What will be the 2017 greatest weakness for the Sox?

[moonslav59]

Dave Henderson hit 3 homeruns for the Sox that post season, with an .OPS of 1.067 in 41 at bats. His homer in the top of the 10th put the Sox up 4-3 in game 6 against the Mets and could've been the game winner. I remember it well. The place I was at erupted. It was crazy.

 

He has 7 total post season home runs in his career. Whether he was "clutch" is debatable, but it certainly wasn't just one hit. He was "Ortiz-esque" that 1986 post season.

 

He also "gagged under pressure", if you wish, when he turned a 2B into an HR to force him to have to hit the HR later to make up for it.

[Eddy Ballgame]

He also "gagged under pressure", if you wish, when he turned a 2B into an HR to force him to have to hit the HR later to make up for it.

 

I'm guessing you didn't see much of the '86 Playoffs.

 

See the video below. That's gagging?! It might've gone out anyway. By the way, you said that his homer was "one clutch hit." His homer only tied it against Donnie Moore. His sacrifice fly won it in the 11th.

 

Edited January 31, 2017 by Eddy Ballgame

[moonslav59]

I'm guessing you didn't see much of the '86 Playoffs.

 

See the video below. That's gagging?! It might've gone out anyway. By the way, you said that his homer was "one clutch hit." His homer only tied it against Donnie Moore. His sacrifice fly won it in the 11th.

 

 

I was kidding about the "gagging" comment. That's why I put in in quotes and said :if you wish"- meaning I wouldn't call him that myself, but posters who make claims based on 1 PA could have.

 

I don't even believe in calling a player a gag or choke or clutch.

 

Hendu went from goat to hero. That was my point.

 

Yes, I watched every pitch of the 86 playoffs.

 

Yes, I was wrong about "one hit". So yeat, it you want to proclaim Hendu clucth over 3 Hrs and a sac fly, go ahead.

 

I don't call anybody anything over even 200 PAs , let alone 4.

[Eddy Ballgame]

I was kidding about the "gagging" comment. That's why I put in in quotes and said :if you wish"- meaning I wouldn't call him that myself, but posters who make claims based on 1 PA could have.

 

I don't even believe in calling a player a gag or choke or clutch.

 

Hendu went from goat to hero. That was my point.

 

Yes, I watched every pitch of the 86 playoffs.

 

Yes, I was wrong about "one hit". So yeat, it you want to proclaim Hendu clucth over 3 Hrs and a sac fly, go ahead.

 

I don't call anybody anything over even 200 PAs , let alone 4.

 

Fair enough, but since it's rare for a player to get over 200 post season at bats, especially in that era, we'll have to agree to disagree that there is no such thing as certain players who shine in the spotlight more than others.

 

You may have "watched" the '86 playoffs, but it seems that you just don't remember much of it. When Henderson got back from Anaheim, he was treated like a god in Boston.

[moonslav59]

932 PAs Late & Close: .690 OPS

1171 PAs High Leverage: .710 OPS

 

I won't anoint Hendu a clutch player based on 141 PAs of post season numbers fueled by 3-4 very hot series in October.

 

He will always hold a very special place in my heart. I remember being so dejected that series. I was at my brother-in-laws house and had gotten up to leave. I was standing with the front door literally open with one foot outside, peeking my head around the door to watch that "last pitch". Needless to say, I came back in to watch the rest of the game.

 

I loved Hendu. I loved his HR trot- one flap down.

 

[moonslav59]

Fair enough, but since it's rare for a player to get over 200 post season at bats, especially in that era, we'll have to agree to disagree that there is no such thing as certain players who shine in the spotlight more than others.

 

You may have "watched" the '86 playoffs, but it seems that you just don't remember much of it. When Henderson got back from Anaheim, he was treated like a god in Boston.

 

I remember it well.

 

Sadly, the pitcher who let up that HR committed suicide years later.

 

I remember Hendu having a big World Series against the Giants after we traded him away.

