The Mariners Are Trying to Be the Clutchiest Team on Record
The Rays lost a one-run decision in Miami Monday night, and it didn’t matter. I’m sure it mattered to the Marlins, and I’m sure it mattered to the Rays, but it didn’t really matter in the standings. Not as far as the playoff race is concerned. In the hunt for the AL’s second wild card, the Rays are in fourth place, but they’re separated from the first-place Mariners by 11.5 games. The Angels are 11 games back, and the A’s are the nearest competition, at eight behind. Nothing is actually yet set in stone, but it feels like we know the AL’s five playoff teams before we even reach the Fourth of July.
In some other universe, not much is different, except for everything. In this other universe, teams have win-loss records that match their run differentials. If you arrange by Pythagorean records, the Mariners still hold the second wild card, but they’re only one up on the Angels. They’re two up on the A’s, and they’re two and a half up on the Rays.
And then there’s the universe where everything goes according to BaseRuns. The inputs are the same as they are here, but the outputs simply make more sense. If you arrange by BaseRuns records, the Rays take over the lead for the second wild card. They’re a half-game up on the Mariners, and then there’s a little more room before the A’s and the Angels. According to the only standings that matter to us, the Rays are out of it. Basically everyone behind the Mariners is out of it. According to what you’d expect would have happened, there would be a tight race. In those other universes, there’s stress. There’s a far greater degree of uncertainty.
Not so. The Mariners have found a separator. They’ve pulled well away from all of their wild-card competition, and they’ve done so by being the clutchiest bunch of clutches that ever clutched.
I don’t say that as if it’s a good thing, nor do I say that as if it’s a bad thing. It simply is; it is the explanation of what’s taken place. Jay Jaffe first talked about this a few weeks ago, when he evaluated the Mariners against the Astros. Jay brought up our team Clutch statistic. I’m going to make further use of our team Clutch statistic. This is a statistic that’s rooted in win probability, and it essentially compares how a team has done to how that team would have been expected to do in a context-neutral environment. That sounds horrible, and this is never fun to try to explain. So let’s put it this way: A high Clutch score means a team has been clutch. A low Clutch score means the opposite.
You don’t have to fully grasp the statistic to use it. At least, that’s my approach. This season, the Mariners have the highest team Clutch score in either league. That much is almost a given, so let’s stretch this out. We have win-probability information going back to 1974. We have it for hitting, and we have it for pitching, so in the following table, you see the top ten teams in combined Clutch per 162 games played:
| Team | Season | Batting | Pitching | Total | Games | Total/162 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mariners | 2018 | 4.5 | 3.5 | 7.9 | 85 | 15.1 |
| Angels | 2008 | 7.4 | 7.3 | 14.6 | 162 | 14.6 |
| Rangers | 2016 | 8.2 | 4.6 | 12.7 | 162 | 12.7 |
| Giants | 2012 | 4.8 | 7.4 | 12.2 | 162 | 12.2 |
| Athletics | 2006 | 4.4 | 7.7 | 12.1 | 162 | 12.1 |
| Orioles | 1981 | 1.4 | 6.1 | 7.5 | 105 | 11.6 |
| Twins | 1994 | 5.3 | 2.6 | 7.8 | 113 | 11.2 |
| Diamondbacks | 2011 | 4.4 | 6.6 | 11.0 | 162 | 11.0 |
| Orioles | 1977 | 6.2 | 4.5 | 10.8 | 161 | 10.8 |
| Reds | 2004 | 6.3 | 4.5 | 10.8 | 162 | 10.8 |
This year’s Mariners, up in first place. This doesn’t mean the Mariners have been the most clutch team since at least 1974 — ideally, I wouldn’t be comparing a partial season against other full ones. The most clutch team has been the 2008 Angels. Just know that the Mariners have played so far as if they’re going to be the most clutch team. They’re on pace to be the most clutch team. As with any extreme data point, you have to expect some future regression toward normalcy, but this is why the Mariners are where they are. They’ve been a perfectly adequate team, but they’ve *won* like a great team. Only three other clubs currently have better records, and those are the Red Sox, Yankees, and Astros.
