2014 Offseason Thread

[Kimmi]

Sorry but don't go Kimmi on me Kimmi. What I said not only goes for high school players but college and minor league players as well. Scouts will also tell you that some players handle pressure much better than others just as coaches will tell you that. With all due respect Kimmi, you never played baseball in competitive leagues and you sure as hell have never coached the game either. Those of us who have seen with our own eyes players who revel in key situations and those who would rather be anywhere but the plate in these pressure situations and you have them in the Big Leagues as well.

 

I agree, there are players who fold under pressure. I've played enough sports to know that. The players who cannot perform under pressure typically do not make it to the majors or if they do, they do not last very long. Players more or less will perform to their career norms in pressure situations, given a large enough sample size. Those players who we often consider to be clutch are not really clutch, they are just good hitters, period.

[Kimmi]

Baseball Reference is a wonderful thing. So much ammunition for such a cheap price.

 

 

There are so many stats available at our fingertips, why anyone would choose not to use them is beyond me. It's amazing what kind of information is out there.

[seabeachfred]

Agreed. There are so many moving parts, it will be interesting to see how it all plays out. First, we can scratch Brentz off the list. He has as much chance of making opening day as he does getting pregnant.

 

Then there's the vets - Vic, Craig, Nava and even Holt. Holt probably makes the bench. Craig is much more versatile than Nava. If he isn't traded, I'd like to see what he could do.

 

Ramirez is a lock. That leaves Betts, Castillo and Bradley. One thing that might help is to send guys down who have options and play the vets for a year if they are healthy. Barring a trade of course. Unlikely, but an OF of the trio just mentioned would be set for years to come. Ramirez could eventually DH or play first after Papi's gone. Napoli's only 33. If he has a monster season, they might look to bring him back, too. It's mind-boggling to consider the potential scenarios. It's a good problem to have, but it also presents a conundrum. The challenge is to choose wisely.

 

I think Cecchini is gone in a trade at some point - and he's a damn fine prospect.

 

For all the attention on their OFers, the Sox also have some starting arms who could come up and help at some point. This team is really in a good position. One could argue they don't need another starter - in house solutions will manifest. However, there are so many spare parts, they have to make a trade. I'd like to see them keep their gold chips. They have so much talent on the farm, they really don't need to give any of them up.

 

You said it Prune Face.....CHOOSE WISELY!!!!! The Red Sox have to get his right. Moncada from all reports is a star in the making, the real deal. So let him develop his talents in the minors for two years and bring him up when he is 21-22 and put him in the lineup. As for Castillo, if he is not deemed ready to play 140 games send him down where he can play regularly. We need Betts in that lineup IMHO. He showed he could hit, we know he can run and we saw him develop into a decent outfielder. Victorino, if healthy, will win a spot because of who he is and how he plays and how he rises to the occasion. Surprise, though, might be Craig. He stunk to high heaven last summer but we have to see how he fares in ST. If he comes back to his previous best or near best, he is a solid outfielder, first baseman, third baseman who could also DH on occasion. There are a lot of story lines here and Farrell and Cherington's work is cut out for them. In the end they must pick the best players who give us the best chance to win and, therefore, have to choose wisely and not just base it on money.

[seabeachfred]

I agree, there are players who fold under pressure. I've played enough sports to know that. The players who cannot perform under pressure typically do not make it to the majors or if they do, they do not last very long. Players more or less will perform to their career norms in pressure situations, given a large enough sample size. Those players who we often consider to be clutch are not really clutch, they are just good hitters, period.

 

Now that is an answer I can totally agree upon. See we can have a meeting of the minds. Sometimes, though, it seems to take teams a few years to determine that some of their players just can't cut it when the chips are down, pitchers and hitters both, and maybe the reason is the team has a big investment in that player and are loathe to give up on him.

[Kimmi]

The best team possible should be on the field everyday. That is how you have the best chance of winning.

 

 

While this is what should happen, in reality, it is often not what does happen. Right or wrong, a large part of the decision will be based on who has options. While I may not always like this, it makes sense. You want to keep as many options and as much flexibility on the roster as possible.