[Eddy Ballgame]

I remember it well.

 

Sadly, the pitcher who let up that HR committed suicide years later.

 

I remember Hendu having a big World Series against the Giants after we traded him away.

 

Donnie Moore was the pitcher who killed himself over that home run. Sad. It bothered Hendu a lot.

[moonslav59]

Donnie Moore was the pitcher who killed himself over that home run. Sad. It bothered Hendu a lot.

 

It had to. What a messed world we live in.

[sk7326]

repeat - clutch = Yaz in 1967. At the plate as well as in the field. He isn't the only one - it is a special thing.

 

Yaz was the best player in the entire league in 1967. He was unclutch as well. (which sort of proves the point)

[moonslav59]

Yaz was the best player in the entire league in 1967. He was unclutch as well. (which sort of proves the point)

 

I wasn't a baseball fan in 1967, but I remember thinking how fitting it was that Yaz got up to bat with 2 outs down 1 in game 7 of the 1975 World Series. A big hit there would have been huge. Sadly he flied out weakly to CF.

 

He had a good series in '75. I've never knocked Yaz. He doesn't deserve it. I don't see the purpose in trying to label a person clutch or unclutch based on tiny scattered sample sizes.

[cp176]

Yaz was the best player in the entire league in 1967. He was unclutch as well. (which sort of proves the point)

 

Kind of like looking at all of the statistics people can compile and then paining a picture of what you want them to show. It isn't that simple for me. Semantics as well - It would be impossible to be unable to prove that truly clutch players who performed particularly well on the biggest of stages were also absolutely unclutch at times. Yaz just didn't get it done on his last at bat in 1978 which of course proves that he was not a clutch player. Sorry but I will never buy that way of looking at things. I like that life for me still holds mysteries and things that can not be proven or predicted regardless of what the data seems to indicate.

[Bellhorn04]

He had a good series in '75. I've never knocked Yaz. He doesn't deserve it. I don't see the purpose in trying to label a person clutch or unclutch based on tiny scattered sample sizes.

 

There isn't necessarily a 'purpose' in labeling guys like Ortiz and Henderson and Schilling as clutch. It's just a way of giving them some extra credit for their achievements in big moments. I don't see the purpose in denying them that simply because the sample sizes can never be large enough to satisfy some arbitrary standard.

[Bellhorn04]

Kind of like looking at all of the statistics people can compile and then paining a picture of what you want them to show. It isn't that simple for me. Semantics as well - It would be impossible to be unable to prove that truly clutch players who performed particularly well on the biggest of stages were also absolutely unclutch at times. Yaz just didn't get it done on his last at bat in 1978 which of course proves that he was not a clutch player. Sorry but I will never buy that way of looking at things. I like that life for me still holds mysteries and things that can not be proven or predicted regardless of what the data seems to indicate.

 

Just because he popped up on that last at-bat in 1978 doesn't mean he wasn't clutch. Yaz homered and singled and drove in two runs in that game.

 

The odds are always heavily stacked against the batter. You can't expect any hitter to come through all the time. All you can do is look at the preponderance of the numbers - the averages.

[moonslav59]

Kind of like looking at all of the statistics people can compile and then paining a picture of what you want them to show. It isn't that simple for me. Semantics as well - It would be impossible to be unable to prove that truly clutch players who performed particularly well on the biggest of stages were also absolutely unclutch at times. Yaz just didn't get it done on his last at bat in 1978 which of course proves that he was not a clutch player. Sorry but I will never buy that way of looking at things. I like that life for me still holds mysteries and things that can not be proven or predicted regardless of what the data seems to indicate.

 

The thing is, any mathematician would say the data does not support the claim that Yaz was "unclutch" or Hendu was "clutch"due to the small sample size.

 

I don't get the need to assign definitive labels to players based on such tiny and scatttered sample sizes.

