Dejan on the "C" word

Yep, the "C" word. Clutch. Dejan's got a long article in the PG today on clutch. I've talked about clutch and it's existence and stuff at length before, so you can search the archives if you really want that because I don't feel like going into it today. Charlie has also done a great post about the article which I think you should read. There's one part that he talks about in his post that I especially want to emphasize here. It's mostly reiteration at this point, but bear with me. From Dejan's article:
When his team wins, Jim Tracy invariably points to "big" hits that were delivered. When the team loses, he points to the lack of same. Even after the Pirates were blanked on three measly hits in their home opener April 9, Tracy lamented, "We had chances."

Tracy's view is reflected in how he forms his lineup, bucking the modern thinking that the highest on-base percentage players should be stacked at the top. Instead, he favors the more traditional approach of getting the runner on, moving him along and getting a "big" hit.

"Isn't that what makes teams good?" Tracy said when asked about his value of clutch. "It's what separates you from the pack, your ability to take the big at-bat. You don't expect somebody to hit 1.000 with runners in scoring position, but you have to get your share of hits in those situations. Look at the upper echelon of clubs, and that's what you look for. And if we can get to that point, we've got a chance to become a pretty decent team."

Ugh. Let's go back to the home opener. We had six base runners total and three hits in the game. Four of the runners reached second base and not one of them made it to third or scored. Despite that, in Tracy's mind we "had our chances." The Cardinals, who scored three runs, had eight hits and ten base runners. The problem in the game wasn't our lack of big hit, it was our lack of hitting, period.

Look at the first sentence in the last paragraph, "Isn't [clutch hitting] what makes teams good?" NO! IT'S NOT! My god, that comment is almost as bad as Dusty Baker's infamous "On-base percentage is great if you can score runs and do something with that on-base percentage. Clogging up the bases isn't that great to me," quote. What makes teams good is their ability to get people on base and to hit the ball enough to score them. You can do that by batting .100 points higher as a team with runners in scoring position, or you could just put a lot more people on base and get more hits. Let's play a fun game. Here's one set of numbers:

.321/.401, .322/.400, .327/.397

And here's a second:

.360/.472, .322/.425, .337/.431

What are they? The Pirates team OBP/SLG from 2004-2006 compared with the World Series champs from the same era (Red Sox, White Sox, and Cardinals, in order). Ten points of OPS or 25 points of SLG may not seem huge, but it is over 6,000 plate appearances. But yeah, clutch hitting. That's the difference.

Popular posts from this blog

WHYGAVS has moved

It's official. WHYGAVS now has a new official home. It's actually at WHYGAVS.com , which means that it's the same as the old home, but I'm off Blogger now, which means that this old link won't redirect. You'll have to subscribe to a new feed if that's how you read WHYGAVS, but beyond that things are going to be mostly the same.
Read more

Links

For reasons that will become shortly apparent, I've been working on cleaning/updating the sidebar links. That means that I've got some new links to add to the sidebar, as well as some other things for your general perusal. Cory Humes, Geeves, and Alan from Bucco Wire are all blogging again at MVN under the header Pirate Revolution . There's also The Green Weenie and The 'Burgh Blues , two blogs I should've added some time ago. Meanwhile, Dejan's series about the Pirates' presence in the Dominican is awesome. I'm sure most of you have been checking it out as it's been published, but if you haven't I can't recommend parts one , two , and three , Renee Gayo's list of the top 5 prospects yet to play in America , and everything else that DK's put on his blog on the subject enough. It's an awesome look in to the Bucs' international operation and how things have changed since Bob Nutting took the lack of Pirate presence in the reg...
Read more

The Pirates are talking to Mark Loretta

There are a couple of possible reactions when reading that the Pirates are talking to Mark Loretta . The easy reaction is, "Well, so long as he's replacing Chris Gomez, I'm fine with that." That's true. Loretta's a useful utility infielder that can still handle a bat fairly well and can play just about every position in the infield in a short-term capacity. In fact, he's probably a better hitter than Gomez and he can't really be a worse fielder. That may make him more the successor to Doug Mientkiewicz, which is fine by me as well. But then I started thinking. Aren't we trying to trade our shortstop away? Isn't "successor to Jack Wilson" a position that needs filled on the depth chart at the moment? I mean, I know Huntington's not looking at Loretta as a starting shortstop next year ... but what if he is? This is how the offseason drives people crazy. You can go months and months without hearing any rumors, then as soon as rumor...
Read more