Game Thread: 5/21 Horse @ Tards

[tzill]

I know it isn't your point, but when I said the other day the Giants are, in fact, a clutch hitting team, I was not wrong. They are hitting better with RISP than they do without RISP.

Sure, the bar is low, but that is beside the point. They are, by the numbers, better hitters in clutch situations than in non-clutch situations.

But, the numbers are small. Can't really draw too much out of them. It's like a guy on opening day going 3 for 3 with a walk -- he's not the greatest hitter of all time, he's just 3 for 3. It takes a good 4-5 months to get enough ABs to make team hitting statistically significant.

 

[calsnowskier]

But, the numbers are small. Can't really draw too much out of them. It's like a guy on opening day going 3 for 3 with a walk -- he's not the greatest hitter of all time, he's just 3 for 3. It takes a good 4-5 months to get enough ABs to make team hitting statistically significant.

Absolutely.

But you CAN say that the guy who went 3-3 in that game had a better game than the guy who went 2-3. IN THAT GAME.

 

[tzill]

Absolutely.

But you CAN say that the guy who went 3-3 in that game had a better game than the guy who went 2-3. IN THAT GAME.

Agreed, but I'm not sure that it means very much.

 

[calsnowskier]

Agreed, but I'm not sure that it means very much.

It means that the Giants are hitting better with RISP than they are without RISP.

Not significantly better, but better, nonetheless.

Heck, let's just assume the two numbers are identical. They are NOT hitting badly with RISP, given how they are hitting overall. They are basically the same, hapless hitters with or without RISP.

 

[tzill]

It means that the Giants are hitting better with RISP than they are without RISP.

Not significantly better, but better, nonetheless.

Heck, let's just assume the two numbers are identical. They are NOT hitting badly with RISP, given how they are hitting overall. They are basically the same, hapless hitters with or without RISP.

I guess I'm not being very clear: A guy goes 2 for 20, then goes 3 for his next 20. He's hitting better over the second week; but what does the data tell us? Not much other than that he's in a slump.

 

[calsnowskier]

I guess I'm not being very clear: A guy goes 2 for 20, then goes 3 for his next 20. He's hitting better over the second week; but what does the data tell us? Not much other than that he's in a slump.

My point is...

This board (and the fringe, in general, me thinks) harps on the team specifically because they struggle with RISP. But when you compare those situations with their general demonstrated ability, they are actually performing better than their demonstrated ability. So why cherry pick this situation when it isn't an outlier subset?

I am guilty of it myself. I am just pointing out the falisy of the argument.

Like taking a rotten apple out of a bushel of rotten apples and going on, ad nauseum, about how bad that, specific apple is.