it will, at minimum, produce a run. And even if he fails, the scoring chance in the inning remains high.

So, there is a great deal more pressure ("clutch situation") on the batter in situation A.

kflo · 08-15-2007, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouGehrig

Some of those who post have no concept of reality, if reality indeed exists.

Since most of the support for the premises, which are basically flawed, are simplistic, I will present a simplistic example.

What happened to Dr. David Bruce Banner when he got angry is what happens to some individuals in certain situations.

Ask David Ortiz. Ask the 2004 Boston Red Sox.

What is amazing (based on my brief readings of some of the posts, it really, sadly, is not amazing) is that there has been no refutation of my example of the 1984 Tigers or the 1955 Brooklyn team.

Each is certainly a concrete, supported example of a team winning the pennant during the first 40 games of the season. The 1958 Yankees aren't a bad example either.

and this shows what? they played extraodinary baseball early in the season.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouGehrig

Let's say an individual is a life threatening situation in which she must "rise to the occasion." Such instances occur daily. Or, when the conflagration on 9/11/2001 occurred, individuals did things they never knew they were capable of doing, due to their situations.

Athletes are no different. Some can react and do what must be done. Others cannot. How about Yogi Berra and Don Newcombe against each other in the WS?

Once again, the premises presented are quite simple to follow. Is it possible for some on this forum to comprehend that they may be REJECTED?

A win is a win is a win, but not all wins are equal. In 1973, in July, the Mets were trailing the Braves in the ninth inning, 7-1. The Mets were staggering in the standings. They scored 8 runs, won the game, and went on to win the division. The win, ONE WIN, was the impetus for more wins.

You can believe what you want, but nothing has been proven. Why? Because there are too many variables to control, and there always will be too many variables to control.

there's no evidence though that the mets wouldn't have had those subsequent wins anyway.

do teams play differently depending on their own expectations and where they sit in the standings? yes. strategy is different, lineups are different. but hitters need to rise to the occassion 4-6 times a game. and their season statistics often play a big role in their future compensation.

as noted, the clutch players simply maintain form in clutch situations. they tend not to "rise". and, of course, in any normal distribution, you EXPECT to have some outliers, simply by chance.

Grandstander · 08-15-2007, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlb

This is the kind of reasoning that comes from people who have never actually played a competitive sport or game. People who do engage in such activities (and especially people who coach them), do recognize that there is such a thing as a clutch situation and that some players do tend to perform better in those situations. The one example that comes to mind most quickly is from basketball, where James Worthy actually played better in the playoffs than in the regular season.

However, coaches tend to believe that clutch players do not have the ability to turn it up a notch when the game is on the line; they have the ability to keep themselves under control when they have to make a play. In short, if you're taking the three pointer in the last second when your team is down two, the key to succeeding is not to raise your level of performance, but to be so well trained that you go through your normal routine to take your best shot, rather than hurrying or otherwise caving to the pressure.

So, a clutch player is not necessarily one who raises his level of play when the game is on the line. He's the one who maintains his level of play when everything depends on him. Anybody who has actually played a sport, especially a team sport, understands this.

That's swell. And if it was true, the evidence for it would exist.

The evidence doesn't exist, so it is either misperception on your part, or it is a product of longing for such a phenomena and inventing it in your head as a response.

Not that you have any idea about how much or how little I have been imvolved with competitive sports, but it such involvement or the lack of the same, has nothing at all to do with simply looking at the numbers and drawing the proper conclusion.

This is not really a critical argument, is it? If the fun of sports for you is in perceiving clutch performances, then have fun, that's the whole point of following the sport...to be entertained. However, I am not going to place dlb's perceptions ahead of reality in crafting my outlook on it. It is a matter of basic sense and in most other such situations, you would not be making so nonsensical an argument. If I claimed that Soandso was one of the greatest homerun hitters of all time, and you looked at the records and saw that Soandso hit 50 homeruns in a ten year career, you would trust the numbers, not my perception of Soandso as a great slugger....is that not right? You abandon this basic common sense when it comes to this clutch thesis. And then you lecture me for not abandoning my own senses and joining you in what the numbers say is a false perception.

