Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
If a small sample size is all you've got you have to look at that. Slugging % helps mitigate sample size somewhat because it shows when you're hitting the ball hard. Also from watching Brett at the time I know he obviously rose to the moment - unlike say most of our pants-shitting players right now.
#2 makes a lot of sense. But again, Brett's playoff slugging % is still at least 40 points higher than any year except 1980.
|
Let me say this first: George Brett is my favorite baseball player of all time. I'm sad I didn't get a chance to see him in his prime (he was on the tail end when I saw him, and I never saw him in a playoff series). Just felt like I should say that. I'm not coming "at" George - I'm coming "at" the idea of players truly being clutch.
The point about sample size is that it's easy to get a false picture based on it, when it's small. His overall clutch stats - for his entire career - just don't track as much above his normal stats (if at all) as you'd expect if someone was truly "clutch." This is the case for just about every player you can look at. You might see a 15-20 point bump in OPS, but that's pretty minimal.
He has 180 career postseason at-bats. That's not enough to say anything definitive compared to a career with 10,000 ABs.
It's not like Derek Jeter, who has a full season's worth of post-season at-bats.