The Astros and Fangraphs' Clutch Hitting Stat
Sometimes I can write an article by expanding on a short comment. My comment on David's article about the Astros' team splits pointed out that Astros have been an amazing clutch team, as measured by Fangraphs' Clutch hitting statistic. This strikes me as interesting, though I don't have the answers as to what it means for the future.
As a preliminary, let's look at the description of the Fangraphs' clutch statistic. This clutch stat is different from most clutch measures because it is part of the Win Probability Added (WPA) family of statistics. Both WPA and leverage index are used to determine the player's clutchness. The actual measure is based on the player's performance in various leverage situations compared to his overall performance.
According to the Fangraphs clutch statistic, the Astros were No. 1 in 2010 and 2009 and No. 2 in 2008. Over the period 2008 - 2010, the Astros are +17.77, far ahead of the next best team, the Angels, at +7.55. Since I have known for some time that the Astros and Angels are among the most consistent teams at beating their pythagorean record in recent years, my comment wondered whether the clutch hitting (as measured by fangraphs) has any relationship to over or under performing pythag.
So, here are the top five clutch teams for 2008 - 2010 and the accompanying over/under Pythag results during that period:
(Clutch Stat/ Games Over-Under Pythagorean)
Astros +17.77 / +23
Angels +7.55 / +18
Marlins +4.85 / +7
Giants +4.08 / +4
Phillies +3.51 / +2
The five best clutch teams also were good at beating their pythagorean W/L record during 2008 - 2010. What about the five worst clutch teams for 2008 - 2010?
(Clutch Stat/ Games Over-Under Pythagorean)
Blue Jays -10.14 / -15
Indians -9.44 / -11
Nationals -9.12 / -13
Cubs -8.53 / +4
Rockies -8.34 / +4
The pattern isn't as consistent for the five worst clutch teams in 2008-2010, because the Cubs and Rockies were poor clutch teams but still over-performed their pythagorean record. However, the top three worst clutch hitting teams also strongly under performed their pythagorean wins and losses. Taken together, a comparison of the top and bottom five clutch teams and their pythagorean performance suggest that the fangraphs' clutch statistic affects a team's over or underperformance of its pythag wins and losses. It doesn't decisively prove anything, but it's interesting.
However, I'm surprised that the results are this indicative. Many factors are likely to affect the Actual vs. Pythagorean Result. (This comparison doesn't address team pitching at all.) And because Pythagorean over or underperformance is purely based upon the distribution of runs allowed and runs scored among a season of games, the causation between clutch hitting and pythag performance is likely to be indirect.
As stated in the photo caption accompanying this article, Michael Bourn was the best clutch hitter in 2010, based on the Fangraphs clutch stat. The Astros' individual clutch hitting stats are here. The top clutch hitters for the Astros in 2010: Bourn, Carlos Lee, Geoff Blum, Lance Berkman, Hunter Pence, Jason Michaels, Cory Sullivan, and Chris Johnson.
For the period 2008 - 2010, Carlos Lee was the top clutch hitter in baseball, with +4.21. Michael Bourn, Miguel Tejada, and Lance Berkman are in the top 20 for 2008-2010. Hunter Pence is at No. 22.
One of the reasons that I chose the period 2008 - 2010 is that it accompanies the period that Ed Wade has been in charge of Astros' player moves. In the past, I have wondered if the team construction has affected the ability of teams like the Angels and Astros to overperform their pythagorean record. Jeff Keppinger was the worst clutch hitter (using fangraphs) on the Astros in 2010--even worse than the pitchers--and his role on the team has been reduced, despite one of his best seasons. Ty Wigginton was the worst clutch hitter on the 2008 Astros, despite good overall stats, and he was non-tendered. Coincidence or not?
What would all of this mean for the Astros' future? I don't know.
Let's start out with the fact that clutch hitting is one of the most controversial issues in sabermetrics. The majority position seems to support the idea that clutch hitting is largely a matter of luck, i.e., it is not a repeatable skill. Tango's more recent contest indicates that clutch skill can be identified, but that the effect is relatively small. Others (including Bill James) argue that clutch hitting skill is too difficult to measure, and conclude that the evidence is not adequate to support a conclusion. I tend to fall in the latter camp. In addition to the statistical issues raised by James, if we cannot agree on what constitutes the best measure of clutch, we will always have difficulty reaching a unanimous verdict. I will add that I have not seen any statistical studies which are based on the Fangraphs clutch statistic.
If the Astros' clutch hitting has been critical to beating the Pythag win-loss record...and if the clutch results are basically luck...then this could be a bad predictor for the Astros in 2011, since it might indicate a regression in win-loss record. The Astros' consistency in beating the pythag over the years leads me to discount this conclusion, but that argument can be made. Another possibility is that something about the Astros' team construction favors the team's ability to beat its Pythag. If that's true, then maybe this is a positive factor for the future.
It's also worth noting that two of the Astros' better clutch performers over the last three years, Lance Berkman and Geoff Blum, will not be on next year's team. Will that change the clutch character of the Astros? Again, who knows?