The emperor has no clothes here. If you wish to perceive a jeweled robe, do so. I decline to join in your fantasy.

WilsonC · 08-15-2007, 09:16 AM

Intuitively speaking, I would think that a power to strikeout ratio would have a strong correlation to batting average, which in turn would have a strong correlation to hitting streaks. Beyond batting average, I'd also suggest that speed, batting order position, and low-to-moderate walk rates would likely be strong factors, and seem to be fairly common. It would be an interesting study to see what the strongest correlation factors are. Boggs' absence from any notable hitting streaks may be due to his high walk rates and mediocre speed. Based on those factors, Ichiro would seem the ideal candidate for an extended streak.

Now, the idea that power may correlate as well definitely has merit too, as hitters who hit the ball hard are affected less by opposing defense than guys who rely more on speed, which suggests less variance in performance is likely. Though I suppose on the other hand, power could have an adverse effect of making the hitter more susceptible to being pitched around or walked intentionally in close games, which could hinder extended streaks. How would the ratios stack up if rather than using HR, all extra base hits are included?

Grandstander · 08-15-2007, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouGehrig

A win is a win is a win, but not all wins are equal. In 1973, in July, the Mets were trailing the Braves in the ninth inning, 7-1. The Mets were staggering in the standings. They scored 8 runs, won the game, and went on to win the division. The win, ONE WIN, was the impetus for more wins.

Again, if such a thing were true, it could not help but leave a trail of evidence for it. The momentum theory has been studied numerous times and the result has always been the same......it is false. My choice is to believe the numbers which do not lie....or believe your emotions which....well....

Honestly folks, you are defending old wives tales and discredited conventional wisdom. You guys simply have not done your homework and read the studies. If you had, you'd see that you're wrong. I feel like Galileo being lectured by the church fathers....of course the sun orbits the earth, just look out the window.

BMW · 08-15-2007, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LouGehrig

A win is a win is a win, but not all wins are equal. In 1973, in July, the Mets were trailing the Braves in the ninth inning, 7-1. The Mets were staggering in the standings. They scored 8 runs, won the game, and went on to win the division. The win, ONE WIN, was the impetus for more wins.

Are games more intense later in the season? Of Course, but if teams had won more games in May, June and July they wouldn't be in as tight of situations in August and September. You think this years Yankees aren't upset about the terrible start they were off to? They could easily be division leaders right now instead of being 5 back. While one win could lead to a momentum shift and more wins in the future, the same thing could happen in May or June. For instance my Brewers team was struggling after their great start, and they got no-hit by Justin Verlander. After that they went on another tear winning games 5 of 6 games a week for I believe 3 weeks. Had that not happened, they would be 8 games back right now instead of 1.5 up. Games may be more intense later in the season, but that does not mean they are more important to win. It's like school, the better you do to get a good GPA your first 3 years, the less you have to do your fourth year. The better you do in the first 100 games, the less you have to do in the last 62.

nanwynnfan · 08-15-2007, 10:15 AM

"Honestly folks, you are defending old wives tales and discredited conventional wisdom. You guys simply have not done your homework and read the studies. If you had, you'd see that you're wrong. I feel like Galileo being lectured by the church fathers....of course the sun orbits the earth, just look out the window."

You are on very thin ice with you presumptions that the "folks" here have not done their homework and read the studies. So you compare yourself to Galileo and the rest to the Church fathers.

I suggest that you have it in reverse. There are some here who have offered statistical data, experiential observation linked to the data, and offered interpretations based on combining the two. [More like Galileo in that there is some thought, work and consideration].

You, on the other hand, offer your vacant, condescending wisdom, in unsubstantiated opinion, and expect the readers to accept it on your say-so. [Much like the Church fathers].

Lou Gehrig raised the opinion of a club winning a pennant in the first 40 games or so. Let's take a look at that.

