7/31 @ Angels

[mvp 78]

From the article:

 

"There's probably someone who read that nothing was significant and thought "Ha! Another myth bites the dust!" Not so fast. This is a mistake that I see a lot in sabermetrics and have probably made myself.

 

There probably are cases in which an older player takes a younger player under his wing. It's hard to believe that he would do so for everyone on the team (or that everyone would need it). Also, it's probably not the case that all older players are good at that sort of thing. But it's harder to believe that it never happens, that there aren't certain guys who are good at it, and that somewhere along the line, someone benefited from that sort of mentorship. Maybe we don't know fully how to identify the good ones, but it's a bigger stretch of the imagination to deny that this effect is out there."

 

I agree that veteran leadership is important. However, it can't really be quantified. How can we say veteran leadership matters, but clutch is fairy tales and pixie dust?

[Kimmi]

I didn't say Veteran Leadership wasn't important even though there is no evidence it really matters. My question is why draw the line at Clutch?

 

Did the Sox win in 2013 because they had veteran guys on the team while the Cardinals had a younger squad? Or did the Sox win because of Papi's heroics and Koji's filthiness in late and close situations?

 

I do know that having veteran or experience players on the team does not correlate strongly with postseason success.

 

Clutch has been broken down and studied in just about every way imaginable. It has been shown not to be a repeatable skill.

[Kimmi]

I agree that veteran leadership is important. However, it can't really be quantified. How can we say veteran leadership matters, but clutch is fairy tales and pixie dust?

 

I have no proof of whether veteran leadership is important or not. It is intangible. I believe that it is important, just like I believe that 'grit' is important, though I have no proof of that either. Unless I see evidence to the contrary, I'm going to continue to believe it.

 

I have seen very strong evidence telling me that 'clutch' does not exist.

[Bellhorn04]

Here we go LOL

 

I believe clutch does exist in a few rare cases like Ortiz and Schilling. But I have my own simple measuring tool - postseason performance vs. regular season performance. I don't believe that part has been *disproven*, I believe it's been *dismissed* because of sample size.

[illinoisredsox]

Something is wrong with the guy. He should probably still be on the DL.

 

We know he was out with flu-like symptoms during the Detroit series. It's possible that it's still affecting him a little, and let's face it, when you are already that borderline on your talent/performance, it doesn't take much to make you look completely awful.

 

But something is still wrong. Earlier in the year, even when he was making out, he would usually make the pitcher work a little (foul off a bunch, make the guy throw 6-7 or more pitches). Now it's almost 3 and out. every time

[illinoisredsox]

Right now, Hanigan does 3 things for the club:

 

1 - He is allowing both Leon and Vazquez to catch 4/6 or 5/7 times a week. If Vazquez were up, either he or Leon gets the 2. Vazquez needs to play every day to work on his hitting, and the way Leon is going right now, that would change in Boston.

 

2 - He catches Porcello and for whatever reason, that combo is working. And as Crash Davis said, "If you believe you're playing well because you're getting laid, or because you're not getting laid, or because you wear women's underwear, then you *are*!"

 

3 - He attempts to catch Wright, which has to be like trying to catch a double header and so it keeps Leon fresher.

 

 

Put whatever value you want on any of them. The first has a lot of value IMO. My guess is come September, Vazquez comes back up and Hanigan will be reduced to catching only Porcello (unless that magic ends).

[Kimmi]

Here we go LOL

 

I believe clutch does exist in a few rare cases like Ortiz and Schilling. But I have my own simple measuring tool - postseason performance vs. regular season performance. I don't believe that part has been *disproven*, I believe it's been *dismissed* because of sample size.

 

LOL Yeah, we've been down this road before, many times.

 

Not to disrespect Ortiz in any way, but as heroic as he has been, he has failed to come through in many clutch situations also. Ortiz is not clutch. He is just a good hitter, period.

[mvp 78]

LOL Yeah, we've been down this road before, many times.

 

Not to disrespect Ortiz in any way, but as heroic as he has been, he has failed to come through in many clutch situations also. Ortiz is not clutch. He is just a good hitter, period.

 

Clutch doesn't mean you get every hit. It's just the same as veteran leadership doesn't mean a veteran's presence helps every prospect.

[mvp 78]

http://archive.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/gallery/ortizwalkoffs/

[a700hitter]

Ortiz is the one guy that his teammates, manager and fans want to see at the plate in a big spot whether he is hitting .260 or .320 whether he is 9 of his last 10 or 0-15. He doesn't shrink in a big spot. That is clutch. Lots of guys shrink in big spots, including pitchers.

[Maxbialystock]

I have no proof of whether veteran leadership is important or not. It is intangible. I believe that it is important, just like I believe that 'grit' is important, though I have no proof of that either. Unless I see evidence to the contrary, I'm going to continue to believe it.

 

I have seen very strong evidence telling me that 'clutch' does not exist.

