Does Clutch Hitting Exist in Baseball?
In baseball, there is perhaps no greater post-season accolade than earning a reputation as a clutch hitter -- the guy who always gets the big hit when his team needs it most. Conversely, there is perhaps no greater post-season bummer than earning a reputation as a choke artist -- the guy who always whiffs when his team needs a hit the most.
Fans, announcers and players have no trouble identifying these guys. Thing is, statisticians can't agree on whether clucth hitting truly exists or not, although most would fall into the latter camp.
Add Scott Lindholm to that group. In a recent post on Fangraphs.com, a popular baseball stats analysis website, Lindholm looked for statistical evidence of clutch hitting by comparing a hitter's usual performance to that of when he steps to the plate with runners in scoring position (RISP). Lindholm's general hypothesis is that if hitters can will themselves to perform better, they will hit for a significantly higher batting average in any RISP situtation. (Note: I'm not sure I agree with this definition, and a few commenters made the point that certain situations, such as those in late innings when the score is close, are more critical than others and should be looked at independently to reveal clutch hitting.)
Lindholm looked at stats from 557 players from the past 20 years, and about 40 of those saw a 10 percent bump in batting average in RISP situations. (Nearly as many saw a 10 percent batting average decrease in the same situation.) The list, however, didn't include many guys who would jump out as great clutch hitters. And, when Lindholm looked at some of those hitters, he found that their relative batting average in RISP situtations varied wildly from season to season.
This is far from the definitive study on the topic -- indeed, many more will certainly follow -- but these results don't do much to help the "clutch hitters exist" camp, according to Lindholm. In general, there just isn't a large enough bump to be meaningful. After all, he writes, even a 10 pecent average bump in RISP situations would, for most players, produce perhaps just three additional hits per year.
Fans, announcers and players have no trouble identifying these guys. Thing is, statisticians can't agree on whether clucth hitting truly exists or not, although most would fall into the latter camp.
Add Scott Lindholm to that group. In a recent post on Fangraphs.com, a popular baseball stats analysis website, Lindholm looked for statistical evidence of clutch hitting by comparing a hitter's usual performance to that of when he steps to the plate with runners in scoring position (RISP). Lindholm's general hypothesis is that if hitters can will themselves to perform better, they will hit for a significantly higher batting average in any RISP situtation. (Note: I'm not sure I agree with this definition, and a few commenters made the point that certain situations, such as those in late innings when the score is close, are more critical than others and should be looked at independently to reveal clutch hitting.)
Lindholm looked at stats from 557 players from the past 20 years, and about 40 of those saw a 10 percent bump in batting average in RISP situations. (Nearly as many saw a 10 percent batting average decrease in the same situation.) The list, however, didn't include many guys who would jump out as great clutch hitters. And, when Lindholm looked at some of those hitters, he found that their relative batting average in RISP situtations varied wildly from season to season.
This is far from the definitive study on the topic -- indeed, many more will certainly follow -- but these results don't do much to help the "clutch hitters exist" camp, according to Lindholm. In general, there just isn't a large enough bump to be meaningful. After all, he writes, even a 10 pecent average bump in RISP situations would, for most players, produce perhaps just three additional hits per year.
Lou Gehrig Might Not Have Died From Lou Gehrig's Disease
Lou Gehrig may not have died from Lou Gehrig’s disease. That is a scenario made possible by new research that provides more clues to the possible link between head trauma, like sports concussions, and his namesake disease, also known as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS. The findings also provide direct evidence that repeated blows to the head are a cause of motor neuron diseases, where patients lose control over voluntary muscle movements.
Scientists at Boston University’s Center for the Study of Traumatic Encephalopathy (CSTE) studied the brains and spinal cords of twelve deceased former athletes who had suffered multiple concussions during their playing days. They and their families had donated their remains to CSTE’s Brain Bank to be used for research, funded by the National Football League.
Scientists at Boston University’s Center for the Study of Traumatic Encephalopathy (CSTE) studied the brains and spinal cords of twelve deceased former athletes who had suffered multiple concussions during their playing days. They and their families had donated their remains to CSTE’s Brain Bank to be used for research, funded by the National Football League.
Who's the Greatest Baseball Player Ever?
No sport is more dependent on its statistics than baseball.
For decades, fans have used those numbers to decide for themselves who the greatest baseball player of all time is.
It’s a tough question, no doubt, as divisive and subjective trying to name the greatest NFL quarterback.
