Attention Mauer Haters!

[jokin]

I'm wondering if they do it if/when Span is traded.

 

A lineup of:

Revere

Mauer

Willingham

Plouffe

Morneau

Doumit

Parmelee

Dozier

Caroll/whoever

 

would prob make the most sense no?

Dave, stop making so much sense. It only irritates Gardy. Do you think Parmelee gets the automatic nod in RF, or does he try to mix in Mastro on some type of platoon situation? If Mastro gets more PT, he would be my choice down in the 9 spot. Sadly, if Span is dealt, Gardy still writes Mauer's name in the 3 hole and he likely moves Carroll up to 2.

[DaveW]

Dave, stop making so much sense. It only irritates Gardy. Do you think Parmelee gets the automatic nod in RF, or does he try to mix in Mastro on some type of platoon situation? If Mastro gets more PT, he would be my choice down in the 9 spot. Sadly, if Span is dealt, Gardy still writes Mauer's name in the 3 hole and he likely moves Carroll up to 2.

I think Mastro ultimately becomes the 4th OF/late defensive replacement/PR option off the bench. I hope he isn't being counted on to platoon with Parmelee or something off the bat, though he does have a nice OPS against LHP (SSS)

[jokin]

I was editing my post while you typed this.

 

The great thing about baseball is that we have a wealth of numbers to look at and break down the game; far more than any other sport. If Derek Jeter truly was "clutch", wouldn't he perform just as well in a tie game in the bottom of the ninth in June as he would in the playoffs? The game is on the line and if he could simply flip a switch into "clutch mode", he would do it all the time, all season long. The numbers show that this simply isn't the case and if a player can't deliver the "clutch" goods in June, what makes anyone think he'd be able to do it in October? Because the game is even more on the line? That doesn't pass any kind of critical thinking test. Derek Jeter is a very good baseball player whose "game on the line" stats are the same as his "all other times" stats. Why? Because, if given enough playoff opportunities, every player ends up that way. If there truly was a clutch hitter, we'd be able to identify them easily based on their regular season performances. We can't because they just don't exist.

 

Again, first hand experience means nothing. The human mind plays tricks on everyone. You remember a clutch hit but you won't remember the strikeout in the sixth that could have started a rally had he hit a double. You don't remember Jeter striking out to end game six when he could have hit a single to win the game. But you do remember his game seven shot the next night. Did Jeter not want to win that game six? Do you honestly believe that to be the case? What about that all-important game in mid-September when the game was tied in the eighth and he grounded into a double play? Did he only fail because he didn't want to win badly enough? That doesn't make any sense.

 

We have mountains of statistics to show that clutch players do not exist. These are professionals who want to win and if it was as easy as just "trying harder" or "focusing more", we'd see clutch players perform throughout the regular season.

You keep bringing up Jeter. He's not my idea of the best clutch player and why I didn't bring him up. I coached guys that were, repeatedly. Some guys I had coaching and/or played with were so-so players, until the games really mattered. It was a transformative thing, it was not a mirage, you could see it in real time, and it happened again, and again. That's a real-time critical thinking test that I saw repeated time and time again. Having said that, statistics bind athletic performance to something less than all-worldliness. Of course, no one has ever been able to deliver in every single pressure situation, what doesn't make sense is dismissively thinking that players with this particular personality profile don't exist. They do.

[Brock Beauchamp]

You keep bringing up Jeter. He's not my idea of the best clutch player and why I didn't bring him up. I coached guys that were, repeatedly. Some guys I had coaching and/or played with were so-so players, until the games really mattered. It was a transformative thing, it was not a mirage, you could see it in real time, and it happened again, and again. That's a real-time critical thinking test that I saw repeated time and time again. Having said that, statistics bind athletic performance to something less than all-worldliness. Of course, no one has ever been able to deliver in every single pressure situation, what doesn't make sense is dismissively thinking that players with this particular personality profile don't exist. They do.

I bring up Jeter for a few reasons:

 

1. He's the posterboy for Clutchiness

2. He has a billion playoff ABs

3. He's a good player

 

So you're telling me that professionals don't really try until the games really super-duper for-realsies matter? That Reggie Jackson didn't try as hard in a tie game in September that could decide home field advantage as he did in October? That Jack Morris didn't think a game in June against a division rival didn't really matter? That Kirby didn't really think the series against the A's in 1992 was a big deal so he didn't really try? Continue ad nauseum...

 

I'm sorry but that doesn't make a lick of sense. None.