We can dig to explain the Clutch a little bit. What has allowed the Mariners to be so clutch? Put another way, where’s the evidence that the team has been so timely? I went to the splits to isolate low, medium, and high-leverage situations. For each, for every team, I calculated the wOBA differential — that is, the difference between wOBA for and wOBA against. Here’s the low-leverage landscape:
In low-leverage situations, the Mariners find themselves in 21st place, with a differential of -.018 points. That is, they’ve allowed a wOBA that’s .018 points higher than their own. I was able to calculate all this information for every team going back to 2002, and, since 2002, this would place the Mariners in the 21st percentile. When the stakes haven’t been high, the Mariners have been outplayed. Moving on now to medium-leverage situations:
Now the Mariners show up in sixth place, with a differential of .031 points. Since 2002, that would place them in the 89th percentile. When the stakes have gotten higher, the Mariners have turned the tables. And, at last, we can look at the high-leverage spots:
The Mariners aren’t in first — that honor currently belongs to the Braves. But they’re in second, with a differential of .090. Since 2002, that would place them in the 99th percentile. In the most critical of all situations, the Mariners have been dominant. You don’t have to always outplay your opponent; you just have to outplay your opponent when the game might be on the line. There are fewer of those situations, making the prospect a little bit easier.
There’s not a whole lot you can do to encourage more clutch hitting. Clutch pitching, at least, feels partially under control, since Edwin Diaz is a great closer, and great closers make a number of high-leverage appearances. Diaz is one of the primary reasons behind the Mariners’ surge, but even his dominance occasionally requires a spot of good fortune:
There’s hardly any difference there between a game-ending fly out and a walk-off loss. I don’t mean to take anything away from Diaz, because he’s actually been almost unhittable. But, lots of teams have great closers. Few teams have ever looked so clutch.
There’s still another way of visualizing the Mariners’ season. For this last plot, we’re going all the way back to 1900, which is as far back as anyone should ever need to go. On the y-axis, team winning percentage. On the x-axis, team run differential per game. The Mariners are the yellow dot.
Again, this is comparing a partial season against full ones. I know that’s not the proper thing to do. But it’s also by far the easiest way to generate these numbers, and this is just to give you a frame of reference, anyway. The Mariners have a winning percentage of .635. According to the line of best fit for all this, the Mariners would be expected to have a winning percentage of .526. The Mariners, therefore, are overachieving by .109. That’s the greatest such difference in the sample, which numbers more than 2,500 teams. If the Mariners were to keep this up, they’d be the greatest run-differential overachiever ever, by a considerable margin over the 1955 Athletics.
The likelihood, of course, is that the Mariners can’t keep this up, not like this. They’ve done something historic over 85 games, but they still have to play another 77. Chances are, they’re going to look like a more normal baseball team. But the Mariners are also already in such a position that it would take a kind of collapse for them to miss out on the wild card. And I can’t very well completely dismiss the chance they’ll overtake the first-place Astros, who are up just a half-game. Stranger things have happened. The Mariners have won all the games that they’ve won, and they deserve credit for winning them. It wasn’t random chance that made them play better in the clutch. That was all human players, doing human things against human opponents. There’s a difference between randomness and unsustainability. The other wild-card teams don’t deserve to be closer to the Mariners than they are. That’s not how statistics work.
The Mariners, so far, have won like a juggernaut. They’re not considered to be on the same level with the other juggernauts, for good and convincing reasons. Those teams have done things the Mariners haven’t matched. Yet the Mariners have done enough to put themselves in excellent playoff position, and you could argue this is the ideal kind of team for a fan base — a team on a 103-win pace that you get to call an underdog. No one should expect the Mariners to keep playing like they’ve played. At a certain point, it doesn’t matter. In the hunt for the playoff spot the Mariners occupy, clutch play has made all the difference.
