Pythagenport teams records

[Mookie4ever]

Over a 162 game schedule there is going to be no such thing as luck. Clutch is a more valuable concept than luck.

Except that clutch isn't quantifiable and thus we cannot assume that it exists. I'm sure that's what you meant to say, right?

I was being facetious. There have been a lot of threads in the Cafe debunking the concept of clutch. Of course if you try hard enough you can use stats to prove anything (not trying to hijack - just showing that clutch is about as "quantifyable" as luck). Quantifying luck and clutch is like counting clouds - you can do it but how accurate or helpful is it? There are lies, damn lies and statistics.

[Mookie4ever]

Over a 162 game schedule there is going to be no such thing as luck. Clutch is a more valuable concept than luck.

Nonsense.

That's rather harsh.

"Know what the difference between hitting .250 and .300 is? It's 25 hits. 25 hits in 500 at bats is 50 points, okay? There's 6 months in a season, that's about 25 weeks. That means if you get just one extra flare a week - just one - a gorp... you get a groundball, you get a groundball with eyes... you get a dying quail, just one
more dying quail a week... and you're in Yankee Stadium. "
- Crash Davis, In Bull Durham

Statistically, it takes 3-5 seasons of data to get most baseball results down to the point where "luck" plays an unimportant role.

Statistically everything is within walking distance.....but do you have the time?


If you are trying to convince me that some people are intrinsically luckier than others just because of their history of lucky bounces....you are wasting your time. You will have more luck convincing me that just b/c you got heads twenty times in a row that the next time that you flip the coin the odds of it coming up heads again are anything but 50/50.

[quietstorm]

You're right, you can't quantify "luck" either, as that's the basic nature of luck. But you can define it and show its existence, and that's called probability. Probability is luck.

Look at gambling. Go play roulette. It may land red ten times in a row -- that's considered "luck," but it's really just probability. It's a sporadic eventuality that was bound to happen... errr... eventually (pardon the pun).

Which, of course, is the same concept as in baseball. A player who is a .300 hitter may just have a week in which things don't work out for him. That's probability. But it will adversely affect his seasonal stats if the slump is bad enough. Or maybe the schedule over the course of the season pits him against some particularly good pitchers, and quite a few less back-of-the-order slouches. Suddenly his stats are different.

Luck is just as pertinent as anything else -- it's just the common name for probability.

[Mookie4ever]

I'm a little jaded, I agree with these guys:

If you want to inspire confidence, give plenty of statistics. It does not matter that they should be accurate, or even intelligible, as long as there is enough of them.

The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four Americans is suffering from some form of mental illness. Think of your three best friends. If they're okay, then it's you.

Statistics are like lampposts: they are good to lean on, but they don't shed much light.

This is the best one:

Not everything that can be counted counts; and not everything that counts can be counted.

[quietstorm]

The Lewis Caroll quote fits perfectly with Swift's A Modest Proposal. Throw enough statistics at people and they'll believe you about anything.

[HOOTIE]

The clutch believers, always have their cars (manual transmissions), to reassure themselves that clutch does indeed exist.
Just like we have Xmas showing that Santa exists.

[OhMrScottyTrav06]

Like in flipping a coin or betting on roulette... baseball is a series of independant events... Just because a .250 career hitter (with 8 years under his belt) is in an 0 for 40 slump, doesn't mean he's due for a breakout to get 25 hits in his next 60 at bats... He's more likely to get 15 hits in those next 60 at bats because of his battng average.

But that is just the probability of what is the most possible outome... you have to factor in so many other variables that go into every at bat...

Luck is part of each and every game, and if you can't handle that then you aren't thinking realistically...

But over 162 games, luck seems to even out and become almost negligable.

[GotowarMissAgnes]

Like in flipping a coin or betting on roulette... baseball is a series of independant events... Just because a .250 career hitter (with 8 years under his belt) is in an 0 for 40 slump, doesn't mean he's due for a breakout to get 25 hits in his next 60 at bats... He's more likely to get 15 hits in those next 60 at bats because of his battng average.

But that is just the probability of what is the most possible outome... you have to factor in so many other variables that go into every at bat...

Luck is part of each and every game, and if you can't handle that then you aren't thinking realistically...

But over 162 games, luck seems to be even out and become almost negligable.

...almost...but not completely. Luck is a part of a 162 game season.

[GotowarMissAgnes]

[quote="Mookie4ever
If you are trying to convince me that some people are intrinsically luckier than others just because of their history of lucky bounces....you are wasting your time. You will have more luck convincing me that just b/c you got heads twenty times in a row that the next time that you flip the coin the odds of it coming up heads again are anything but 50/50.[/quote]

Not sure how you got from what I wrote to the claim that "..some people are intrinsically luckier than others..." since the two have no real connection. My point was simply that it's statistically impossible to distinguish real ability from luck in 162 games. So, your comment about luck having no part in a season is not testable.

As for clutch, one study doesn't prove a thing either way. It's the body of good evidence that supports a theory that matters. And that body of evidence supports the notion that clutch is , at best, a rare and insignificant skill.

http://www.geocities.com/cyrilmorong@sb ... Links2.htm

[quietstorm]

Like in flipping a coin or betting on roulette... baseball is a series of independant events... Just because a .250 career hitter (with 8 years under his belt) is in an 0 for 40 slump, doesn't mean he's due for a breakout to get 25 hits in his next 60 at bats... He's more likely to get 15 hits in those next 60 at bats because of his battng average.

But that is just the probability of what is the most possible outome... you have to factor in so many other variables that go into every at bat...

Luck is part of each and every game, and if you can't handle that then you aren't thinking realistically...

But over 162 games, luck seems to even out and become almost negligable.

Think of it this way: What's the likelihood that a player goes 0-5 three nights in a row, but is otherwise a .400 hitter? Now, think... say... 600 ABs in a season. Four hits is six points of average. You go 0-5 two nights and 2-5 the rest of the year, you're now a .394 hitter instead of a .400 hitter. Go a week without a hit (six games), and now you're a .382 hitter.

Luck is part of a single season.