[jokin]

I think Mastro ultimately becomes the 4th OF/late defensive replacement/PR option off the bench. I hope he isn't being counted on to platoon with Parmelee or something off the bat, though he does have a nice OPS against LHP (SSS)

I brought that up due to the recent line-up shuffles with the DH and all, Mastro appears to be getting some extra looks lately, are they in the midst of making a "big decision", based on impending developments, on which direction to take, ala Dozier/Valencia? The MO for the manager has been to throw one guy in there and see how he reacts. Parmelee failed the first test in April, have they so soon dismissed that, or is his AAA performance and his recent HR enough to give him another clear shot at the job?

 

There certainly is little to suggest Mastro should merit such consideration long-term, although I don't mind him at all in the role you described for him.

[jokin]

I bring up Jeter for a few reasons:

 

1. He's the posterboy for Clutchiness

2. He has a billion playoff ABs

3. He's a good player

 

So you're telling me that professionals don't really try until the games really super-duper for-realsies matter? That Reggie Jackson didn't try as hard in a tie game in September that could decide home field advantage as he did in October? That Jack Morris didn't think a game in June against a division rival didn't really matter? That Kirby didn't really think the series against the A's in 1992 was a big deal so he didn't really try? Continue ad nauseum...

 

I'm sorry but that doesn't make a lick of sense. None.

It isn't about trying, and it does make sense if you've actually seen it happening. Of course they "try" every time, but isn't it possible to see the concept that some games "matter more" than others? That the stakes are different? It's a whole different concept, rising above, taking your game to a higher level...... I know you've heard the term: "No guts. No glory." It is said for a reason.

[DaveW]

I brought that up due to the recent line-up shuffles with the DH and all, Mastro appears to be getting some extra looks lately, are they in the midst of making a "big decision", based on impending developments, on which direction to take, ala Dozier/Valencia? The MO for the manager has been to throw one guy in there and see how he reacts. Parmelee failed the first test in April, have they so soon dismissed that, or is his AAA performance and his recent HR enough to give him another clear shot at the job?

 

There certainly is little to suggest Mastro should merit such consideration long-term, although I don't mind him at all in the role you described for him.

I have been thinking the same thing in regards to Mastro, they have been playing him almost every day which tends to make me think they either are:

 

Making sure he is good enough to keep around as the 4th OF if Span is traded or They are deciding whether to even keep him on the roster at all.

 

Long term Mastro is nothing more than orgainzational filler, but it is nice that he has shown an ability to play solid defense and steal a few bases.

[Brock Beauchamp]

It isn't about trying, and it does make sense if you've actually seen it happening. Of course they "try" every time, but isn't possible to see the concept that some games "matter more" than others? That the stakes are different? It's a whole different concept, rising above, taking your game to a higher level...... I know you've heard the term: "No guts. No glory." It is said for a reason.

It's said because people have a disjointed association with reality. Perception does not equal truth.

 

If guys could flip a switch and go into "wolfpack mode", we'd see it on a regular basis. It wouldn't be this mystical, unquantifiable object that only appears when somebody has less than 50 ABs (because when you look at players with more ABs than that, they almost always perform to their career mean) in games that register an "11" on the Really Matters Scale. We'd see it in games that register an 8 on the Really Matters Scale. We would have seen it in 92 when the Twins were destroyed by the As. We would have seen Jeter do it innumerable times as his Yankees were booted from the playoffs. We'd see it almost every day.

 

But we don't.

 

I've said all I can on this topic. I'm not going to keep running around in circles about this.

[CDog]

I've said all I can on this topic. I'm not going to keep running around in circles about this.

Not to stick my nose in (haha...obviously not entirely true), but hey it's a public forum right?.... But the reason for the circular conversation (I think) is that you're almost saying the same thing. Clearly teams/players that have had success in short series (like baseball and basketball and other sports playoff systems) tend to have players perform above their expected level. That's WHY they have success. One of you is saying that those increases from expectation are part of the natural variation of things. One of you believes that it's something innate that has caused the increase. That becomes more of a faith-based area when you're talking about the causation of the increase from the mean, so there really isn't going to be any convincing of anyone. Probably.

[jokin]

It's said because people have a disjointed association with reality. Perception does not equal truth.

 

If guys could flip a switch and go into "wolfpack mode", we'd see it on a regular basis. It wouldn't be this mystical, unquantifiable object that only appears when somebody has less than 50 ABs (because when you look at players with more ABs than that, they almost always perform to their career mean) in games that register an "11" on the Really Matters Scale. We'd see it in games that register an 8 on the Really Matters Scale. We would have seen it in 92 when the Twins were destroyed by the As. We would have seen Jeter do it innumerable times as his Yankees were booted from the playoffs. We'd see it almost every day.