Jeff made Lookout Landing a thing, but he does not still write there about the Mariners. He does write here, sometimes about the Mariners, but usually not.




Go M’s go!
So Edi Diaz goes a long way in explaining the clutch pitching. What explains the clutch hitting? Does a teams bullpen strength increase the chances of ABs occuring that qualify for clutch situations?
Maybe just having good veteran hitters with a good approach in clutch situations? Definitely doesn’t explain everything though.
Choosing the right line-up and the right reliever should have an impact too: so, Manager.
Hey Jeff, great article!
I actually just yesterday asked a similar question to a group of SABR-minded baseball folks and would love to hear your thoughts:
Not quite the same metrics that you examined, but given that highest 2 win %’s in history in 1 run games (2016 Rangers and 2012 Orioles) each came within the past 6 years, could there be something about recent changes in the game that led / leads to these outliers?
Home runs are the highest variance event in baseball. With homerun rates rising, we should expect variance to rise. Rising variance creates more outlier outcomes.
Better bullpen, shifting and managers playing the match ups more often
yea but will it last
Does it need to? Even if the Mariners go 37-38 the rest of the season, which is a really big if, then the A’s would need to go 46-29 (99 W pace) or the Angels go 49-26 (106 W pace) to pass the Mariners.
The games they won still count.
I guess it only matters if you have to go to Cleveland to play a one game playoff against the Klu-bot, but what are the chances of that happening….oh wait a sec…
0% because Cleveland is gonna win the Central by 22 games?
What’s concerning is that there are a bunch of games left against both the Angels and A’s, so it’s a little easier for them to close or maintain the gap
It’s always cool and remarkable when a team does this for an entire season and puts up a W-L record that far exceeds its Pythagorean W-L. What ‘s also remarkable – though much less enjoyable for that team’s fans – is when the team’s luck/clutchiness just suddenly runs out. I will never forget th e Washington Nationals first season in 2005. The team was 50-31 at the halfway point despite a run differential that was just about even. At that point they were in a stretch where they won 11 or 12 one run games in a row. Just before the All Star break, they lost two consecutive one run games, which launched them into a streak of losing the next13 one run games they played, which led to a second half record of 31-50. After that season, I ‘ve never needed too many reminders that forum’s wheel can turn pretty darn quickly.
Another remarkable thing is the un-clutchness of the Houston Astros, who have a great record yet are *eight* games below their Pythagorean W-L. Also interesting to me is how the Braves are extremely clutch by these numbers, doing much better in high leverage situations, yet somehow are still two games *below* Pythagorean W-L. So an unusual ability to get runs and prevent them in high leverage situations, but the overall distribution of runs is normal or slightly worse than expected, given the number scored and prevented.
‘ it is the explanation of what’s taken place’
well, me and good friend Nikola Tesla have a different opinion
Maybe one day we’ll see who is actually correct!
Namaste
As a Braves fan, I saw this headline and thought “the Braves have been pretty ridiculous with players in scoring position and high-leverage situations this year, have the Mariners really been better?” Then I saw that high-leverage wOBA graph. If the Mariners’ .090 would put them in the 99th percentile since 2002, where would the Braves .110 (.391-.282) put them?
The 99th percentile
I looked up the 1955 Athletics because of this article, and expected them to have a decent record. Instead, all their overachievement only got them to 63 – 91.
Not to knock Run Differential, but I do think there are roster constructions that make teams more advantaged in close games — deep bullpens with high K%, contact hitters with speed, elite defense, etc. Simply put, teams that are elite in preventing the ball from getting in play and have elite defensive BABIP will prevent runs above average, and teams that can make contact against high SwStr% pitchers and put pressure on defenses with their speed, will score more runs against RPs. That’s not to say those teams will win more, but they will be better suited to preventing runs in high leverage situations and “manufacturing runs” against elite pitching.
