If you are a Met fan watching the postseason like me, it’s only normal to think of what might be next year. Starting pitching has been front and center thus far in the playoffs, and has strengthened the popular sentiment that “pitching wins championships.” As the Mets’ front office puts together an offseason plan which certainly should involve free agent signings and trade avenues, it’s important to look at what kind of players they should be targeting.
Many fans these days are enamored by the statistics, traditional and modern. On-base percentage and WAR are statistics the masses place in the fore front of many discussions and debates swirling around the Mets’ roster. It’s an important gauge of a player, but not necessarily the most revealing of a productive player. Intangibles are a factor that I would hope front offices and scouts are still placing a high value on. Along with strong starting pitching, clutch hitting and strong defensive play have shown to be the differences in a big game come October… many times from an unlikely source.
Take last year, Marco Scutaro, a mid-season trade acquisition, batted a whopping .500 in a seven game NLCS, while walking only twice. With a career OBP of .341, Scutaro became a post-season hero displaying his timely and aggressive hitting, much like the season before when David Freese was MVP in both NLCS and World Series. With career OBP of .356, Freese batted a combined .445 in both series while driving in 16 runs, cementing him as a clutch force in the minds of baseball fans.
I point these two players out to emphasize the intangible factor. The term “clutch” I associate to something the human eye can see as opposed to a statistic someone can point out on paper. While these two players did not have high OBP or RBI totals, they were clutch when they needed to be and we’re difference makers for their teams.
I have also heard Mets fan point out Ike Davis’ and Lucas Duda’s .326 and .352 OBP compared to Daniel Murphy’s .319, when debating next year’s roster construction. I would respond with Davis and Duda’s combined 79 runs and 66 RBIs, to Murphy’s 92 runs and 78 RBIs and 23 SBs. It’s important to point out that a player’s propensity for drawing walks is devalued when they have pretty much zero speed and bat lower in the lineup. I’m sure pitchers don’t necessarily get rattled with Davis or Duda on first base with two outs because it will take at least two hits to get them around to score.
In 2013, MLB teams average 4.17 runs per game, the lowest since 1992. OBP was at a MLB team avg. of .318, the lowest since 1988. Knowing these statistics and what we’ve seen over the past few postseasons, identifying clutch hitters to target might be where you allocate value, after strong starting pitching of course. That’s not to say look at AVG. with RISP either. Just because you hit a bases loaded double in a 8-0 game doesn’t necessarily make you a clutch hitter. Performance in pressure at-bats is something that must be acknowledged. Scouting and watching players over a full season is how you identify these attributes. I mean would ask a Yankee fan who he wanted up in a big spot over the years, Alex Rodriguez or Jorge Posada? I guarantee you they will not choose the guy with almost 2,000 career RBIs. I would also argue to Mets fans that David Wright has been more clutch over the past two seasons than his previous years when he was driving in over 100 RBIs within potent lineups. It’s because I watch the games and don’t let statistics be the end all in evaluation.
So where should the Mets be looking? It might take a free agent here or there, perhaps a trade. Maybe a young player on the roster will take that next step in their development. The Mets need more clutch hitters if they are going to be a winner next year. The pitching has shown its worth; let’s hope the front office is ahead of the curve when finding the bats to match it.
It’s easier to find a player who can get on base. Why would any team give up their R.B.I. guy? Clutch hitters are so much more difficult to find. I guess that’s why the Mets always seem to be at the bottom for runs scored
I understand your point, Sean, but the samples you cite of clutch hitting are very small. Over the course of an average major league player’s career there are times when they hit in the clutch and times when they failed. Using a small sample is misleading.
In my youth (that phrase hurts) Mel Allen use to refer to Tommy Henrich as “Old Reliable” but how much of that was based on stats as opposed to a few remembered instances when Henrich came through?
I do like your point about slow runners down in the batting order getting walks and needing two hits to get them home. It should be pointed out that a walk to the bottom of the order, even if it does not lead to a score, does have some positive effects. The pitcher is throwing more pitches than he wants and you are turning over the batting order more quickly to give your better hitter more chances. But, yeah, it’s probably overrated.
Those more knowledgable about the latest stats might be able to point the way to measure “clutch hitting.”
Walks are best at the top of the lineup, speed is best at the bottom.
I’m sorry, but another thought. Sean, where did you find the picture of the Clair Bee book? As a kid I loved the books of Clair Bee and John R. Tunis, among others. Good work.
PS-for those of you too young to remember, Clair Bee was a great college basketball coach besides being a successful author of youth novels.
I read some John R. Tunis books growing up. I even had a ball affixed to a rope attached to a tree to practice hitting in my backyard, with the idea stolen from “The Kid from Tomkinsville.”
