JBJ's Spring

[Bellhorn04]

Actually I have found much of the whole debate dealing with the role sabermetrics play to be just something to fill a void between swinging a golf club. No one doubts the valuable role using the data gathered from them plays. The debate is over to what extent. Things just go round and round. I find the game threads to be very refreshing and a hell of a lot more real than how many runs a great catcher who can't hit a lick saves for his team over the course of a season. The beauty of any forum I think is that if you don't like it then don't play. I don't need everything to be provable in my life so I actually enjoy some of these debates. They are a lot more real to me than some of this other crap that gets tossed around.

 

I agree. Message boards are a great medium of communication IMO. You can drop in or drop out whenever you want.

[cp176]

I agree. Message boards are a great medium of communication IMO. You can drop in or drop out whenever you want.

 

It's been a lot of fun actually. I am impressed with the game threads. I don't consider myself a casual fan but I definitely am compared to some people who are active on this site.

[a700hitter]

Talking about the existence of clutch is like debating politics or religion. What a waste of time.

Communist.

[a700hitter]

Actually I have found much of the whole debate dealing with the role sabermetrics play to be just something to fill a void between swinging a golf club. No one doubts the valuable role using the data gathered from them plays. The debate is over to what extent. Things just go round and round. I find the game threads to be very refreshing and a hell of a lot more real than how many runs a great catcher who can't hit a lick saves for his team over the course of a season. The beauty of any forum I think is that if you don't like it then don't play. I don't need everything to be provable in my life so I actually enjoy some of these debates. They are a lot more real to me than some of this other crap that gets tossed around.

Again, good perspective.

[sk7326]

I don't agree with this at all. So if a player bats .220 in a 1 run game in the 8th/9th inning he is just as "clutch" as someone who bats .300?

 

Clutch is NOT a fan's term. If you don't want to believe in it - okay it's your perogative. But I KNWO it exists therefore no reason for me not to speak to it when I see it. Whether I'm a fan or not-- it still exists.

 

I agree with others - it is a boring topic. Believe it or not, I actually do agree with your feeling. But - and I've struggled trying to put the "clutch is bunk" argument together in a simple way that doesn't sound like I don't believe in players makeup - there is essentially nothing I can meaningfully say that separates a clutch hitter from a good one. To refer to your specific example, very few hitters get enough chances in those arenas for that .220 to be indicative of anything. After all if you have 20 at-bats the difference between .220 and .300 is 2 texas leaguers.

 

I think Ortiz is good. And almost every clutch hitter identified in the vernacular we use is a good hitter. Good is good enough.

[Palodios]

Talking about the existence of clutch is like debating politics or religion. What a waste of time.

 

We spend hours every week debating everything, and no one ever changes their initial opinion. How is clutch any different?

[Kimmi]

Who are you replying to? Me or Kimmi? None of us gave evidence did we? So it's to both of us? if it's to one of us, why are you leaving the other off-the-hook?

 

 

I provided evidence.

[Spitball]

I think statistics just add to my love and understanding of baseball.

 

I have been a baseball fan, player, and coach. Each level added to my enjoyment and understanding. A statistical analysis a is fascinating way to add to my baseball experience. I can form an opinion and look up the numbers to support that opinion. Before, I simply had opinions.

[Kimmi]

SO there was little benefit having that pinch runner (Roberts) Red sox had in helping come back from the 3-0 deficit vs Yanks? Isn't the combo of Ellsbury and Vitorino in 2013 similar to having a terrific pinch runner? Thus the sox didn't have one great base stealer they had two. To diminish that running game I sort of like the argument I used to have with sabermetrics fans that take it is a religion. It's a very useful but not a religion. Anyway I can remember telling them a certain a player was clutch and I used a dictionary to define clutch and said this is what so-and-so player did.

 

he came back at me and said "LOL you are using a dictionary."

 

I kid you not. Whoever the guy was he is trying to redefine what the word clutch meant. David Ortiz is clutch.

 

Other things you can know without metrics. One thing I believe is players feel some sort of pressure. They're human not a computer program. They can react to pressure in different ways on different days to different circumstances.

 

 

I have already stated that Roberts stolen base was huge, and likely the difference between the WS Championship and going home that night. There are obviously going to be particular stolen bases that are game changers. However, most of them are not.

 

As far as clutch goes, "clutch" hitters hit so well in the clutch because they hit so well all the time. They are just good hitters, period. I have already provided evidence on the clutch argument too. People just choose to ignore it because it doesn't support their opinions.

 

If Papi's HR had ended up being the game winner last night, he would be getting more credit about how clutch he is. However, how many times did he fail to come through before that at bat?

[Kimmi]

We were a running team in 2013, were we not? At least the top of the order, right?