The weird part is that the Mariners aren’t really exceptional in any of those areas. Diaz is great, but the bullpen isn’t terribly deep or consistent, their defense and speed are middle of the road, and their contact rates and SwStr% are near the bottom of the league.
We tend to think of clutchness as overperforming in high-leverage situations, but couldn’t it also be attributable to underperforming in low-leverage situations (or some combination thereof)?
As a Mariners fan, I’m holding out hope there is a decent helping of the latter, so that the fall back to normalcy — which I do think will happen in the second half — won’t be too harsh.
I haven’t looked deeply into the data, but anecdotally and back-of-enveloping it, there are a few players who are struggling relative to their projections, who have still delivered timely hits (e.g., Seager, Zunino).
Also, their bullpen outside of Diaz has been weirdly shaky. In some of those one-run wins they were up by several runs when the starter came out — Nicasio, Colome, Vincent, and even Diaz all have higher ERAs than FIPs (especially Nicasio 6.00 vs. 2.66 — yeesh!).
Toss in the fact that they will likely get Cano back for the last few months of the regular season, and I have no idea what to expect. It’s been a totally inexplicable, fun season thus far.
“underperforming in low-leverage situations… a decent helping of the latter, so that the fall back to normalcy — which I do think will happen in the second half — won’t be too harsh.”
Sadly, if the M’s begin performing neutrally or overperforming in low-leverage situations this will lead to:
1) Turning medium wins into blowout wins
2) Turning blowout losses into medium or close losses.
i.e. if their underperformance in low-leverage situations evens out, it will have virtually no impact on their record, while if their overperformance in high-leverage situations evens out, it will matter a lot. All that said, I’m a huge M’s fan and I’m loving this year – just commenting to note the implications of your statement.
This is part (in fact, most) of the reason why the “clutch” statistic here on Fangraphs is misleading. I realized something was wrong when I looked at the clutch leaderboards and saw Alcides Escobar and the corpse of Albert Pujols up at the top, and guys like Judge at the very bottom.
Here is a table I put together last year on this topic: These were the “least clutch” seasons and their wRC+:
1 Aaron Judge 2017 170
2 Josh Reddick 2012 126
3 Gary Carter 1979 124
4 Alex Rodriguez 2008 152
5 Nelson Cruz 2016 146
6 M Saunders 2016 117
7 Bill Mueller 2003 145
8 D DeShields 1990 117
9 Chet Lemon 1982 127
10 Cesar Geronimo 1976 123
11 Kris Bryant 2017 148
12 Ryne Sandberg 1989 139
13 Gary Gaetti 1983 93
14 Sammy Sosa 2002 157
15 Cecil Fielder 1990 165
16 Javy Lopez 2004 127
17 Pete O’Brien 1985 114
18 Dwight Evans 1978 114
19 Dave Henderson 1988 151
20 Jose Ramirez 2017 146
What I wrote last year still stands: Is “clutch” really meaningful as a statistic, given that every single hitter except one of the top 20 is an above average hitter, 13 of of the Top 20 have production 25% better than the league average, 9 of the top 20 have production 40% better than the league average, and 5 of the Top 20 have production 50% better than the league average? I would strenuously argue “no”–this statistic doesn’t tell you much of anything.
Lots of other ink/blood spilled on “clutch” in the comments section here, some of which applies to the present article, some of which does not.
https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/aaron-judge-has-been-the-least-clutch-player-on-record/
And all this after Dave leaves the site.
I agree there is no bad way to win, but it seems like something that could fluctuate wildly year to year.
unrelated to the Mariners… but that last chart/graph, the high leverage wOBA differential I think raises up an interesting situation in the NL East.. The Nats haven’t exactly played great baseball throughout the year, but they’ve also been spectacularly un-clutch, un-lucky, or just poor at situational hitting. While it appears the Braves have certainly taken advantage of situations when they’re presented to them.
there’s obviously more to luck/clutch when it comes of the Nats offense, but yeesh.