No, what the Mets need to target is more good hitters. When you have a lot of good hitters over a large sample they tend to do better in the “clutch” situations than worse hitters would. And good hitters that get on base tend to create run scoring “clutch” opportunities for teammates. They should not be hyper focused on a guy who had a big clutch week or two.
Your example highlights the problems and lack of predictability of “clutch” especially over such small sample size…especially for mediocre hitters. Yes, indeed Freese was great in the playoffs in 2011. But last years NLCS he hit .192, this years division series he hit .188. Right now (though of course things can change since again it’s such a small sample and 2 hits tonight would probably jump his average 100 points) he’s hitting .118 in the NLCS. Did he misplace his intangible clutch gene for a few series? What happened? His career regular season “clutch” numbers….performance in close and late games and performance in “high leverage situations” over the regular season is nothing particularly impressive either. And on this season as a whole Freese was not that good…not a big part of why the Cards made the playoffs. Since his big series a couple years ago he has not been anything special in the “clutch” spots. But playing on a great team gets you a lot of opportunities in big spots..and if you manage to succeed at some point you can get the “clutch” label and people will tend to forget about the other failures.
The Mets need to target good hitters. Good hitters are more likely to get his in all situations than not as good hitters are. Sure a mediocre player can have a great postseason series…any hitter can get hot at any time…but focusing on a guy who had a hot week at the right time should not be the way the Mets go about building their team.
Obviously Buster Posey and Albert Pujols were the prime components that helped those teams win championships. I get what you’re saying about small sample size, but I was just using those two players as an example of what to look for in a “supporting cast.” I would think a guy like Murphy would show those traits in a postseason series, yet we have no evidence of that yet. I would hope the front office had keener insight into who those players could be. When you build your team around pitching, timely hitting becomes more intergral as opposed to stacking a lineup with the goal of scoring 6 runs a game…especially in the postseason
Well I agree the Mets need better “supporting cast” type players…right now they have way too many awful players getting playing time. But I don’t think going for the “stacked lineup” is ever a bad thing. Having a lineup scoring a ton of runs is a good thing…in the regular season and in the postseason. And even from the “clutch” viewpoint…the more really good hitters you have in your lineup the more likely you are to get those timely hits.
And who succeeds in the postseason isn’t necessarily predictable (other than better hitters are more likely to hit better). Like I said with the Freese example…in 2011 he was that great postseason hitter…NLCS MVP. In 2012 he was lousy in the NLCS. So even if you take a guy that has directly had success in the postseason..it doesn’t necessarily mean he will always have success in future postseasons. It’s such a small sample..you’re talking about a weeks worth of games at the most (less than that in many cases)…so it’s not all that meaningful/predictable.
LOL…Obviously, I’m not advocating scoring LESS runs..Just placing value on other factors now that runs are at a premium more than ever. Mets are not gonna spend money like the Dodgers, I would hope they spend wisely because timely hitting is what they will need to win games.
Your taking the Freese thing out of context..I’m not saying Alderson should print out postseason stats as a main criteria to sign players. Clutch hits exist in regular season too…scouting and familarity with a player’s “makeup” is absolutely relevant.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: There is no quantifiable evidence that “clutch players” exist.
Hence the word “intangible”.
What you call “intangible” is really just luck. And there’s no way to accrue “luck”.
Getting big hits in postseason games is just “luck?” That might be one of the most absurd statements I’ve ever heard….EVER! You do realize these are humans not video game composites right? How athlete’s respond under pressure decide championships…. in every sport. SMH
Yes it is. It’s all perception. Look at David Ortiz’s regular season numbers vs. his postseason ones, they’re virtually identical.
I think you two need to look up the definition of the word: Luck
David Ortiz is one player, not the template for all..but he is a clutch player, one of the best in recent years. I don’t need postseason stats to tell me that…that’s the point. What about Arod? Texiera? Just perception?
I think you need to learn about statistics and small sample sizes as well as selection bias.
One hit, one game, or even a handful of games, does not determine what a player truly is. In the short term, you can get deviations far from normal (aka get lucky).
Timing these short term above average deviations is impossible for anyone to predict. In baseball speak, you cannot predict when someone will get hot and likewise when they will get cold.
Old School vs. New School
So Sandy should be looking for the next Al Weiss?
Haha, sure why not?!? More recently, Brian Cashman found Scott Brosius for pretty cheap
I agree, great book cover. Didn’t Freese just make a couple of great defensive plays in the series? You have to conceed that a good hitter is still going to get three hits in every 10 ABs over the long haul. A player has to be able to contribute on both sides: offense and defense.