 

But we don't.

 

I've said all I can on this topic. I'm not going to keep running around in circles about this.

Perception does not equal truth, but reality equals truth, when "winners" repeatedly win and regularly perform at high levels in pressure situations far greater than those they see in the typical regular season game , perception equals reality- which equals truth.

 

That we don't see it on a regular basis is the point. Have you played or been involved with teams expected to perform on the highest levels relative to their age/skill level? The trait is rare and obviously exists on a sliding scale of effectiveness- this isn't the all-or-none proposition that you proffer, notwithstanding your "almost always" demurral, this is the key to the discussion, you admit the exceptions exist, which goes to supporting my point. There is a litany of evidence that some great athletes absolutely choke up in big moments, until this year LeBron James was the poster boy for choke artistry. A good coach/ scout easily recognizes who is a crunch time, and who is a choke time player when he sees them. Those who possess it are coveted immediately for one's roster upon discovery of the trait and in turn, must be accounted for if you have to go up against them. That doesn't mean the Mr October players bat .850 and get the winning homer every single time in the bottom of the 9th, down 2, with 2 on and 2 out and 2 strikes, but at least the coach knows his odds for a successful outcome are the best/worst that they are going to be.

 

Thank you for an interesting and challenging discussion. You imposing and powerful points and counterpoints were undoubtedly the reason you were chosen MVP of your college Debate Team.

[fetch]

It's said because people have a disjointed association with reality. Perception does not equal truth.

 

If guys could flip a switch and go into "wolfpack mode", we'd see it on a regular basis. It wouldn't be this mystical, unquantifiable object that only appears when somebody has less than 50 ABs (because when you look at players with more ABs than that, they almost always perform to their career mean) in games that register an "11" on the Really Matters Scale. We'd see it in games that register an 8 on the Really Matters Scale. We would have seen it in 92 when the Twins were destroyed by the As. We would have seen Jeter do it innumerable times as his Yankees were booted from the playoffs. We'd see it almost every day.

 

But we don't.

 

I've said all I can on this topic. I'm not going to keep running around in circles about this.

You would think this point would be easy enough to understand

[Brock Beauchamp]

The trait is rare and obviously exists on a sliding scale of effectiveness- this isn't the all-or-none proposition that you proffer, notwithstanding your "almost always" demurral, this is the key to the discussion, you admit the exceptions exist, which goes to supporting my point.

Okay, last response. You're missing my point. "Almost always" means that performances are skewed based on the size of the data pool. Given an infinite number of ABs or IP, the player will perform at their regular talent level in clutch situations.

 

That isn't merely supposition or conjecture. It has been proven over and over and over again. There are outliers, yes. But those outliers almost entirely consist of players with such a small data pool as to be unreliable, the same way you don't look outside today, see a 100 degree temperature, and then declare that every day in Minnesota is 100 degrees. That doesn't mean it wasn't 100 degrees, that only means that your data pool is too small to predict or declare something as truth. As those players age and that data pool swells, their clutchiness goes away. Some players never get more opportunities and that's where this myth is born.

 

PS. I'm not talking about other sports. I am limiting this conversation entirely to baseball. I am an avid baseball fan while only a passing fan of other sports. I don't pretend to know enough about playoff clutchiness in other sports to begin to form an opinion on it.

[Paul]

Rocketpig and Jokin, I'd like to offer my take on the "No guts. No glory." thing. I think it's a real thing. With real viewed results like jokin has seen. But the cause is misunderstood. And rocketpig is correct. This is no superhuman feat by guys like Jeter. What I see is the ability to confront the situation without whithering. And act. With no back down. With no backoff. This coupled with the slight whithering of other competitors, in high pressure situations, results in what is viewed "stepping up" rather than the reality of not stepping back.

[jokin]

Not to stick my nose in (haha...obviously not entirely true), but hey it's a public forum right?.... But the reason for the circular conversation (I think) is that you're almost saying the same thing. Clearly teams/players that have had success in short series (like baseball and basketball and other sports playoff systems) tend to have players perform above their expected level. That's WHY they have success. One of you is saying that those increases from expectation are part of the natural variation of things. One of you believes that it's something innate that has caused the increase. That becomes more of a faith-based area when you're talking about the causation of the increase from the mean, so there really isn't going to be any convincing of anyone. Probably.