I know they have a pretty significant discrepancy in general RISP numbers, but to see it played out in a different context (high leverage & wOBA) definitely helps paint a picture on the NL East standings I think, on just the offense numbers alone especially.
I’d be interested to see a graph comparing team clutch scores through the first and second halves of the season over the last several years to get an idea of how sustainable clutch scores are.
not even a little bit!
https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/why-we-feel-how-we-feel-about-clutch/
Clutch is a myth believed by people who don’t understand mathematics.
I used to have friends who believed in UFOs, the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot, and yetis. Once almost everybody in the world started caring around a portable camera with them and zero evidence of any of these things ever turned up, they accepted that these things were all myths. The graphs shown in the article Jeff linked to destroy any possible belief in clutch by anyone who actually understands mathematics or statistics, but the people who foolishly insist on continuing to believe that “clutch” is a repeatable skill don’t understand what an r-squared value of 0 means, so they keep on believing in in their silly myth. They are the baseball equivalent of the flat earth/anti-vaccination crowds: there is solid evidence that definitively disproves their beliefs, but they can’t comprehend the evidence and refuse to believe those capable of understanding it who try to explain it to them.
The visual of the Run Differential/Game vs. Win% plot would be better if you used a tool to make it clear that the density of points near the center of the distribution is greater than on the outer parts of the blob. You could set alpha = 0.25 (assuming MATLAB or R). This would make the Mariners data point much more impressive.
It does not surprise me to see Freddie F’ing Freeman leading the high leverage stats… pretty sure he doubles off the Nats bullpen in his sleep.
Given this information, knowing the M’s are regressing somewhat, should the A’s make a run? The rotation is in tatters, but they keep winning.
Freddy Freeman is underrated.
I know you know this, but “clutch” and “on pace for” are almost totally incompatible things. You’ve done first half / second half Clutch scatterplots before: road sign hit by a shotgun.
So the betting line for the Mariners’ whole year is for them to take their 7.9 up to like 8.5 (for Edwin Díaz, who’s good) and not place on the top ten list.
In the “Winning Percentage vs. Run Differential” graph, who’s the team with a run differential of almost +3 runs/game?
My guess is the 1939 Yankees. (+411 run differential/154 games played = +2.668831168831169 runs per game)
pretty sure the M’s recently had season where they lost a bunch of 1 run games, baseball gods are finally evening things out for them
One thing that seemed a little unclear– is there significant variance in how often a team finds itself in high-leverage situations? I wouldn’t immediately think so, but now that I think about it, a team that is solid but not fantastic, with slightly better pitching than hitting, would play more close games than normal by avoiding many blowouts (low-leverage) either way.
I’d think it would be a team with fantastic pitching and horrible hitting. At the extreme it would be a team that never gave up any runs and never scored any…sort of like the 1965 Dodgers. All games would be 1-0 or 2-1.
The wins they have are in the bank and this is good, regression to the mean doesn’t mean you play worse the rest of the way to get back to your pre season projection. however you also cant expect this to continue. it could happen but it is not the most likely outcome
I am always the first guy to criticize the sensationalist headlines, but I want you to know that I have noticed that they have been scaled back recently – Good work! It makes me think that you actually stand by your content as opposed to the click-bait Best ___ ever junk that was very prevalent from last year. If you really believe in what you are doing, then there is no need to ham it up. In other words, its not good when the highlight is the headline… Anyways, good work.
Clutch? A known unqualified stat. The Mariners have been lucky. Good for them. However it is luck, pure and simple.
Here they go again?…
“There’s no such thing as a bad way to win.”
Yes, there really is. It’s called cheating.
Steroids
It’s awesome. Cos if the ‘best’ teams won, why would we bother watching. Sport is drama, drama is entertainment and it needs to be unpredictable
“Cos if the ‘best’ teams won, why would we bother watching.”
Ask the NBA… https://variety.com/2018/tv/news/nba-ratings-1202752848/