Mike Ulmer of the Sun takes a look at so-called truisms in baseball. This is an enjoyable holiday read, including sharp contrasts -- the insight of Keith Law is juxtaposed with the "traditional wisdom" of Lloyd McClendon:
"Once you consider the fact everyone hits better with men on base, you find that there is no such thing as a clutch hitter," Law said. "You can go back as far as you want. No player has over the course of any real timespan hit better in the clutch."
"I would disagree with that," McClendon said. "Certain guys who I played with tended to bring their game up when something was on the line. Myself for one. If I played as well all the time as I did in the clutch, I'd have been a hell of a player."
Ulmer probably misquoted Law as saying "There are clutch hitters but there are no clutch hits" -- it's actually the other way around -- but he gets the rest of the argument correct:
Everyone, from the lowest scrub to the biggest star, hits better with men on base because countless variables come into play. Pitchers may be less willing to risk a curveball that could get away and advance a runner. Infielders are often on the move to cover the bag.
The article also includes an illustration of the astounding ignorance in many broadcast booths.
"I think what numbers can show you is overrated," TSN's Jays television analyst Pat Tabler said. "You can make numbers say anything. Ask the Enron people."
Sure, Pat. Deliberately altered numbers can prove that P.E.I. is bigger than Ontario, but nobody's fudging the MLB stats to perpetrate an enormous fraud. If you're too dumb, or too lazy, to learn something new, it's always best to attack it with a spurious comparison.
Ulmer examines lots of other fallacies, like the notion that a majority of leadoff walks come around to score. I blame Tim McCarver for keeping that nonsense alive.
Happy Canada Day!
"Once you consider the fact everyone hits better with men on base, you find that there is no such thing as a clutch hitter," Law said. "You can go back as far as you want. No player has over the course of any real timespan hit better in the clutch."
"I would disagree with that," McClendon said. "Certain guys who I played with tended to bring their game up when something was on the line. Myself for one. If I played as well all the time as I did in the clutch, I'd have been a hell of a player."
Ulmer probably misquoted Law as saying "There are clutch hitters but there are no clutch hits" -- it's actually the other way around -- but he gets the rest of the argument correct:
Everyone, from the lowest scrub to the biggest star, hits better with men on base because countless variables come into play. Pitchers may be less willing to risk a curveball that could get away and advance a runner. Infielders are often on the move to cover the bag.
The article also includes an illustration of the astounding ignorance in many broadcast booths.
"I think what numbers can show you is overrated," TSN's Jays television analyst Pat Tabler said. "You can make numbers say anything. Ask the Enron people."
Sure, Pat. Deliberately altered numbers can prove that P.E.I. is bigger than Ontario, but nobody's fudging the MLB stats to perpetrate an enormous fraud. If you're too dumb, or too lazy, to learn something new, it's always best to attack it with a spurious comparison.
Ulmer examines lots of other fallacies, like the notion that a majority of leadoff walks come around to score. I blame Tim McCarver for keeping that nonsense alive.
Happy Canada Day!