Not faith-based on my part. I saw it first-hand as a player. My college team won 3 NCAA titles and we had "regular guys" that stepped up to different, previously unrecognizable levels during our title runs, while a couple of the guys that ended up playing professionally didn't end up being the key guys in crunch time, repeatedly. One example, my college later on had a lefty who ended up pitching for the Giants, he was never on anyone's radar because he never treated his regular season's seriously. No one predicted that he would pitch professionally He had a couple great games in the playoffs, got an invite to a tryout camp, where there is very real, absolute pressure coming in as a complete unknown amongst 100+ other guys. Of course, with the cameras whirring, every eye on the Giants scouting staff watching and the radar gun flashing red on every one of his pitches, he wowed the Giants, who signed him on the spot. Never saw him pitch like that until that college playoff run, his approach and personality completely changed when the pressure increased. As a coach and recruiter, where the difference between the best and second best being such a small fractional value, a top priority was recruiting guys that could repeatedly and demonstrably raise their level in crunch time over the guys with obvious superior athletic talent, skill and size.

[jokin]

Rocketpig and Jokin, I'd like to offer my take on the "No guts. No glory." thing. I think it's a real thing. With real viewed results like jokin has seen. But the cause is misunderstood. And rocketpig is correct. This is no superhuman feat by guys like Jeter. What I see is the ability to confront the situation without whithering. And act. With no back down. With no backoff. This coupled with the slight whithering of other competitors, in high pressure situations, results in what is viewed "stepping up" rather than the reality of not stepping back.

Well said. I heartily concur. My expertise is in another sport, but I think it does translate to all of the major sports. IE, Mauer definitely did it to Chapman.

[jokin]

Okay, last response. You're missing my point. "Almost always" means that performances are skewed based on the size of the data pool. Given an infinite number of ABs or IP, the player will perform at their regular talent level in clutch situations.

 

That isn't merely supposition or conjecture. It has been proven over and over and over again. There are outliers, yes. But those outliers almost entirely consist of players with such a small data pool as to be unreliable, the same way you don't look outside today, see a 100 degree temperature, and then declare that every day in Minnesota is 100 degrees. That doesn't mean it wasn't 100 degrees, that only means that your data pool is too small to predict or declare something as truth. As those players age and that data pool swells, their clutchiness goes away. Some players never get more opportunities and that's where this myth is born.

 

PS. I'm not talking about other sports. I am limiting this conversation entirely to baseball. I am an avid baseball fan while only a passing fan of other sports. I don't pretend to know enough about playoff clutchiness in other sports to begin to form an opinion on it.

 

Again, "regular talent level" takes into account games against the St Louis Browns as a means to gathering your statistical sample. The best have consistently produced numbers at or above their seasonal averages against the very best teams under the extreme pressure spotlight, take that plus add all the advantages that the other team in a 7 game series has to focus their entire intellectual effort to scout/study/profile them in probing for weakensses. Those that exceed their norms are outliers for a reason, they are special. If you watched Kirby in 87 and 91 both on the field and in his interactions with the media, you knew, win or lose, he was in the midst of raising his game, this guy was one of the special ones.

[TwinsFanInPhilly]

It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat. - Theodore Roosevelt

[CDog]

Not faith-based on my part. .

Then we're in a semantics debate. You have more than once given a detailed list of things that are "your proof" of one thing. RP has given, several times, a detailed list of things that are "his proof" of another thing. Nobody is discounting the facts presented by either, simply their meaning and interpretation. And yet different conclusions are reached. That's because you both BELIEVE something different is that causation and there can really be no facts that convince the other because it's your belief. Faith-based. Maybe a poor choice of terms because it conjures up notions of fairy-tales and make-believe. That's not how I meant it.

[twinswon1991]

Nice to see Iron Joe toughing out another game at catcher tonight! Instead of being an all star catcher we get to watch replacent level DH production earning 23 mil.......at least his replacement is not Butera where we suffer thru hole in the lineup while Joe jokes around on the bench.

[DaveW]

Nice to see Iron Joe toughing out another game at catcher tonight! Instead of being an all star catcher we get to watch replacent level DH production earning 23 mil.......at least his replacement is not Butera where we suffer thru hole in the lineup while Joe jokes around on the bench.

I give this post a 0/10.

 

Troll harder/faster/better next time.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Instead of being an all star catcher we get to watch replacent level DH production earning 23 mil

Average AL DH OPS: .770

Joe Mauer OPS: .859

 

Try again.

