So over a span of two years in 2004 and 2005, Ortiz having something like 25 game winning hits in the 9th inning or extra innings, including several in the postseason, should just be ignored?
Here is the biggest problem with SABR folks I have, and your argument is a perfect example. They take all stats and put them on a platform where you have to consider all things are equal.
Comparing the 9th inning to other innings is flawed in and of itself, simply because if its a close game you are facing a teams closer. Hitting .300 with a 1.000 OPS against Mariano Rivera in the ninth inning isn't the same as doing it for a season.
Your stats above also take all 9th innings and put them together as if always hitting in the 9th inning requires clutch hitting. I'm sure some of those ninth inning stats are from games that are already over.
Find me the following and we can talk about Ortiz ...
- 9th inning or extra innings in a situation where one swing can mean the difference and his stats in those situations.
- The rest of the leagues stats in that same situation (after all clutch is coming through when most people don't - that's why you want Ortiz there and not say A-Rod, because Ortiz is going to come through more times).
(btw Ortiz before 2003 or 2004 isn't the same as Ortiz after that - in this arguement I wouldn't consider anything he did in Minnesota to be part of the argument because frankly he's not the same player now as he was then).
To me this is a classic case of SABR folks talking themselves out of something any 8 year old kid can notice while watching a game - that there are certain players you want up in certain situations over other players.
Like many things in life all baseball answers aren't strictly old school thinking or SABR thinking - they lie some place in the middle. And in a lot of ways the whole SABR thing is still evolving. To me this is a classic argument example - just because you can't accurately measure it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.