But using baseball's statistics, in tandem with other barometers, the answer to the question becomes rather clear to some experts. It's why the long-running sports publication The Sporting News in its comprehensive baseball book "Baseball’s 100 Greatest Players" (Sporting News Publishing Co., 1998) places George Herman "Babe" Ruth atop its list as the greatest baseball player to ever play the game.
The Society for American Baseball Research also names Ruth the sport's greatest player. And it's hard to argue otherwise.
Why Babe was the best
Ruth impacted his sport like no other athlete ever has, and may ever will. His overall statistics are staggering: he had a .342 career batting average, 2,873 hits, 2,217 RBIs and of course, 714 home runs. As Leigh Montville points out in his biography of Ruth, "The Big Bam: The Life and Times of Babe Ruth" (Anchor, 2007), these astonishing stats were accumulated during baseball’s "dead-ball" era, during which games were played in huge, cavernous stadiums that made home runs and other big hits difficult to achieve.
His career home run record lasted nearly 40 years, until another legend, Hank Aaron, surpassed it. Ruth was part of seven World Series-winning teams, including the first four championships the New York Yankees ever won.
Off the field, he is considered by many the first true sports celebrity. Fans flocked to the ballparks to see him, and his hard-partying ways made him a legendary to millions of people.
Ruth's prodigious power output changed the way the game was played. In 1920, his first season with the Yankees, Ruth hit 54 home runs — more than any team except the Philadelphia Phillies hit that season. He was the first player to hit 60 homers in a season, which he did in 1927. Anyway you dissect them, his achievements were… Ruthian.
Other baseball greats
Hank Aaron, Ted Williams, Joe DiMaggio, Mickey Mantle, Ty Cobb and especially Willie Mays are names often thrown into the "greatest player ever" debate.
No less an authority on the game than the late St. Louis Cardinals announcer Jack Buck called Mays, with his combination of speed, power and instincts, "the greatest ballplayer he ever saw."
And James Hirsch, author of "Willie Mays: The Life, The Legend" (Scribner, 2010), said in an interview that "Babe Ruth was baseball's most dominant player, while Willie Mays was its greatest master."
Mays' statistics offer solid support for Hirsch's statement: he had 660 HRs, 1,902 RBIs, .302 batting average, 3,283 hits and 338 stolen bases. But while Ruth's hitting numbers alone make a strong case for him being the game's greatest player, the fact is, he was more than just a great slugger.
Before he became a Yankee, Ruth was a dominant left-handed pitcher for the Boston Red Sox.
His pitching record was 89-46, and he led that team to three World Series titles. After the Red Sox sold Ruth's contract to the Yankees (and began what many fans considered the Curse of the Babe), Ruth won another five games before his new team realized they preferred him hitting than pitching.
Here's one final indication of how good a pitcher Ruth was: His name remains in the pitching side of the American League record books. He still shares the league single-season record for shutouts (in which the opponent scores no points) by a southpaw, with nine shutouts in 1916.
It’s a tough question, no doubt, as divisive and subjective trying to name the greatest NFL quarterback.
But using baseball's statistics, in tandem with other barometers, the answer to the question becomes rather clear to some experts. It's why the long-running sports publication The Sporting News in its comprehensive baseball book "Baseball’s 100 Greatest Players" (Sporting News Publishing Co., 1998) places George Herman "Babe" Ruth atop its list as the greatest baseball player to ever play the game.
The Society for American Baseball Research also names Ruth the sport's greatest player. And it's hard to argue otherwise.
Why Babe was the best
Ruth impacted his sport like no other athlete ever has, and may ever will. His overall statistics are staggering: he had a .342 career batting average, 2,873 hits, 2,217 RBIs and of course, 714 home runs. As Leigh Montville points out in his biography of Ruth, "The Big Bam: The Life and Times of Babe Ruth" (Anchor, 2007), these astonishing stats were accumulated during baseball’s "dead-ball" era, during which games were played in huge, cavernous stadiums that made home runs and other big hits difficult to achieve.
His career home run record lasted nearly 40 years, until another legend, Hank Aaron, surpassed it. Ruth was part of seven World Series-winning teams, including the first four championships the New York Yankees ever won.
Off the field, he is considered by many the first true sports celebrity. Fans flocked to the ballparks to see him, and his hard-partying ways made him a legendary to millions of people.