Say the Tigers open a season at 31-9 and the Indians open that same season at 22-18. The Tribe is 9 Games Behind in the standings; and the oddsmakers in Vegas are probably adjusting the odds downward to 7-5 for the Tigers and up to 3.5-1 for the Tribe, but they aren't fools: they know it's baseball and strange things can happen over the remaining 122 games.

Now imagine added games through the All Star break, 41 games with the Tigers adding 23-18 while the Tribe is slightly improved to 25-16. Mid season, the standings would look like this:

Detroit 54-27 .667 ---
Cleve. 47-34 .580 7GB

Hardly a runaway. A full half season left to play with the possibility of slumps, injuries, suspensions or even another club, not yet in the picture, going 31-9 over a second half surge and making it a three way race.

Teams do not win pennants over a portion of a season: they enhance their odds by gaining momentum and establishing a lead.

Red Sox, Cubs and Dodger fans can tell you just how much momentum can change over a long season.

Grandstander · 08-15-2007, 10:31 AM

Nan...that was an awful lot of words that you used which could had been replaced by..."I also have not done my homework."

nanwynnfan · 08-15-2007, 11:01 AM

"It would be an interesting study to see what the strongest correlation factors are. Boggs' absence from any notable hitting streaks may be due to his high walk rates and mediocre speed. Based on those factors, Ichiro would seem the ideal candidate for an extended streak."

I agree. What I've seen so far the pecking order would seem to be:

1. contact; 2. contact with a fair degree of power; 3. low BB rate; 4. speed.

Ichiro has 1, 3 amd 4 in spades; but he is not only a pure contact hitter but a "slap" hitter, often making contact while exiting the batter's box. This sacrifices power on contact and raises the possibility of batted balls of less off-bat speed and thus a bit more playable.

Ichiro's HR/K ratio = .153, low, like Boggs; so while he is a tremendous hitting talent, the mix doesn't suggest record-breaking consecutive streaks. Here are his treaks, to date:

2001: [2 streaks]; 15 & 23
2007: 25, club record

kflo · 08-15-2007, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

Lou Gehrig raised the opinion of a club winning a pennant in the first 40 games or so. Let's take a look at that.

i think we all agree that lou gehrig's opinion was based on faulty logic.

WilsonC · 08-15-2007, 12:52 PM

I think one thing that's important to keep in mind regarding the value of power for a hitting streak is why it may be a correlating factor, we would need to investigate why it's a correlating factor. Speed falls into that category also. It makes sense, because a hitter with power will often have a high batting average on contact (BAC), assuming at least an average batting average on balls in play (BABIP). However, it's also important to note that BAC can also be achieved by sustaining a high BABIP, as Ichiro does (Career .355 or something BABIP, and .367 BAC - both well above typical) whether because of his speed or superior bat control. One absolutely sick factor for Ichiro is quite simply his 230 hits per 162 games; that's an awful lot of hits to distribute over a season.

One thing I also noticed among the hitting streak leaders, however, is a conspicuous lack of lefties near the top, and the few who are lefties tend to be guys who had crazy-insane contact hitting skills (Cobb, Sisler, Manush). It does make sense that handedness could be a significant factor here too, as a lefty is more likely to have a moderate platoon split, and will likely face a handful of lefty pitchers during the run who are just murder with the platoon advantage. Extreme righty platoon splits are less common.

08-14-2007, 11:42 PM	#34 (permalink)
nanwynnfan Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,579	Glad to see we're back on topic, my orifices intact and no blown saves, so to speak. Since this thread is really devoted to Joe DiMaggio's streak primarily and the random aspects of such streaks occurring, I agee with dlb's observation that clutch must not be defined in such narrow slivers as key AB's in crucial games, but, more correctly as a maintenace of a certain level of production EVEN when pressure seems more intense than other times that are routine. So as not to hijack the thread into "cluch," I'm opening a new thread on that topic as soon as I reorganize the data I have so far. It takes this approach to "clutch" so that plate appearances are sufficient enough in number to be statistically relevant. Last edited by nanwynnfan; 08-15-2007 at 01:15 AM.