 

I'm fine with saying, "Boy, that Hendu sure came through in the clutch a lot", or "It's a bummer how Yaz seemed to come up so short when it counted." But, to label someone clutch oi unclutch is just too much for me. Making definitive judgmental and evaluative statements based on 4 or 5 key hits seems ludicrous to me.

 

At least Papi's 369 career playoff PAs gets close to the an arguable sample size, especially when you look at his "clutch" numbers during the regular season as well.

 

[moonslav59]

Just because he popped up on that last at-bat in 1978 doesn't mean he wasn't clutch. Yaz homered and singled and drove in two runs in that game.

 

The odds are always heavily stacked against the batter. You can't expect any hitter to come through all the time. All you can do is look at the preponderance of the numbers - the averages.

 

Yaz also has a career 1.047 playoff OPS, so the "unclutch" argument made by small sample size (76 PAs) posters doesn't hold water either.

[a700hitter]

Yaz also has a career 1.047 playoff OPS, so the "unclutch" argument made by small sample size (76 PAs) posters doesn't hold water either.

Also let's not forget what Yaz did in September 1967 when he put the team on his back with the best stretch drive that any player has ever had.

[moonslav59]

Also let's not forget what Yaz did in September 1967 when he put the team on his back with the best stretch drive that any player has ever had.

 

After the 3 game losing streak vs BAL in the middle of September, Yaz went 23 for 44, including 4 DBLs and 5 HRs. He went 7 for 8 in the final two barn-burner games of the season- both needed wins vs a tough MN club.

 

No doubt, Yaz had many great performances when it counted.

[cp176]

After the 3 game losing streak vs BAL in the middle of September, Yaz went 23 for 44, including 4 DBLs and 5 HRs. He went 7 for 8 in the final two barn-burner games of the season- both needed wins vs a tough MN club.

 

No doubt, Yaz had many great performances when it counted.

 

I remember that last series against the Twins like it was yesterday.

[cp176]

Just because he popped up on that last at-bat in 1978 doesn't mean he wasn't clutch. Yaz homered and singled and drove in two runs in that game.

 

The odds are always heavily stacked against the batter. You can't expect any hitter to come through all the time. All you can do is look at the preponderance of the numbers - the averages.

 

I'm one of those guys who never really grew uo. You know the kind - I carry a copy of "Yes Virginia there is a Santa Claus" around in my wallet. Captain Carl will forever be the greatest clutch player in Red Sox history. I'm very happy that as the years go by, what he did seems to become even more impressive.

[moonslav59]

I remember back in the day when I believed "clutch" might be some sort of skillset or repeatable aspect of a player's game, we acquired Tony Clark. I remember thinking he was always a clutch kind of hitter. He sucked for us, so I started looking more closely at other players I used to think were "clutch": Reggie Jackson, "Three run Homer" Eddie Murray, Miguel Tejada and the like. I realized they really weren't as "superhuman" as I once believed.

[notin]

Ridiculously absurd. Do you watch or go to games. The fans have always been extremely supportive of Red Sox players with rare exceptions. The press and media can be tough for players, but they shouldn't be confused with the fan-base. Also, for someone who argues against the existence of clutch players, it is funny to me that you are making the argument that fan sentiment has the possibility of ruining the season for an entire team. That notion is absurd.

 

While I agree fans have negligible to no impact, the statement that Sox fans are essentially blindly supportive of newcomers strikes me as absurd. Heck you yourself have made nothing but detrimental comments and nicknames about Sandoval.

 

But even if we ignore Pablo, what are the legacies of some past players? John Lackey is one player who was always sorely missed, despite his being flat out awful or just plain injured for the first 3 years of his deal. JD Drew on the other hand is barely remembered fondly for his seasons, which bear remarkable resemblance to Lackey in terms of performance and injury. In fact if you compare Drew over the first four years in Boston to the legendary Dwight Evans, their numbers at the plate are amazingly identical, probably more so than any other two players in MLB history playing the same position for the same team at the same ages. Yet Drew is remembered by many as a failure and a bad contract. ..