[Bellhorn04]

I agree, there are players who fold under pressure. I've played enough sports to know that. The players who cannot perform under pressure typically do not make it to the majors or if they do, they do not last very long. Players more or less will perform to their career norms in pressure situations, given a large enough sample size. Those players who we often consider to be clutch are not really clutch, they are just good hitters, period.

 

My beef is that when you do find what seems to be a genuine example of someone who has underperformed in 'the clutch', it gets thrown out on the grounds of small sample sizes. My preference is to use postseason games vs. regular season games, because it's very simple, for one thing. So I try to use Bagwell and Swisher, who have huge gaps in postseason vs. regular season numbers, and it gets tossed on the 'small sample size' argument. Well, okay, yes, postseason samples are small, comparatively speaking, but how will we ever have a big enough sample?

 

That's when the old schooler in me understands some of the frustration with the stat people.

[User Name]

My beef is that when you do find what seems to be a genuine example of someone who has underperformed in 'the clutch', it gets thrown out on the grounds of small sample sizes. My preference is to use postseason games vs. regular season games, because it's very simple, for one thing. So I try to use Bagwell and Swisher, who have huge gaps in postseason vs. regular season numbers, and it gets tossed on the 'small sample size' argument. Well, okay, yes, postseason samples are small, comparatively speaking, but how will we ever have a big enough sample?

 

That's when the old schooler in me understands some of the frustration with the stat people.

 

The "stat people" here is a gross generalization. A lot of "stat people" have spent countless hours trying to measure hitter's ability to perform (or choke) under pressure.

 

You are essentially saying that "stat" people can't admit that some players choke. That's just not right.

[Kimmi]

My beef is that when you do find what seems to be a genuine example of someone who has underperformed in 'the clutch', it gets thrown out on the grounds of small sample sizes. My preference is to use postseason games vs. regular season games, because it's very simple, for one thing. So I try to use Bagwell and Swisher, who have huge gaps in postseason vs. regular season numbers, and it gets tossed on the 'small sample size' argument. Well, okay, yes, postseason samples are small, comparatively speaking, but how will we ever have a big enough sample?

 

That's when the old schooler in me understands some of the frustration with the stat people.

 

 

Well Bellhorn, SSS is a valid problem. It's not an excuse to not have to accept the notion of "clutch". And when that small sample is spread out over several seasons, it becomes even more of a problem.

 

It's not really so much that stat geeks are saying that "clutch" doesn't exist. To date, however, they have dissected the data pretty much every way humanly possible, and have found no statistical evidence that being a clutch hitter is a repeatable skill. Clutch hits happen all the time, but being "clutch" is not a skill. Another difficulty lies in defining exactly what clutch is.

 

Bill James even concedes that clutch may exist. There just hasn't been any proof to that effect yet.

[Bellhorn04]

Well Bellhorn, SSS is a valid problem. It's not an excuse to not have to accept the notion of "clutch". And when that small sample is spread out over several seasons, it becomes even more of a problem.

 

It's not really so much that stat geeks are saying that "clutch" doesn't exist. To date, however, they have dissected the data pretty much every way humanly possible, and have found no statistical evidence that being a clutch hitter is a repeatable skill. Clutch hits happen all the time, but being "clutch" is not a skill. Another difficulty lies in defining exactly what clutch is.

 

Bill James even concedes that clutch may exist. There just hasn't been any proof to that effect yet.

 

So Kimmi, if there is no proof, there is also no disproof, and can we really make positive assertions like 'Those players who we often consider to be clutch aren't really clutch.'?

[Bellhorn04]

The "stat people" here is a gross generalization. A lot of "stat people" have spent countless hours trying to measure hitter's ability to perform (or choke) under pressure.

 

You are essentially saying that "stat" people can't admit that some players choke. That's just not right.

 

All points taken.

[pruneface]

So Kimmi, if there is no proof, there is also no disproof, and can we really make positive assertions like 'Those players who we often consider to be clutch aren't really clutch.'?