Ruth's prodigious power output changed the way the game was played. In 1920, his first season with the Yankees, Ruth hit 54 home runs — more than any team except the Philadelphia Phillies hit that season. He was the first player to hit 60 homers in a season, which he did in 1927. Anyway you dissect them, his achievements were… Ruthian.
Other baseball greats
Hank Aaron, Ted Williams, Joe DiMaggio, Mickey Mantle, Ty Cobb and especially Willie Mays are names often thrown into the "greatest player ever" debate.
No less an authority on the game than the late St. Louis Cardinals announcer Jack Buck called Mays, with his combination of speed, power and instincts, "the greatest ballplayer he ever saw."
And James Hirsch, author of "Willie Mays: The Life, The Legend" (Scribner, 2010), said in an interview that "Babe Ruth was baseball's most dominant player, while Willie Mays was its greatest master."
Mays' statistics offer solid support for Hirsch's statement: he had 660 HRs, 1,902 RBIs, .302 batting average, 3,283 hits and 338 stolen bases. But while Ruth's hitting numbers alone make a strong case for him being the game's greatest player, the fact is, he was more than just a great slugger.
Before he became a Yankee, Ruth was a dominant left-handed pitcher for the Boston Red Sox.
His pitching record was 89-46, and he led that team to three World Series titles. After the Red Sox sold Ruth's contract to the Yankees (and began what many fans considered the Curse of the Babe), Ruth won another five games before his new team realized they preferred him hitting than pitching.
Here's one final indication of how good a pitcher Ruth was: His name remains in the pitching side of the American League record books. He still shares the league single-season record for shutouts (in which the opponent scores no points) by a southpaw, with nine shutouts in 1916.
Why Is It Called the World Series?
In 1903, Barney Dreyfuss, owner of the Pittsburgh Pirates sent a letter to the owner of the Boston Americans, now known as the Boston Red Sox, challenging the team to "a World's Championship Series."
That season, the Pirates had the best record in the National League, and the Red Sox ranked No. 1 in the American League. Boston won that year's best-of-nine series, 5 games to 3. The series has since been shortened to seven games.
The World's Championship Series — whose name was later shortened to World Series — has been played every year since, except 1904 and 1994.
"In 1904, the New York Giants refused to play the Red Sox," said Freddy Berowski, a research associate at the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum in Cooperstown, N.Y. "The leagues stepped in the following year to officially make the World Series an annual event. In 1994, the baseball strike prevented the playing of the World Series."
The term "World Series" first appeared in the Spalding Guides (guides to the game published by the Spalding Athletic Company in the late 19th and early 20th centuries) in 1917, but didn't appear in the Sporting News (which has been published since 1886) until 1964, according to the Dickson Baseball Dictionary.
The early programs and scorecards read "World's Championship Series." The first time the series program was labeled with the term "World Series" was in 1936. The Cleveland scorecard, in 1920, and the Washington scorecard, in 1924, were labeled "World Series."
"A popular myth is that the World Series was named for the New York World Telegram," says Berowski. Although the newspaper reported the game's results, Berowski said, Barney Dreyfuss deserves credit for naming the series.
That season, the Pirates had the best record in the National League, and the Red Sox ranked No. 1 in the American League. Boston won that year's best-of-nine series, 5 games to 3. The series has since been shortened to seven games.
The World's Championship Series — whose name was later shortened to World Series — has been played every year since, except 1904 and 1994.
"In 1904, the New York Giants refused to play the Red Sox," said Freddy Berowski, a research associate at the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum in Cooperstown, N.Y. "The leagues stepped in the following year to officially make the World Series an annual event. In 1994, the baseball strike prevented the playing of the World Series."
The term "World Series" first appeared in the Spalding Guides (guides to the game published by the Spalding Athletic Company in the late 19th and early 20th centuries) in 1917, but didn't appear in the Sporting News (which has been published since 1886) until 1964, according to the Dickson Baseball Dictionary.
The early programs and scorecards read "World's Championship Series." The first time the series program was labeled with the term "World Series" was in 1936. The Cleveland scorecard, in 1920, and the Washington scorecard, in 1924, were labeled "World Series."
"A popular myth is that the World Series was named for the New York World Telegram," says Berowski. Although the newspaper reported the game's results, Berowski said, Barney Dreyfuss deserves credit for naming the series.
Are the Chicago Cubs Really Cursed?
Ask most fans of the Cubbies the question, "Are the Chicago Cubs really cursed?" and a good number will shout out, "YES!"