[Bellhorn04]

I remember back in the day when I believed "clutch" might be some sort of skillset or repeatable aspect of a player's game, we acquired Tony Clark. I remember thinking he was always a clutch kind of hitter. He sucked for us, so I started looking more closely at other players I used to think were "clutch": Reggie Jackson, "Three run Homer" Eddie Murray, Miguel Tejada and the like. I realized they really weren't as "superhuman" as I once believed.

 

The repeatability of clutch hitting is certainly severely limited by the fact that, in general terms, the hitter is always at a great disadvantage to the pitcher and the defense.

[moonslav59]

The repeatability of clutch hitting is certainly severely limited by the fact that, in general terms, the hitter is always at a great disadvantage to the pitcher and the defense.

 

And, the sample size from post season to post season and even season to season is even smaller than the career numbers.

[sk7326]

Kind of like looking at all of the statistics people can compile and then paining a picture of what you want them to show. It isn't that simple for me. Semantics as well - It would be impossible to be unable to prove that truly clutch players who performed particularly well on the biggest of stages were also absolutely unclutch at times. Yaz just didn't get it done on his last at bat in 1978 which of course proves that he was not a clutch player. Sorry but I will never buy that way of looking at things. I like that life for me still holds mysteries and things that can not be proven or predicted regardless of what the data seems to indicate.

 

When I meant unclutch - I note that he was the league's best player. I would have wanted him up at every hour of the day - not just the big moments. That is my issue with the clutch player definition - it does not deny psychology. It does not deny the reality of players coming up big. It's just that in almost every case - those identified also happened to be the best players in the sport. They weren't hulking up - they were that way the entire time. The moment found them.

[Bellhorn04]

When I meant unclutch - I note that he was the league's best player. I would have wanted him up at every hour of the day - not just the big moments. That is my issue with the clutch player definition - it does not deny psychology. It does not deny the reality of players coming up big. It's just that in almost every case - those identified also happened to be the best players in the sport. They weren't hulking up - they were that way the entire time. The moment found them.

 

There are also some very good players whose postseason numbers inexplicably fall woefully short of their regular season numbers. Based on my primitive research, the poster boy being Jeff Bagwell.

[moonslav59]

There are also some very good players whose postseason numbers inexplicably fall woefully short of their regular season numbers. Based on my primitive research, the poster boy being Jeff Bagwell.

 

I think it is easily "explicable". Any random sample sizes of that size will generate some players that are way above or below their norms.

 

I'm not saying high pressure has nothing to do with a player's performance, but taking tiny scattered sample sizes out of a players portfolio and then trying to make sense of numbers far out of sinc with the norm is not something I feel reveals anything useful in terms of labeling a player one name or another.

 

Yes, Bagwell sucked in the few games he played in the playoffs. Papi did great. That's about all it means to me.

[User Name]

I think it is easily "explicable". Any random sample sizes of that size will generate some players that are way above or below their norms.

 

I'm not saying high pressure has nothing to do with a player's performance, but taking tiny scattered sample sizes out of a players portfolio and then trying to make sense of numbers far out of sinc with the norm is not something I feel reveals anything useful in terms of labeling a player one name or another.

 

Yes, Bagwell sucked in the few games he played in the playoffs. Papi did great. That's about all it means to me.

 

This is a fantastic point. Well said.

[Spudboy]

I just accept that some really good players made big ( timely ) hits or plays. Better players have a tendency to do that.

[moonslav59]

What if the Sox never made the playoffs after 2003?

 

Would Papi and his 17 for 76 record at that point be enough to call him "unclutch"?

[mvp 78]

What if the Sox never made the playoffs after 2003?

 

Would Papi and his 17 for 76 record at that point be enough to call him "unclutch"?

 

He seemed to be pretty clutch during that season as well as during the regular season in subsequent years.