JBJ's Spring

[Spudboy]

Such passion.

[seabeachfred]

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.

 

Well Bos, some people are pretty set in their way and are reluctant to see that some posters have a different take on things. Sabermetrics is ok by me if it isn't carried to a ridiculous extreme as an end-all. By that I mean the bean counters and figger filberts can use those means to measure things but sabermetrics cannot measure a player's heart, guts and balls. Only observation under game conditions can do that, but for tendencies and predicting what might occur on a given play or with a particular batter it certainly has its place.

[a700hitter]

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.

 

No, I like him. I always liked him, but I didn't think he had the ability to stick on the majors. He has proved that he can perform at a consistent level offensively and he has made himself serviceable in LF, RF and 1B. I lo e his work ethic. I think that he will get caught in a numbers game. Castillo has to come up. He is being paid too much. Betts isn't going down. I can't see dumping Victorino for less than full value and I don't think anyone will give is full value. Craig will probably get dumped. Nava has one quality that the others don't have except for Castillo. He hits lefty. If he didn't not lefty, I think he'd be gone already. He deserves to stick, but I think he will be a victim of a numbers game.

[Bellhorn04]

No, I like him. I always liked him, but I didn't think he had the ability to stick on the majors. He has proved that he can perform at a consistent level offensively and he has made himself serviceable in LF, RF and 1B. I lo e his work ethic. I think that he will get caught in a numbers game. Castillo has to come up. He is being paid too much. Betts isn't going down. I can't see dumping Victorino for less than full value and I don't think anyone will give is full value. Craig will probably get dumped. Nava has one quality that the others don't have except for Castillo. He hits lefty. If he didn't not lefty, I think he'd be gone already. He deserves to stick, but I think he will be a victim of a numbers game.

 

From a payroll cost point of view, though, the most logical move would be to trade Victorino, eating 5 million or so. They keep Craig because if he rebounds at all, he could replace Napoli in 2016 for a reasonable cost. And Nava is a 2 WAR player making a token 1.85 million.

[a700hitter]

From a payroll cost point of view, though, the most logical move would be to trade Victorino, eating 5 million or so. They keep Craig because if he rebounds at all, he could replace Napoli in 2016 for a reasonable cost. And Nava is a 2 WAR player making a token 1.85 million.

That could be the way it will go. It also doesn't help Victorino that he doesn't hit righties very well.

[Palodios]

The Red Sox suffer from the problem of having too much outfield talent. Someone is going to get hurt eventually, and that problem will get solved.

[a700hitter]

The Red Sox suffer from the problem of having too much outfield talent. Someone is going to get hurt eventually, and that problem will get solved.

 

Yep. You just hope that the injury happens before they trade away a couple of these guys.

[Palodios]

Yep. You just hope that the injury happens before they trade away a couple of these guys.

 

My guess is that they trade away a few guys, a few more get hurt immediately, and we have Darnell McDonald patrolling center by July.

[a700hitter]

My guess is that they trade away a few guys, a few more get hurt immediately, and we have Darnell McDonald patrolling center by July.

 

That is not optimistic at all. LOL!

[User Name]

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.

 

You hilariously use the "blah blah" while saying a whole lot of nothing. Congrats! You have mastered irony!

 

Also, our conversation has absolutely nothing to do with Kimmi's point of view. You are conflating two things in order to try and prove a point that doesn't exist. Congrats! You have mastered cognitive bias!

[Kimmi]

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, Holt, and Craig were all instrumental to the Sox win yesterday. These guys could all be starters on other teams. This is the importance of a deep bench, something we didn't have last year but did have in 2013.

[Kimmi]

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.

 

 

Spot on post.

[Kimmi]

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.

 

 

Or in other words, it's not really clutch hitting. It's his usual hitting. "Clutch" is a repeatable skill only to the extent of what the hitter does all the time, meaning there is no clutch.

[Kimmi]

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.

 

 

There is so much wrong with this post that I don't even know where to start.

[mvp 78]

Clutch doesn't exist, but someone may be more likely to fold under the pressure?

[User Name]

Clutch doesn't exist, but someone may be more likely to fold under the pressure?

 

I think that's as good a description as you could find.

[Spudboy]

To me Clutch is just an adjective to describe a timely play. Edited April 12, 2015 by Spudboy

[bostopz]

There is so much wrong with this post that I don't even know where to start.

 

Of course, when we're in a disagreement of how you use some of the metrics (you feel you are using them in a justified manner to draw conclusions, I feel some of the metrics in how you are using them are wrong or irrelevant in the manner to which you are trying to use them to prove a point.). I hope this means we won't be hurling insults at one another over time? Anyhow, if we're such a vast disagreement in how you are using the metrics or how you represent them such as base stealing with Ellsbury, it's highly probable that sometimes we are going to have a complete opposite view point. But it's not like we would be disagreeing all the time. We agree on for example that we thought Vasquez was a high valued catcher, didn't we?