 

Pretty convincing. I definitely think veterans can help, but it depends on the veterans. To me Pedroia is a better leader than Ortiz because he also plays a position in the field. He missed the 2004, but not the 2007 and 2013 WS, plus he has a pretty good track record when he is healthy. I agree with you that it's an intangible.

 

I have seen no evidence that clutch isn't real, but I've seen nothing that says it is real. I do think hitters with talent and experience are more likely to hit in clutch situations simply because they are more likely to hit period. So much depends on what the pitcher is throwing.

[mvp 78]

Ortiz is the one guy that his teammates, manager and fans want to see at the plate in a big spot whether he is hitting .260 or .320 whether he is 9 of his last 10 or 0-15. He doesn't shrink in a big spot. That is clutch. Lots of guys shrink in big spots, including pitchers.

 

Like Mark Melancon?

[User Name]

Ortiz is the one guy that his teammates, manager and fans want to see at the plate in a big spot whether he is hitting .260 or .320 whether he is 9 of his last 10 or 0-15. He doesn't shrink in a big spot. That is clutch. Lots of guys shrink in big spots, including pitchers.

 

There's no clutch, there's choke. Choke is quantifiable.

[Kimmi]

Clutch doesn't mean you get every hit. It's just the same as veteran leadership doesn't mean a veteran's presence helps every prospect.

 

Papi comes through more often in clutch situations simply because he comes through more often overall.

 

He's not a 'clutch' hitter. He's a smart hitter.

[a700hitter]

Like Mark Melancon?

Yep. Clutch doesn't mean that a player gets better in big spots. It just seems that way, because a lot of guys s*** themselves in those situations- like Melancon.

[a700hitter]

There's no clutch, there's choke. Choke is quantifiable.

i don't disagree. The clutch player doesn't choke.

[Maxbialystock]

Ortiz is the one guy that his teammates, manager and fans want to see at the plate in a big spot whether he is hitting .260 or .320 whether he is 9 of his last 10 or 0-15. He doesn't shrink in a big spot. That is clutch. Lots of guys shrink in big spots, including pitchers.

 

I agree he's the one guy, etc--present tense. But you better believe there have been seasons--or parts of seasons--in Boston when he was not the best choice. As for right now, he leads the AL in OPS, plus he has a ton of hitting experience, so of course he is everyone's first choice. To me a hitter is clutch when he consistently over-performs in clutch situations. Thus Pedroia's dinger yesterday was almost beyond clutch because he had already struck out 3 times and he doesn't have the big OPS like Ortiz and he doesn't drive in a lot of runs and he has half as many dingers as Ortiz.

[a700hitter]

I am always perplexed at the debate over whether clutch exists. Neither side prevails or wins the argument and even if they did, what a Pyrrhic victory -- it wouldn't change anyone's decisions regarding managing a game or making personnel decisions. I think Doji's comment in my signature applies to this issue as well.

[Bellhorn04]

LOL Yeah, we've been down this road before, many times.

 

Not to disrespect Ortiz in any way, but as heroic as he has been, he has failed to come through in many clutch situations also. Ortiz is not clutch. He is just a good hitter, period.

 

But it's a fact he's been better in the postseason than in the regular season, taking into account the better pitching you face in the postseason.

 

Obviously he still fails plenty in clutch situations because the pitching and defense always have a huge advantage.

[Bellhorn04]

Now Schilling is a guy that the 'clutch doesn't exist' folks won't even touch. He scares them off.

[User Name]

Now Schilling is a guy that the 'clutch doesn't exist' folks won't even touch. He scares them off.

 

Why is Schilling a definitive argument towards the existence of clutch? I don't see it.

[jad]

There's no clutch, there's choke. Choke is quantifiable.

 

Exactly: the best definition of a clutch hitter (since several posters have noted that we all on some level believe in the existence of such a thing--as fans we can believe whatever we want) is a hitter who doesn't choke. There was in fact a quantifiable study on this, that began with a couple of assumptions (1) that you could define 'clutch' situations, and (2) that a presumably 'clutch' hitter (that is, one who performed better in those situations) would do that year after year. But they didn't (that is, the fact that someone would do better in clutch situations one year was no guarantee of doing so the next year). i.e., what looks like 'clutch' hitting is pure chance. Now obviously a .350 hitter is better in the clutch that a .250 hitter. That's why Ortiz is so good: his performance in clutch situations is the same as elsewhere. Another one who would fit this is Manny, who seemed never to give a crap what the situation was (probably the best attitude for a hitter to have). (For you duffer golfers out there, this is why you can hit provisions so well, or why you play so much better when you don't keep score! ... did I mention my hole-in-one two weeks ago on just such a shot?)

[Bellhorn04]

Why is Schilling a definitive argument towards the existence of clutch? I don't see it.

 

I guess I'm seduced by his postseason resume.