 

Did we win our first title by going through the Yanks because we sat back or was base stealing a huge factor in that series? To add to that point -- were we a "running team" in that series? Or did we just a have big stolen bases? Thus the point of "there isn't a lot of running teams any more" is sort of irrelevant isn't it? It only takes one player - one stolen base to turn the tide. Wasn't it crucial over a 7 game series? SO it can be crucial in a 7 game series but not crucial over a season?

 

How do you think the A's felt about stolen bases after the Royals ran over them last year?

 

How bad was it over a time when Tampa Bay used to run the ball down our throat? Were you really saying "that's okay that Crawford is running all over the bases vs us?" It had little to no impact? It wouldn't have sped up any pitchers delivery knowing he was on base about to swipe the next? So it's okay to let him get a triple off a single?

 

 

How well do you suppose stolen bases correlates to runs scored?

 

Are there going to be times when a stolen base will be huge? Of course. Are stolen bases vital to the success of a team? No.

[Bellhorn04]

We spend hours every week debating everything, and no one ever changes their initial opinion. How is clutch any different?

 

So true. Nobody ever budges an inch off their initial stance.

[Kimmi]

Talking about the existence of clutch is like debating politics or religion. What a waste of time.

 

Some of us have no life, therefore we have a lot of time to waste.

[Kimmi]

I think statistics just add to my love and understanding of baseball.

 

I have been a baseball fan, player, and coach. Each level added to my enjoyment and understanding. A statistical analysis a is fascinating way to add to my baseball experience. I can form an opinion and look up the numbers to support that opinion. Before, I simply had opinions.

 

 

^^This

 

I have changed some of my opinions since discovering the world of sabermetrics. So much of what we had accepted as true is just wrong.

[Kimmi]

So true. Nobody ever budges an inch off their initial stance.

 

 

That's because men are too stubborn to admit that they are wrong.

[seabeachfred]

I don't agree with this at all. So if a player bats .220 in a 1 run game in the 8th/9th inning he is just as "clutch" as someone who bats .300?

 

Clutch is NOT a fan's term. If you don't want to believe in it - okay it's your perogative. But I KNWO it exists therefore no reason for me not to speak to it when I see it. Whether I'm a fan or not-- it still exists.

 

Bos---we never get anywhere with this topic and no one is going to change their minds on it. I happen to agree totally with you on this and so do some others, but there are a large number of people who don't. I wish we would just shitcan this topic once and for all before tempers start flaring and we have a flame war on this board, and the Dean here would not like that. Suffice to say that both camps can put forth sound arguments for their cause and we ought to let it drop with that and just respect the right to disagree.

[seabeachfred]

That's because men are too stubborn to admit that they are wrong.

 

And you know at least a couple of them from the Pollyanna board----and one who infiltrated this one. Women can be stubborn too. Much as I like you Kimmi, you can get your back up with the best of us. Some game last night........er morning, huh? I didn't know who won until I took a potty break at one in the morning PDT.

[mvp 78]

@alexspeier: Teams approached the Sox about Nava's availability in the spring. Sox repeatedly felt he's more valuable to them as contributor than chip.

[Spudboy]

Nava is valuable to the Sox.

 

I don't understand why people still question this.

 

Not everyone is a world beater. Teams need guys like Nava, too.

[a700hitter]

Nava is valuable to the Sox.

 

I don't understand why people still question this.

 

Not everyone is a world beater. Teams need guys like Nava, too.

 

If he wasn't a lefty bat, he wouldn't be as valuable. We He's the only lefty bat in our OF

[cp176]

Again, good perspective.

 

Well thank you. i really try to understand the direction that people are coming from with some of these posts. I appreciate the passion expressed because without some of that you got nothing! Baseball to me is as much about the stories told as anything these days and I have heard some beauts lately. I have a friend here who saw Ted and Mickey Vernon play. The two best left handed swings he ever saw. Another who worked for the Sox and was in their dugout for 20 years. His first was in 1975. His stories are priceless. Today we talked about things measured by statistics and things that are not. He was a people person on the frontline so you can imagine the direction that he comes from. The history, traditions, and the stories are what make the game for me.

[Palodios]

Holt and Nava are two guys that are simply more valuable on the Red Sox than in a trade.

 

Teams aren't willing to trade solid prospects for them, and at near-minimum salaries, why trade them for junk?

[jad]

I don't see the problem with 'clutch'. If it existed, it would be the easiest thing in a sport like baseball to demonstrate. All you would have to do is define situations we could agree for the purposes of argument are 'clutch' (and numerous definitions would be acceptable), then show that the same players who excel in those situations (or who play better in those situations than in others) are the SAME players who do so year after year. (The studies I've seen show that they aren't.) If you are going to say that a player's 'clutchness' varies (i.e., that SOMETIMES a guy is a great clutch hitter, but not always), then of course you have said nothing whatsoever.