 

Somebody can use stats to tell me that Andy Pettit is of more value than Mariano Rivera. However the analytics "experts" may define "more value" or similar meaning Petit is better. IMO-- Mariano Rivera is the guy I'd put in the HOF any day and say he is a greater than Andy Pettit. Rivera was greater and thus "more value" doesn't mean "greater." But you'll get some metrics geeks trying to tell you different and as a result trying to change the meaning of words or either mis-use or twist the data to fit their argument.

 

If you want to start another thread overall and go at it, I'd oblige. I don't think other posters want to see you and I squabble on this thread. Just as long as we don't throw insults at one another II'm fien with all this. Hopefully you're good too that if we disagree it won't be a war of insults?

[User Name]

To me Clutch is just and adjective to describe a timely play.

 

This is also a pretty good description.

[Bellhorn04]

Clutch doesn't exist, but someone may be more likely to fold under the pressure?

 

Good enough for me.

[cp176]

And as the pressure builds and becomes more and more intense, most seem to fold. I guess the last ones left standing are just damned good at doing what they do. The world just keeps spinning round and round.

[Kimmi]

Clutch doesn't exist, but someone may be more likely to fold under the pressure?

 

 

I agree that there are some who can't handle the pressure and will fold or choke. However, I strongly believe that in baseball, these players will never reach the major league level, or if they do, they don't last very long.

 

At the major league level, there really aren't many guys who are more likely to fold under pressure. There are just guys who aren't as good as other guys.

[Kimmi]

To me Clutch is just and adjective to describe a timely play.

 

 

There are definitely clutch hits. It's just not a repeatable skill.

[Kimmi]

Of course, when we're in a disagreement of how you use some of the metrics (you feel you are using them in a justified manner to draw conclusions, I feel some of the metrics in how you are using them are wrong or irrelevant in the manner to which you are trying to use them to prove a point.). I hope this means we won't be hurling insults at one another over time? Anyhow, if we're such a vast disagreement in how you are using the metrics or how you represent them such as base stealing with Ellsbury, it's highly probable that sometimes we are going to have a complete opposite view point. But it's not like we would be disagreeing all the time. We agree on for example that we thought Vasquez was a high valued catcher, didn't we?

 

Somebody can use stats to tell me that Andy Pettit is of more value than Mariano Rivera. However the analytics "experts" may define "more value" or similar meaning Petit is better. IMO-- Mariano Rivera is the guy I'd put in the HOF any day and say he is a greater than Andy Pettit. Rivera was greater and thus "more value" doesn't mean "greater." But you'll get some metrics geeks trying to tell you different and as a result trying to change the meaning of words or either mis-use or twist the data to fit their argument.

 

If you want to start another thread overall and go at it, I'd oblige. I don't think other posters want to see you and I squabble on this thread. Just as long as we don't throw insults at one another II'm fien with all this. Hopefully you're good too that if we disagree it won't be a war of insults?

 

 

Contrary to popular belief, I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. As I've said before, I love the debate. As far as I know, I have not thrown an insult at anyone during a baseball debate. I can debate topics without hurling insults, and I think my posts here show that.

[SoxnCycles]

I agree that there are some who can't handle the pressure and will fold or choke. However, I strongly believe that in baseball, these players will never reach the major league level, or if they do, they don't last very long.

 

At the major league level, there really aren't many guys who are more likely to fold under pressure. There are just guys who aren't as good as other guys.

 

Exactly.

Players face so many "big" moments, from the time they start playing Little League, up to the bigs. They all find a way to deal with the pressure, if they make it that far.

 

Confidence in your own talents is not lacking in the vast majority of MLB players.

[User Name]

It's undeniable that some guys do choke though.

[Kimmi]

It's undeniable that some guys do choke though.

 

 

But do they choke more often than they do in "normal" situations?

[Kimmi]

Exactly.

Players face so many "big" moments, from the time they start playing Little League, up to the bigs. They all find a way to deal with the pressure, if they make it that far.

 

Confidence in your own talents is not lacking in the vast majority of MLB players.

 

 

We think of playing in the majors as being the most pressure filled level, and maybe it is. But the amount of pressure the players must face trying to get to the show must be intense. Think of all the scouts that they play in front of, knowing that how they play is the possible difference between being a career minor leaguer (or worse), or being a major league star. If they've made it to the show, they have shown that they can handle the pressure.

[Youk Of The Nation]

My guess is that they trade away a few guys, a few more get hurt immediately, and we have Darnell McDonald patrolling center by July.

 

The next person who says that name on this site is banned. WE DONT SAY THOSE WORDS AROUND HERE.

[bostopz]

Contrary to popular belief, I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. As I've said before, I love the debate. As far as I know, I have not thrown an insult at anyone during a baseball debate. I can debate topics without hurling insults, and I think my posts here show that.

 

Great! I can too!