Statistics are fun.

There's really no way for me to discuss this without sounding like an arrogant jerk. But this is simply an unacceptable statistical analysis:

"When analyzing how 'clutch' a player truly is, sabermetricians turn to a statistic called WPA, or Win Probability Added, that calculates how many wins a player added to his team by giving more credit to important situations. Fangraphs.com comes up with a 'clutch' score by comparing WPA with WPA/LI – Win Probability Added with the Leverage Index removed, i.e. making all at-bats equal, regardless of the situation."

The fundamental flaw here is that you're comparing a player to himself.

To wit, ARod in 2008:


Overall in 2008, ARod's "clutch"-weighted measurement is 0.27, which ranks 93rd.

Overall in 2008, ARod's measurement is 2.91, which ranks 18th.


Neither of these rankings are particularly stellar, but the "clutch" measurement actually subtracts the second measurement from the first.

So, ARod is punished for being good.

If ARod hit .175 with the bases empty and .250 with RISP, then he'd be "clutch," according to this flawed measurement.


I'd love to see the full list.

I'll bet quite a few MVP candidates are in the lower half of the list -- Pujols, Wright, Hamilton, etc. -- they hit too good in the first inning or when their team is winning by ten runs. In other words, they hit too good when it the situation isn't "clutch," whatever "clutch" means.

(I'll tell you, when I just saw a game where the Yankees almost blew a 9-2 lead, I think every run is an important run.)

The guy who leads the list -- the "clutchest" player in baseball -- is probably some stiff like, I dunno, Gerald Laird.

I can guarantee it.

Tadahito Iguchi is the clutchest player in baseball because he has a few well-timed hits in the ninth inning and bats .210 in innings one through eight.