[Bellhorn04]

Holt and Nava are two guys that are simply more valuable on the Red Sox than in a trade.

 

Teams aren't willing to trade solid prospects for them, and at near-minimum salaries, why trade them for junk?

 

The Yankees wish they had a couple of guys like that this weekend.

[seabeachfred]

Nava is valuable to the Sox.

 

I don't understand why people still question this.

 

Not everyone is a world beater. Teams need guys like Nava, too.

 

A bow to Dojii.....he has always been a Nava fan and to a lesser extent so have I---except for the miscarriage by Farrell early last year when he tried to make him a leadoff man. He has come through two games in a row for us against our biggest rival. Let's give the guy his due and admit he has earned the right to some respect.

[Bellhorn04]

I don't see the problem with 'clutch'. If it existed, it would be the easiest thing in a sport like baseball to demonstrate. All you would have to do is define situations we could agree for the purposes of argument are 'clutch' (and numerous definitions would be acceptable), then show that the same players who excel in those situations (or who play better in those situations than in others) are the SAME players who do so year after year. (The studies I've seen show that they aren't.) If you are going to say that a player's 'clutchness' varies (i.e., that SOMETIMES a guy is a great clutch hitter, but not always), then of course you have said nothing whatsoever.

 

Well, David Ortiz is a great hitter, but he has lots of bad games and cold streaks as most great hitters do. So if great hitting can vary, so can clutch hitting.

[seabeachfred]

Holt and Nava are two guys that are simply more valuable on the Red Sox than in a trade.

 

Teams aren't willing to trade solid prospects for them, and at near-minimum salaries, why trade them for junk?

 

You don't trade them PERIOD!!!!!!! With some of our hitters off to a slow start we hope this is only a temporary problem. If it turns out two or three of them have trouble getting untracked these two are good to have around. I also think both Holt and Nava have been underappreciated by some people around here. They can be a big help to our team....as they showed today.

[sk7326]

You don't trade them PERIOD!!!!!!! With some of our hitters off to a slow start we hope this is only a temporary problem. If it turns out two or three of them have trouble getting untracked these two are good to have around. I also think both Holt and Nava have been underappreciated by some people around here. They can be a big help to our team....as they showed today.

 

The team is averaging almost 5 runs per 9 innings ... there is no problem.

[sk7326]

Nava is valuable to the Sox.

 

I don't understand why people still question this.

 

Not everyone is a world beater. Teams need guys like Nava, too.

 

Nava is more valuable to the Sox than in trade. And you are right - guys who do not expect 400 PAs, have a legitimate big league skill (hitting righthanded pitching) and can play a couple of positions acceptably make any bench better.

[Spudboy]

If he wasn't a lefty bat, he wouldn't be as valuable. We He's the only lefty bat in our OF

 

Ted I agree that he would be less valuable if not a lefty. But who cares. He can rake ( at best ) and provide good ABs from the left side against righties. That and he plays solid if unspectacular D in left and serviceable D in right and at 1st.

 

I know that you don't care for him. That's cool. I see it differently. I think that is cool, too.

[bostopz]

Bos---we never get anywhere with this topic and no one is going to change their minds on it. I happen to agree totally with you on this and so do some others, but there are a large number of people who don't. I wish we would just shitcan this topic once and for all before tempers start flaring and we have a flame war on this board, and the Dean here would not like that. Suffice to say that both camps can put forth sound arguments for their cause and we ought to let it drop with that and just respect the right to disagree.

 

Okay. I only brought it up because the poster named "username" had asked me in a manner of speak to "prove" what I had said earlier that I disagreed with Kimmee and her use of the metrics (though he didn't ask Kimmee ot prove hers.) . For me there is such thing as "clutch." David Ortiz is the epitome of clutch. I no more have to prove that (which I feel is a fact) than what I have to prove that a guy like Ellsbury's stolen bases is an impact. And I just threw in a little comedy (though I kid you not the poster from long ago actually said it) of that sabometric geek in which I provide him what the definition of clutch was and he replied back "LOL you use a dictionary."

 

Isn't it comical that some geeks are so into the metrics that they justify to themselves that it is okay to disregard the meaning of words just to fit their own argument? Thus there is no universal meaning in baseball of clutch -- just as a poster replied to me about he can tell "what a good hitter is." Everyone has their own definition of what "a good hitter" is too. it's not universal is it? Thus -- please don't give me this "stuff" that Ellsbury's base-stealing wasn't an impact. We know what we see. We know when the sabomteric geeks sometimes try to sell us the Brooklyn Bridge when they change the meaning of words to fit their own argument. We give examples of why the metric is flawed is flawed and we hear teh clcihce rhetoric "you're jsut an old-timer or there sin't enough data blah blah blah. Those are excuses because it doesn't fit their argument.