Clutch hitting probably will never be proven either way, but we don't watch baseball for absolutes. We watch it for entertainment and myth-building and legendary feats that leave us breathless with admiration. Papi has delivered so many times that his plaque on whatever wall he graces will include clutch as part of the encomiums of praise.

[Bellhorn04]

To me the whole clutch/choke thing falls into the area of intangibles, like 'a catcher who calls a good game makes a big difference' or 'a good manager makes a big difference.' These have also proven to be extremely difficult assertions to quantify.

[pruneface]

I would definitely use stats, Kimmi, to help me guage what kind of player I'm getting. They provide a general expectation of performance. I don't see why there's so much controversy here. American culture tends to pidgeon-hole people and paint viewpoints into extremes. Stats are useful, but they aren't bouncing in my head as the moment happens. Every moment is unique and has the potential to defy historical samples. We play and watch sports because the outcome is unknown and every moment, although colored with probability, is ultimately uncertain. The moment is below the Planck level and defies understanding. It simply is.

[User Name]

You can quantify a choker. You just can't quantify him over a one-year sample because with the amount of luck (or lack thereof) involved in a one-year sample, that is ridiculous. That's why fred gets called out for his assertion on Bogaerts. When he was struggling, he was struggling in general, not just with RISP.

[pruneface]

You said it Prune Face.....CHOOSE WISELY!!!!! The Red Sox have to get his right. Moncada from all reports is a star in the making, the real deal. So let him develop his talents in the minors for two years and bring him up when he is 21-22 and put him in the lineup. As for Castillo, if he is not deemed ready to play 140 games send him down where he can play regularly. We need Betts in that lineup IMHO. He showed he could hit, we know he can run and we saw him develop into a decent outfielder. Victorino, if healthy, will win a spot because of who he is and how he plays and how he rises to the occasion. Surprise, though, might be Craig. He stunk to high heaven last summer but we have to see how he fares in ST. If he comes back to his previous best or near best, he is a solid outfielder, first baseman, third baseman who could also DH on occasion. There are a lot of story lines here and Farrell and Cherington's work is cut out for them. In the end they must pick the best players who give us the best chance to win and, therefore, have to choose wisely and not just base it on money.

It's easier said than done, SBF, but they will have to choose. I'm in favor of sending JBL, Brentz and either Castillo or Betts down for more seasoning. I'd like to see Vic get the job done. He won't fetch much via trade with this last year of his contract. Craig is the real troubled piece for me. It'll be interesting to see if and where he fits. He has the potential to really help the Sox for years to come. But his salary is too high for him to be an uber sub like Holt. Reluctantly, I expect he'll get moved.

[pruneface]

To me the whole clutch/choke thing falls into the area of intangibles, like 'a catcher who calls a good game makes a big difference' or 'a good manager makes a big difference.' These have also proven to be extremely difficult assertions to quantify.

And it shouldn't be a surprise. Life can't be reduced to a number. They are merely heuristics. The principal reason is timespace is a continuum and therefore irrational.

 

I wasn't surprised Ross followed Lester. You get comfortable pitching to a guy. I think changing catchers does have an effect on performance. Ultimately, there will always be factors we won't be able to account for that influence what is happening. It's why the scientific method seeks to manipulate one variable only. Even then, there are no constants. Even the observer has changed from one moment to the next. At best, I view epistemology as an approximation.

[seabeachfred]

You can quantify a choker. You just can't quantify him over a one-year sample because with the amount of luck (or lack thereof) involved in a one-year sample, that is ridiculous. That's why fred gets called out for his assertion on Bogaerts. When he was struggling, he was struggling in general, not just with RISP.