Can you blame them? The Cubs haven't won a World Series in 102 years. They're the lovable losers, a team whose championship futility has become as much a part of the franchise's identity as the ivy climbing the walls of the outfield at Wrigley Field.
The 2010 Cubs failed to make the playoffs, ensuring another year without a World Series appearance, and guaranteeing that the legendary Curse of the Billy Goat endures for at least one more season.
What, you don't know about the Cubbies' curse?
The curse is cast
Legend has it that so-called Curse has its origins in the 1945 World Series. According to Mickey Bradley, co-author of "Haunted Baseball" (The Lyons Press, 2007), a book about the spooky relationship between baseball and the paranormal, it all began on Oct. 6, 1945 at Wrigley Field during Game 4 of the Fall Classic.
That day, Billy Sianis, owner of the nearby Billy Goat Tavern, attended the game with his pet goat. At first, he was refused entry but, according to Bradley and other accounts, because he had a ticket for the goat, the ushers relented.
Then it rained. The odor from the soggy animal began getting the 'goat' of nearby fans, and security booted Sianis and the goat.
Angered over what he felt was shabby treatment, Sianis reportedly cursed the Cubs outside the stadium. In his book "Da Curse of the Billy Goat, The Cubs, Pennant Races, and Curses" (Protar House LLC, 2004), author Steve Gatto writes that Sianis' family insists the tavern owner issued his curse via telegram to the team's owner, P.K. Wrigley, declaring that, "You are going to lose this World Series…You are never going to win the World Series again because you insulted my goat."
The Cubs haven't been back to the World Series since.
The Curse of the Billy Goat has become an urban legend rivaling that of the alligators in the New York City sewers and Bigfoot. But the question remains: Are the Cubs really cursed?
It may depend on one's perspective.
"Curses are as powerful as people's belief in them," Bradley said. If players start believing such circumstances as a curse are preventing them from achieving success, "it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy."
Strange happenings
It's easy to overlook the injuries, bad player signings, sub-par pitching and erratic defense that often determine whether a team wins or loses in baseball. Sometimes, you want to blame extraneous factors for the rotten luck. Why not blame a Billy Goat?
It's also hard to argue with more than a century's worth of losing, often in circumstances that can challenge even the most disbelieving fan's resolve. The evidence certainly supports those who believe the Sianis curse is real.
In 1969, a promising season ended with a late-season collapse that longtime Cubs fans blame on a September game at Shea Stadium. In that game, a black cat ran onto the field and circled Cubs third baseman Ron Santo. The Cubs lost that game to the Mets and eventually collapsed and missed the playoffs.
In 1984, the Cubs won their first title of any kind since ’1945 when they captured the NL Eastern Division. Needing just one win in the NL Championship Series over the San Diego Padres to return to the World Series, the Cubs proceeded to lose three straight games. The most crushing moment: First baseman Leon Durham’s 7th-inning error in the deciding Game 5.
But it was the heartbreak of 2003 that supporters of the curse point to as Exhibit A in their case.
That was the year the Cubs, up 3 games to 2 and just five outs away from returning to the World Series for the first time in 58 years, added the 'Steve Bartman incident' to their history of misery.
Bartman, a Cubs fan now-infamously sat in Aisle 4, Row 8, Seat 113 at Wrigley Field for Game 6 of the National League Championship Series, and prevented Cubs outfielder Moises Alou from most likely catching a foul ball that drifted just over the outfield wall when he did what so many fans do at the ballpark: try to grab a souvenir foul ball.
That would have been the second out of the inning. Alas, the inning continued and the Marlins erupted for eight runs, to rally and win. Florida won Game 7 and went on to win the World Series that year.
Steve Bartman was ostracized, even threatened, for what some fans felt was an inexcusable act. His unfortunate action that night continues to resonate seven years later; ESPN is even producing a documentary called "Steve Bartman: Catching Hell."
"It's a natural human compulsion to look for explanations and patterns in odd occurrences," Bradley said. "The team has not been to the World Series since Sianis 'cursed' them; they have not won a World Series in more than 100 years."
Some Cubs fans may also put stock in the curse because it reaffirms their support of their ballclub. Being a fan of a team known for pulling defeat from the jaws of victory takes a certain amount of character. For the Cubs faithful, believing in the curse is like a badge of honor.
As someone told Bradley, "Anyone can win the World Series, but it takes a special team to lose for 100 years!"