08-15-2007, 10:15 AM	#41 (permalink)
nanwynnfan Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,579	"Honestly folks, you are defending old wives tales and discredited conventional wisdom. You guys simply have not done your homework and read the studies. If you had, you'd see that you're wrong. I feel like Galileo being lectured by the church fathers....of course the sun orbits the earth, just look out the window." You are on very thin ice with you presumptions that the "folks" here have not done their homework and read the studies. So you compare yourself to Galileo and the rest to the Church fathers. I suggest that you have it in reverse. There are some here who have offered statistical data, experiential observation linked to the data, and offered interpretations based on combining the two. [More like Galileo in that there is some thought, work and consideration]. You, on the other hand, offer your vacant, condescending wisdom, in unsubstantiated opinion, and expect the readers to accept it on your say-so. [Much like the Church fathers]. Lou Gehrig raised the opinion of a club winning a pennant in the first 40 games or so. Let's take a look at that. Say the Tigers open a season at 31-9 and the Indians open that same season at 22-18. The Tribe is 9 Games Behind in the standings; and the oddsmakers in Vegas are probably adjusting the odds downward to 7-5 for the Tigers and up to 3.5-1 for the Tribe, but they aren't fools: they know it's baseball and strange things can happen over the remaining 122 games. Now imagine added games through the All Star break, 41 games with the Tigers adding 23-18 while the Tribe is slightly improved to 25-16. Mid season, the standings would look like this: Detroit 54-27 .667 --- Cleve. 47-34 .580 7GB Hardly a runaway. A full half season left to play with the possibility of slumps, injuries, suspensions or even another club, not yet in the picture, going 31-9 over a second half surge and making it a three way race. Teams do not win pennants over a portion of a season: they enhance their odds by gaining momentum and establishing a lead. Red Sox, Cubs and Dodger fans can tell you just how much momentum can change over a long season. Last edited by nanwynnfan; 08-15-2007 at 10:30 AM.

08-15-2007, 11:01 AM	#43 (permalink)
nanwynnfan Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 2,579	"It would be an interesting study to see what the strongest correlation factors are. Boggs' absence from any notable hitting streaks may be due to his high walk rates and mediocre speed. Based on those factors, Ichiro would seem the ideal candidate for an extended streak." I agree. What I've seen so far the pecking order would seem to be: 1. contact; 2. contact with a fair degree of power; 3. low BB rate; 4. speed. Ichiro has 1, 3 amd 4 in spades; but he is not only a pure contact hitter but a "slap" hitter, often making contact while exiting the batter's box. This sacrifices power on contact and raises the possibility of batted balls of less off-bat speed and thus a bit more playable. Ichiro's HR/K ratio = .153, low, like Boggs; so while he is a tremendous hitting talent, the mix doesn't suggest record-breaking consecutive streaks. Here are his treaks, to date: 2001: [2 streaks]; 15 & 23 2007: 25, club record Last edited by nanwynnfan; 08-15-2007 at 11:20 AM.

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.fanhome.com/forums/major-league-baseball/9352-dimaggio-now-number-one.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
FanHome » The Most Impressive Remaining Record	This thread	Pingback	09-27-2007 10:54 PM
50 Car Insurance - 50 60 car, requirements insurance car	This thread	Refback	08-20-2007 06:58 AM
FanHome	This thread	Pingback	08-12-2007 09:29 PM