 

You're on call with the first part. One year is not a good overall sample especially for a rookie. My whole argument about Bogaerts was his 2014 performance and if you look it up he hit fine with no runners on base. He could easily reverse his poor hitting with RISP this season and would make my previous points obsolete. There is history behind this. I hate to use two Dodgers as an example but I live out here in So. Cal and now a lot of scouts, one of who is my daughter's Godfather. The two players were Bill Buckner and Raul Mondesi. Buckner was ripped early in his career in LA because he looked like he bulked up when men were on the bases but overcame that and became a pretty tough out with a couple more ye ars experience and he carried it over to other teams he played for including the Red Sox. Mondesi was a weird egg. He got his hits and RBI's but got them when his team were either way ahead or hopelessly behind. In a close game he was pretty inept and it followed him to Toronto and especially when he to the Yankees. I think Steinbrenner once described him as our "out man". We'll get a better picture of Xander this season.

[iortiz]

The more I think, the more I believe that Hamels will be in opening day but in Red Sox uniform.

[sk7326]

So Kimmi, if there is no proof, there is also no disproof, and can we really make positive assertions like 'Those players who we often consider to be clutch aren't really clutch.'?

 

Well it depends on how you frame the problem. The analysis that has been done on "clutch" trying to isolate those situations (close and late, base runners, down a run) all have resulted in no satisfactory answers. You just get good hitters being good hitters. You also get to the conceptual problem - for instance Ortiz hit one of the most clutch home runs in recent history in 2013. He also had a very bad series in general - considering the Sox lost 2 games, there were a myriad of important at bats he did not deliver. Did the clutchiness go away?

 

Now, just thinking about it, I'd expect anti-clutchness to be more measurable - but there has not been a unified definition of what is a clutch situation. Kimmi is right though. Large issues of makeup keep guys out of the show.

[cp176]

Clutch hitting probably will never be proven either way, but we don't watch baseball for absolutes. We watch it for entertainment and myth-building and legendary feats that leave us breathless with admiration. Papi has delivered so many times that his plaque on whatever wall he graces will include clutch as part of the encomiums of praise.

 

It is the human element that that attracts me to the game. The unpredictability of the human being. There have always been athletes in all sports who have been able to respond better in "clutch" situations at very special times. It occurs at all levels. It is impossible to determine what makes these special people able to accomplish extraordinary accomplishments at special times. It isn't luck and it is not necessarily a reflection of past performance. They don't always succeed but normally we will bet that they will. They have intangible qualities that you cannot measure. For some of us, it is what makes the games worth watching and worth playing.

[Bellhorn04]

Well it depends on how you frame the problem. The analysis that has been done on "clutch" trying to isolate those situations (close and late, base runners, down a run) all have resulted in no satisfactory answers. You just get good hitters being good hitters. You also get to the conceptual problem - for instance Ortiz hit one of the most clutch home runs in recent history in 2013. He also had a very bad series in general - considering the Sox lost 2 games, there were a myriad of important at bats he did not deliver. Did the clutchiness go away?

 

Now, just thinking about it, I'd expect anti-clutchness to be more measurable - but there has not been a unified definition of what is a clutch situation. Kimmi is right though. Large issues of makeup keep guys out of the show.

 

So how do we explain things like Carl Crawford's inability to play in Boston? Or Daniel Bard losing the ability to throw the ball over the plate? The human psyche is a complex thing.

[cp176]

So how do we explain things like Carl Crawford's inability to play in Boston? Or Daniel Bard losing the ability to throw the ball over the plate? The human psyche is a complex thing.

 

I'm sure that someone can offer up an explanation for the improbable happening. Thing is, sometimes things just happen. Obviously, I would think that as you move up in any line of work, as the expectations get greater and the job gets tougher, there will always be people who have earned the right to be there who just seem to reach the end of the line. I think that it would be fair to say that a major league baseball player at some point in their travels performed in the clutch. As the talent pool gets smaller and tougher all of sudden the concept of performing in the clutch gets different. Some can't some can. It's a gift that some have. The ability to narrow your focus and stay in the moment when the game is on the line.

[SoxnCycles]

So how do we explain things like Carl Crawford's inability to play in Boston? Or Daniel Bard losing the ability to throw the ball over the plate? The human psyche is a complex thing.

 

I don't think Crawford had a problem with in-game situations being too big for him, which what the "clutch" discussion is about.

