
You started it...


You most certainly did!


Sabo is clearly a better hitter than Samuel.  Yet you would pinch-hit
Samuel because you predict that Samuel will be a clutch hitter and
Sabo will be a choke hitter.  Right?  I'd call that "predicting the
future".


Right.  I would have used aspects of prior performance which have been
shown to be consistent in the past.  Overall performance, L/R splits,
even matching hitting/pitching styles.  All of these will give me some
advantage if used properly.

EVEN IF ALL ELSE WERE EQUAL, there would be no advantage gained by
looking at past clutch performance.  And in this case, everything else
pointed to Sabo.


That comes down to the same thing.  When Perez left Sabo in, he
was predicting the future, the next AB.  He was predicting that
Sabo was more likely to get a hit than Samuel.

By supporting the swap, you are predicting the opposite.


Well, yes.  You are aware of its existance.  You claim to be incapable
of understanding it (though I suspect you are simply unwilling).  Yet
you rather forcefully state the opposite.  You don't seem to think the
work is worth reading (yet you obviously feel the topic is important).
I'd say this is insulting.


RIGHT!  This is the beef.  It has not proven to be an indicator of
future performance under *any* circumstances.  At least none that
we've been able to come up with.  If you know of some where it *is* an
indicator of future performance, please let us in on your secret.


Most certainly.  As I have repeatedly stated, if you can come up with
a study which even *hints* at a consistent clutch ability, I would
love it!  However the straightforward attempts at such a study have
all failed miserably.


Well, it was a stupid argument.  (Are you honestly debating that???)
Sure, we know Sabo didn't get a hit.  We have no idea whether Samuel
would have done any better or not.  One AB most certainly doesn't
prove anything!


Is this simply a prediction for Chris Sabo for this year?  Or is this
a prediction for *all* batters who have, over the past few years, hit
(xxx amount?)  worse in the clutch than overall?

If you mean the first, then as you say, we'll just have to wait and
see.  But the second is a much stronger statement.  In fact, it
suggests a rule.  We can then test this rule on past data to see if it
worked for recent years.  I think you will agree that if the rule
didn't work last year or the year before, that it is unlikely to do
any better this year.  Right?


I'm not going to get into case analysis.  Sure, you can find somebody
who hit poorly from '89-'91 and then hit poorly in '92 as well.  You
can also find those who hit poorly from '89-'91 and then hit *well* in
'92.


Gambler's fallacy.  Unless there is reason to expect consistency, a
run proves nothing.  Can you give us a reason to expect clutch BA to
correlate from one year to the next?  I've seen a detailed study of
why I *shouldn't* expect it to correlate.


The "stupid" was in reference to a statement which *was* stupid.  (And
I don't see how you can deny it.)  As for "total idiot"?  Yes.  If you
prove yourself unwilling to even *consider* evidence that might
suggest that you are wrong, I would say the term fits nicely.

So tell me?  Does the term fit?  Or do you have an open mind?