[jokin]

Then we're in a semantics debate. You have more than once given a detailed list of things that are "your proof" of one thing. RP has given, several times, a detailed list of things that are "his proof" of another thing. Nobody is discounting the facts presented by either, simply their meaning and interpretation. And yet different conclusions are reached. That's because you both BELIEVE something different is that causation and there can really be no facts that convince the other because it's your belief. Faith-based. Maybe a poor choice of terms because it conjures up notions of fairy-tales and make-believe. That's not how I meant it.

Except in my case, it's not a belief, but a formula, for proven, repeatable success.

[jokin]

It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat. - Theodore Roosevelt

Did TR crib that from Grantland Rice?

[twinswon1991]

Average AL DH OPS: .770

Joe Mauer OPS: .859

 

Try again.

Average DH probably makes 5 mil. Glad that .7 of OPS is worth 18 mil. What is the combined ops for Butera/Mauer compared to ave C + DH? Ill even let you use Buteras lucky 2012 numbers. One of these days you will realize Joe is killing this franchise.

[fetch]

Average DH probably makes 5 mil. Glad that .7 of OPS is worth 18 mil. What is the combined ops for Butera/Mauer compared to ave C + DH? Ill even let you use Buteras lucky 2012 numbers. One of these days you will realize Joe is killing this franchise.

Well there aren't many full time DHes (including Mauer) so that's a pretty stupid argument. Using OPS is stupid too.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Average DH probably makes 5 mil. Glad that .7 of OPS is worth 18 mil. What is the combined ops for Butera/Mauer compared to ave C + DH? Ill even let you use Buteras lucky 2012 numbers. One of these days you will realize Joe is killing this franchise.

Albert Pujols is OPSing under .800.

 

Angels fans should lynch the bastard.

 

PS. A ".7" OPS over league average would be pretty kick-ass and would absolutely be worth $18m.

[jm3319]

Average DH probably makes 5 mil. Glad that .7 of OPS is worth 18 mil. What is the combined ops for Butera/Mauer compared to ave C + DH? Ill even let you use Buteras lucky 2012 numbers. One of these days you will realize Joe is killing this franchise.

 

Killing the franchise? So, you're thinking that because Joe makes 23M a year it means the other 77M can't be spent on anything useful? The Twins have won the division with a total payroll of 55M before. Quit using his contract as an excuse for the rest of the team, mainly the pitching, (okay, pretty much just the pitching) being awful. One bad contract doesn't kill a team, 4-5 terrible starting pitchers does. (some flashes of respectability in there, but obviously still the reason for the Twins sucking this year)

[one_eyed_jack]

If I may stick my nose in as well, I actually agree with a lot of what both RP and jokin have to say here.

 

Certainly, as jokin said, some guys just seem to have that knack for playing their best when the stakes are highest. The only quibble I have, and maybe I'm picking nits here, is calling it a "trait" - that makes it sounds like an "either you were born with it or you weren't" kind of thing, and I'm not sure it's an either/or. It may come more naturally to some guys than others, but it's not like guys who have never displayed it will never have it. Isn't it something guys can improve on with experience? To take an example from another sport - look at Steve Yzerman. For much of his early career, he was maligned as a guy who put up big numbers in the regular season but disappeared in the playoffs and failed to lead his team when it mattered most. He was almost traded because of this. But several years and 3 Stanley Cups later, his ability to step up in crunch time was beyond question, and the idea that he lacked guts seems ludicrous.

 

But like RP said, I also think that the whole "clutch player" thing can be overblown, and guys get lauded as "clutch" or branded as "choke artists" when there is little behind those labels besides the national media's desire to manufacture a story.

 

Anyway, I'm hoping Mauer gets another shot soon, and buries this debate over this just the way Stevie Y did.

[Fire Dan Gladden]

Not getting too far into this discussion, but didn't the guys over at ESPN dig into this clutch notion during one of the last two postseasons and found that guys pretty much performed to their regular season standard (be it good or bad) during the postseason? I believe they focused on the Yankees, and found that as their opportunities increased (ie more playoff games) players came around to their usual numbers.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Not getting too far into this discussion, but didn't the guys over at ESPN dig into this clutch notion during one of the last two postseasons and found that guys pretty much performed to their regular season standard (be it good or bad) during the postseason? I believe they focused on the Yankees, and found that as their opportunities increased (ie more playoff games) players came around to their usual numbers.

Yep. Studies have been done for almost 20 years on the subject, I believe.

 

What you said is basically my entire point.