I think the market, fan expectation and his own expectations got the better of him.

 

And, judging by his comments, since being traded, he still hasn't gotten over it.

 

Except for injuries, he seems to have adjusted to playing in LA.

 

If I could explain what happened to Bard, I could take Bob Tewksbury's job.

[SeanJohn93]

Cafardo was saying that the Phillies are willing to part with Cliff Lee. He would cost less prospects but is older. I still think he has some stuff left in the tank but we shall see. One prospect nobody seems to mention is Brentz. I bet if he didn't shoot himself we would be having a different conversation.

[SeanJohn93]

On a Daniel Bard note, I did an internship with his brother in law last summer and he told me that after a few starts he wanted to go back to the bullpen but management up top thought that they would look inept and unreliable if they gave up on him too soon as a starter. Quite a sad story considering the fact that he was pitching for Texas' single A team and allowed 5 earned runs without giving up a hit. All the baserunners were walks and hbp.

[sk7326]

So how do we explain things like Carl Crawford's inability to play in Boston? Or Daniel Bard losing the ability to throw the ball over the plate? The human psyche is a complex thing.

 

Oh I am not dismissing that - and rules of thumb do not mean 100%. And I do think the externalities of playing in Boston did affect Crawford. That is not clutchness (which I isolate as within the game) so much as job environment. The latter exists to me, although it might be smaller than writers make it. Who knows why a guy isn't comfortable in a new job.

 

I don't pshaw big plays and whatever - as a fan I love it, but it is a fan's view. I don't think it's something an org can necessarily plan for (clutch hitting). After all, for the most part, good players at the best times are (at a minimum) good players the other times. So acquiring good players is still a smart way to go.

[sk7326]

Cafardo was saying that the Phillies are willing to part with Cliff Lee. He would cost less prospects but is older. I still think he has some stuff left in the tank but we shall see. One prospect nobody seems to mention is Brentz. I bet if he didn't shoot himself we would be having a different conversation.

 

Tricky part with Lee is the no-trade. The money is steep, but that is a non-issue - if the Sox think he is worth it, they can pay for it. Something like guaranteeing the team option might be necessary to get him to waive it. And if he really is deemed as good enough for 1-year, given that he is a command and feel guy, it is probably good enough for 2 years.

[a700hitter]

It is the human element that that attracts me to the game. The unpredictability of the human being. There have always been athletes in all sports who have been able to respond better in "clutch" situations at very special times. It occurs at all levels. It is impossible to determine what makes these special people able to accomplish extraordinary accomplishments at special times. It isn't luck and it is not necessarily a reflection of past performance. They don't always succeed but normally we will bet that they will. They have intangible qualities that you cannot measure. For some of us, it is what makes the games worth watching and worth playing.

The argument about whether clutch exists is similar to the argument about closers being overvalued because the 3 ninth inning outs are no different than the other 24. Anyone who has ever pitched will tell you that the 9th inning is different, and they will also tell you how much tougher the clutch hitter is to get out in a big spot in that 9th inning. It is truly a battle of wills.

[User Name]

Except that the closer argument, unlike the clutch argument, is retarded. Pressure situations are pressure situations no matter the inning, depending of course on closeness of the score.

 

The whole "Ask anyone who has pitched" argument is also BS. I have actually attended a public gathering with a pitcher who has pitched both as a setup guy and closer (Joaquin Benoit) and he addressed the misconception. It's all context-dependant. Sometimes the setup guy will get the meat of the order and the closer gets the easy outs, and sometimes it's the other way around. The game hanging in the balance doesn't necessarily depend on the inning. Please debunk the experiences of an actual (and succesful) MLB pitcher with your made up blanket statements.

[sk7326]

The argument about whether clutch exists is similar to the argument about closers being overvalued because the 3 ninth inning outs are no different than the other 24. Anyone who has ever pitched will tell you that the 9th inning is different, and they will also tell you how much tougher the clutch hitter is to get out in a big spot in that 9th inning. It is truly a battle of wills.

 

Which explains why the last two World Series champs cycled through closers during the season.