Let's look at the new guys. Bill Hall has a fairly consistent positive clutch result over his career. Hall shows a negative clutch result in only one out of nine seasons. His total clutch score over those seasons is +3.88. For what it's worth, that compares favorably to Lance Berkman. Clint Barmes, on the other hand, had a negative clutch stat for five of his seven seasons, and his cumulative clutch score is -2.79. As for the younger additions to the team last year, it's too early to say much, even though in small samples Chris Johnson and Wallace fared well on the clutch stat, while Castro did not. Carlos Lee will be back, and he is one of the most consistent clutch performers active in baseball. Michaels, Pence and Bourn, who also have excelled on the clutch statistic, will still be in the lineup.
Any thoughts or reactions?
14 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
So your saying that over the last 3 years, we have had players who elevate their game the most when in critical situations. Do you think this is a direct reflection because of the Astros under preforming as a team in general? I mean Lee couldn’t even hit his weight this year but he was clutch. Berkman had a horrible season a year ago but again was clutch. Bourn had an ok ba but nothing special and is still clutch. Blum, Michaels, Sullivan all are reserve players and don’t get as many at bats, therefore the majority of their at bats will come in high leverage situations.
Miss-placed Houstonian living and going to school in the wilderness of Wyoming.
Given that the clutch statistic is relative to the players’ performance in non-leveraged situations, the 2010 “down” year for many Astros players could have an effect on the 2010 results. But the fact that the analysis looks at three years, and not just 2010, means that “down years” are not the primary explanation, IMO. 2008 arguably was the best offensive season of Carlos Lee’s career, and he still posted 1.3 clutch, which is considered high. The Astros were in the top one-third of teams for Runs Created in 2008, yet were No. 2 on the clutch stat (+6.05). The Angels were No. 2 on the clutch stat for 2008-2010, and that team had some very good offenses during that period. So, I don’t think the clutch rankings are just an artifact of poor offensive seasons. I agree that bench players have more opportunity to be clutch because a larger proportion of their at bats occur during high leverage situations. But they still have to perform during those opportunities.
I don’t have an explanation for why, but the Astros have gotten more than you would expect from their general offensive level by increasing their offensive performance in critical situations.
Bill James shows clutch stats based on an unspecified identification of “clutch opportunities.” I have not idea how this compares to the development Fangraph’s clutch statistic. However, I used James’ numbers to look at the batting in those periods for 2010.
Carlos Lee had a poor batting average in clutch situations (.236) but he posted an OPS in the .800’s, similar to his career OPS. James classified 9% of Lee’s at bats as “clutch opportunities,” and Lee hit 25% of his HRs in those at bats. Lee had 25 RBIs in those opportunities which was 28% of the total RBIs.
During Bourn’s 45 clutch opportunities (per James), Bourn posted a .400, .481, .571, 1.052.
Hey look at it this way...
at least we were on top of one positive statistic last year. However this could be considered random or lucky right? So we could see a complete reverse year to year? Similar to BABIP…
by Its Gonna Happen on Feb 11, 2011 1:46 PM CST via mobile up reply actions
Clutch Pinch Hitting
Geoff Blum will now haunt the Astros…again.
He hit the game winning HR in the 14th inning of the World Series for the White Sox assuring the win over the ASTRO’s in the longest game in World Series History.
He was the fourth best pinch hitter in MLB last year and the best two years ago.
Astros loss is Diamondbacks gain.
Being the fourth best pinch hitter in the MLB is like being the fourth best special teams player on an NFL team.
by Timothy De Block on Feb 13, 2011 10:39 AM CST up reply actions
Aging utility guy on the decline...?
Blum was a good guy but im glad we’ve moved on. He blew out his elbow putting on his shirt…that’s how you know you’re getting old
by Its Gonna Happen on Feb 12, 2011 3:54 PM CST via mobile reply actions
You have to factor the division the team is playing in.
The Astros are number one i beating the Pyth record, but throw them in the AL East and you have a vastly different difference in Pyth record and the actual record. The reason the Cubs and Rockies seem to have a positive differential is most likely due to playing in the NL Central and the NL West. Both divisions over the last three years have been considered among the weaker division.
by Timothy De Block on Feb 13, 2011 10:36 AM CST reply actions
The year the Astros went to the World Series they had a -2.92 in the clutch statistic.
I agree with the notion that the clutch statistic has little effect on performance.
by Timothy De Block on Feb 13, 2011 10:45 AM CST up reply actions
I think the Astros’ clutch clearly had an effect on W/L performance, but the question is whether that characteristic continues to repeat in the future. The fangraphs’ clutch stat basically is saying that the Astros’ offense performed much better than its normal level during critical situations in close games, which means that the Astros should win more than the expected number of close games, which is one of the ways to over perform the Pythag. Based on the Astros’ out performing their pythag for five straight years, maybe it is repeatable. But that is a big question mark. And it has important implications for the Astros ability to improve their W/L record. If the over performance is luck, then the Astros need to improve by 16 games to get to .500, compared to the 6 games implied by their 76 win actual record.
Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t see how the difference between actual performance and the Pythagorean record can have anything to do with the division that the Astros play in. If the Astros played in the AL East, their Pythag record would be lower because their RS and RA differential presumably would be worse. But the the difference between the actual record and Pythag record might well be the same, since that difference is due to a favorable distribution of runs scored and runs allowed. Actually, the Astros might over-perform their Pythag even more in the NL East, since the number of games in which the Astors are blown out might increase.
I think the Astros would get blown out more in the AL East, and the high leverage situations decrease as a result.
by Timothy De Block on Feb 13, 2011 4:18 PM CST up reply actions


