08-14-2007, 11:36 PM	#33 (permalink)
LouGehrig Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Melbourne Posts: 224	Some of those who post have no concept of reality, if reality indeed exists. Since most of the support for the premises, which are basically flawed, are simplistic, I will present a simplistic example. What happened to Dr. David Bruce Banner when he got angry is what happens to some individuals in certain situations. Ask David Ortiz. Ask the 2004 Boston Red Sox. What is amazing (based on my brief readings of some of the posts, it really, sadly, is not amazing) is that there has been no refutation of my example of the 1984 Tigers or the 1955 Brooklyn team. Each is certainly a concrete, supported example of a team winning the pennant during the first 40 games of the season. The 1958 Yankees aren't a bad example either. Let's say an individual is a life threatening situation in which she must "rise to the occasion." Such instances occur daily. Or, when the conflagration on 9/11/2001 occurred, individuals did things they never knew they were capable of doing, due to their situations. Athletes are no different. Some can react and do what must be done. Others cannot. How about Yogi Berra and Don Newcombe against each other in the WS? Once again, the premises presented are quite simple to follow. Is it possible for some on this forum to comprehend that they may be REJECTED? A win is a win is a win, but not all wins are equal. In 1973, in July, the Mets were trailing the Braves in the ninth inning, 7-1. The Mets were staggering in the standings. They scored 8 runs, won the game, and went on to win the division. The win, ONE WIN, was the impetus for more wins. You can believe what you want, but nothing has been proven. Why? Because there are too many variables to control, and there always will be too many variables to control.

08-15-2007, 08:08 AM	#35 (permalink)
jtur88 Hall of Famer Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: South Texas Posts: 7,099	"Clutch situation" can be deceptive. Sutuation A: Two out, nobody on. Situation B: Runners in scoring position, nobody out. Which one is a clutch situation? Situation A, for the reason that the only way the batter can be productive in this PA is to hit at least a double. Anything short of that, the inning is highly likely to end without a run scoring. Situation B is not a clutch situation. All the batter has to do to be "productive" is put the ball in play, and in most cases it will, at minimum, produce a run. And even if he fails, the scoring chance in the inning remains high. So, there is a great deal more pressure ("clutch situation") on the batter in situation A.

08-15-2007, 09:16 AM	#38 (permalink)
WilsonC Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 116	Intuitively speaking, I would think that a power to strikeout ratio would have a strong correlation to batting average, which in turn would have a strong correlation to hitting streaks. Beyond batting average, I'd also suggest that speed, batting order position, and low-to-moderate walk rates would likely be strong factors, and seem to be fairly common. It would be an interesting study to see what the strongest correlation factors are. Boggs' absence from any notable hitting streaks may be due to his high walk rates and mediocre speed. Based on those factors, Ichiro would seem the ideal candidate for an extended streak. Now, the idea that power may correlate as well definitely has merit too, as hitters who hit the ball hard are affected less by opposing defense than guys who rely more on speed, which suggests less variance in performance is likely. Though I suppose on the other hand, power could have an adverse effect of making the hitter more susceptible to being pitched around or walked intentionally in close games, which could hinder extended streaks. How would the ratios stack up if rather than using HR, all extra base hits are included?

08-15-2007, 10:31 AM	#42 (permalink)
Grandstander Hall of Famer Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Parts Unknown Northern California Posts: 5,589	Nan...that was an awful lot of words that you used which could had been replaced by..."I also have not done my homework."

08-15-2007, 12:52 PM	#45 (permalink)
WilsonC Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 116	I think one thing that's important to keep in mind regarding the value of power for a hitting streak is why it may be a correlating factor, we would need to investigate why it's a correlating factor. Speed falls into that category also. It makes sense, because a hitter with power will often have a high batting average on contact (BAC), assuming at least an average batting average on balls in play (BABIP). However, it's also important to note that BAC can also be achieved by sustaining a high BABIP, as Ichiro does (Career .355 or something BABIP, and .367 BAC - both well above typical) whether because of his speed or superior bat control. One absolutely sick factor for Ichiro is quite simply his 230 hits per 162 games; that's an awful lot of hits to distribute over a season. One thing I also noticed among the hitting streak leaders, however, is a conspicuous lack of lefties near the top, and the few who are lefties tend to be guys who had crazy-insane contact hitting skills (Cobb, Sisler, Manush). It does make sense that handedness could be a significant factor here too, as a lefty is more likely to have a moderate platoon split, and will likely face a handful of lefty pitchers during the run who are just murder with the platoon advantage. Extreme righty platoon splits are less common.