Can you blame them? The Cubs haven't won a World Series in 102 years. They're the lovable losers, a team whose championship futility has become as much a part of the franchise's identity as the ivy climbing the walls of the outfield at Wrigley Field.
The 2010 Cubs failed to make the playoffs, ensuring another year without a World Series appearance, and guaranteeing that the legendary Curse of the Billy Goat endures for at least one more season.
What, you don't know about the Cubbies' curse?
The curse is cast
Legend has it that so-called Curse has its origins in the 1945 World Series. According to Mickey Bradley, co-author of "Haunted Baseball" (The Lyons Press, 2007), a book about the spooky relationship between baseball and the paranormal, it all began on Oct. 6, 1945 at Wrigley Field during Game 4 of the Fall Classic.
That day, Billy Sianis, owner of the nearby Billy Goat Tavern, attended the game with his pet goat. At first, he was refused entry but, according to Bradley and other accounts, because he had a ticket for the goat, the ushers relented.
Then it rained. The odor from the soggy animal began getting the 'goat' of nearby fans, and security booted Sianis and the goat.
Angered over what he felt was shabby treatment, Sianis reportedly cursed the Cubs outside the stadium. In his book "Da Curse of the Billy Goat, The Cubs, Pennant Races, and Curses" (Protar House LLC, 2004), author Steve Gatto writes that Sianis' family insists the tavern owner issued his curse via telegram to the team's owner, P.K. Wrigley, declaring that, "You are going to lose this World Series…You are never going to win the World Series again because you insulted my goat."
The Cubs haven't been back to the World Series since.
The Curse of the Billy Goat has become an urban legend rivaling that of the alligators in the New York City sewers and Bigfoot. But the question remains: Are the Cubs really cursed?
It may depend on one's perspective.
"Curses are as powerful as people's belief in them," Bradley said. If players start believing such circumstances as a curse are preventing them from achieving success, "it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy."
Strange happenings
It's easy to overlook the injuries, bad player signings, sub-par pitching and erratic defense that often determine whether a team wins or loses in baseball. Sometimes, you want to blame extraneous factors for the rotten luck. Why not blame a Billy Goat?
It's also hard to argue with more than a century's worth of losing, often in circumstances that can challenge even the most disbelieving fan's resolve. The evidence certainly supports those who believe the Sianis curse is real.
In 1969, a promising season ended with a late-season collapse that longtime Cubs fans blame on a September game at Shea Stadium. In that game, a black cat ran onto the field and circled Cubs third baseman Ron Santo. The Cubs lost that game to the Mets and eventually collapsed and missed the playoffs.
In 1984, the Cubs won their first title of any kind since ’1945 when they captured the NL Eastern Division. Needing just one win in the NL Championship Series over the San Diego Padres to return to the World Series, the Cubs proceeded to lose three straight games. The most crushing moment: First baseman Leon Durham’s 7th-inning error in the deciding Game 5.
But it was the heartbreak of 2003 that supporters of the curse point to as Exhibit A in their case.
That was the year the Cubs, up 3 games to 2 and just five outs away from returning to the World Series for the first time in 58 years, added the 'Steve Bartman incident' to their history of misery.
Bartman, a Cubs fan now-infamously sat in Aisle 4, Row 8, Seat 113 at Wrigley Field for Game 6 of the National League Championship Series, and prevented Cubs outfielder Moises Alou from most likely catching a foul ball that drifted just over the outfield wall when he did what so many fans do at the ballpark: try to grab a souvenir foul ball.
That would have been the second out of the inning. Alas, the inning continued and the Marlins erupted for eight runs, to rally and win. Florida won Game 7 and went on to win the World Series that year.
Steve Bartman was ostracized, even threatened, for what some fans felt was an inexcusable act. His unfortunate action that night continues to resonate seven years later; ESPN is even producing a documentary called "Steve Bartman: Catching Hell."
"It's a natural human compulsion to look for explanations and patterns in odd occurrences," Bradley said. "The team has not been to the World Series since Sianis 'cursed' them; they have not won a World Series in more than 100 years."
Some Cubs fans may also put stock in the curse because it reaffirms their support of their ballclub. Being a fan of a team known for pulling defeat from the jaws of victory takes a certain amount of character. For the Cubs faithful, believing in the curse is like a badge of honor.
As someone told Bradley, "Anyone can win the World Series, but it takes a special team to lose for 100 years!"
