What will be the 2017 greatest weakness for the Sox?

[cp176]

I'm questioning its accuracy as a label. ..

 

Sorry - I'm just not to keen on a labels in general. If someone on here wants to call me an ******* when I act like one (in print) I'm ok with that but to slap a label on me without having any clue who or what I am - my point is that there is too much of that crap going join in general in the world today. Now I am ready to move on as well.

[moonslav59]

Sorry - I'm just not to keen on a labels in general. If someone on here wants to call me an ******* when I act like one (in print) I'm ok with that but to slap a label on me without having any clue who or what I am - my point is that there is too much of that crap going join in general in the world today. Now I am ready to move on as well.

 

Couldn't have said it any better!

[cp176]

I'm questioning its accuracy as a label. ..

 

 

couldn't do it - terms like clutch and choke - team player ... have been used for years by everyone involved with athletics at all levels. I would hate to think that I was spending any time at all trying to prove whether they are accurate labels or not. They are opinions. They are personal and just speaking for myself don't need to be proven.

[cp176]

Couldn't have said it any better!

 

 

thanks - now I think that I am ready to move on - hopefully

[a700hitter]

Is calling someone clutch derogatory? What did I miss? I have been called anti-stat, traditionalist, old fashioned, old school, and just old. Sorry - left one out - conservative (the only one I like). I don't think any of the other labels really apply but oh well. If someone watched me play today and called me clutch, in all honesty that would thrill me - the others even though I can live with them, not so much. All things I don't think need to be proven in my world.

++1

[notin]

I don't believe those who don't are operating with an agenda. I just like arguing with them.

 

When someone argues that people who tried to disprove clutch hitters did so because they started off with the.assumption there was no such thing and only wanted to prove themselves correct, that is stating it was done with an agenda. And that post does appear in this thread....

[Bellhorn04]

When someone argues that people who tried to disprove clutch hitters did so because they started off with the.assumption there was no such thing and only wanted to prove themselves correct, that is stating it was done with an agenda. And that post does appear in this thread....

 

That was S5Dewey. You have to take it up with him.

[a700hitter]

When someone argues that people who tried to disprove clutch hitters did so because they started off with the.assumption there was no such thing and only wanted to prove themselves correct, that is stating it was done with an agenda. And that post does appear in this thread....

That was 1 poster and that doesn't represent the rest of us who think clutch is real,but you are painting everyone else with a broad brush.

[jad]

couldn't do it - terms like clutch and choke - team player ... have been used for years by everyone involved with athletics at all levels. I would hate to think that I was spending any time at all trying to prove whether they are accurate labels or not. They are opinions. They are personal and just speaking for myself don't need to be proven.

 

I'm not sure I understand. There are lots of terms of "received wisdom" that become repeated so often they begin to be taken as fact. To say they are opinions and "accepted" opinions doesn't validate them at all. For some of these terms, the entire point of critiquing them is to question whether this received wisdom has any basis in fact (in part, the point of Moneyball, no?). And that seems to me a legitimate discussion: can "clutch" be supported statistically? It's quite different from "team-player," which we all know, even when we use it, is so vague as to be virtually meaningless (like the terms "nice guy, a-hole.")

[notin]

Tha. I was 1 poster and that doesn't represent the rest of us who think clutch is real,but you are painting everyone else with a broad brush.

 

I never said it was everyone.

[a700hitter]

I never said it was everyone.

Thank you for clarifying.

[mvp 78]

I know that you likely won't believe this, but stat geeks are probably far more objective and less likely to be swayed by bias than you give them credit for. They aren't trying to prove themselves right. They may have an opinion on something going in, but they are not going to 'sway' the numbers to prove themselves right.

 

I'm going to disagree. The general bias on that part of stat heads is that if it can't currently be shown on fangraphs, then it can't be real.

[notin]

I'm going to disagree. The general bias on that part of stat heads is that if it can't currently be shown on fangraphs, then it can't be real.

 

Now THAT is painting everyone with a broad brush...

[moonslav59]

Now THAT is painting everyone with a broad brush...

 

..and is just flat out wrong.

[notin]

I'm not sure I understand. There are lots of terms of "received wisdom" that become repeated so often they begin to be taken as fact. To say they are opinions and "accepted" opinions doesn't validate them at all. For some of these terms, the entire point of critiquing them is to question whether this received wisdom has any basis in fact (in part, the point of Moneyball, no?). And that seems to me a legitimate discussion: can "clutch" be supported statistically? It's quite different from "team-player," which we all know, even when we use it, is so vague as to be virtually meaningless (like the terms "nice guy, a-hole.")

 

Eloquent ending.

 

The "stated" crowd and the entire sabermetrics movement in stats was done to start looking at an old gsme in a new way. Part of this was to substantiate or dispel many of the aspects of the game taken for granted.

 

As for the whole "team player" label, or the more frequently used indivindividual terms of "clubhouse leader" and "clubhouse cancer", these should probably go as well. After all, these players are human beings, I have seen many times. Well, as human beings I expect them to potentially behave differently on different teams with different teammates. I never would expect any player to like or get along with all 24 of his human being teammates on any team. Yet I always ser players labeled one way or the other with no middle ground.

 

I'm sure there are a few players who are always leaders and a few who are always cancers. But I expect the vast majority tp fall in the middle, occasionally displaying behavior associated with either label. ...

[Bellhorn04]

Eloquent ending.

 

The "stated" crowd and the entire sabermetrics movement in stats was done to start looking at an old gsme in a new way. Part of this was to substantiate or dispel many of the aspects of the game taken for granted.

 

As for the whole "team player" label, or the more frequently used indivindividual terms of "clubhouse leader" and "clubhouse cancer", these should probably go as well. After all, these players are human beings, I have seen many times. Well, as human beings I expect them to potentially behave differently on different teams with different teammates. I never would expect any player to like or get along with all 24 of his human being teammates on any team. Yet I always ser players labeled one way or the other with no middle ground.

 

I'm sure there are a few players who are always leaders and a few who are always cancers. But I expect the vast majority tp fall in the middle, occasionally displaying behavior associated with either label. ...

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you express concern in a number of posts about Sale being a clubhouse diva and that sort of thing?

[mvp 78]

Now THAT is painting everyone with a broad brush...

 

"General bias." I didn't say "everyone's bias."

[mvp 78]

..and is just flat out wrong.

 

How so?

[moonslav59]

How so?

 

Not one "stathead" I know of claims any single source or any single data reference at a definitive support for any of their claims, let alone this subject.

 

Then, there's the fact that some "statheads" haven't even chimed in on the term "real" or not real (or deosn't exist), at least in the context of whether "clutch exists" in a general sense of the word or whether we can definitively label any player "clutch" based on sample size concerns or as a comparative to random samples.

[a700hitter]

Clutch exists and so does choking. IMO the debatable issue is whether those labels are applicable to certain players at certain points in time.

[S5Dewey]

1. Not what he asked.

 

1a. Then I guess I STILL don't know what he asked.

 

2. Are you actually trying to say stat people who "disproved" clutch went into it with a pre-determined mindset, but YOU have been open-minded on the subject?

 

I'm not sure which part of your two-part question I should be answering, so Yes and No.

 

3. Exactly why would the stat community have a pre-determined outcome for clutch? Saying "because they can't explain it" is a cop out and incorrect answer. First, that's a challenge to that type of crowd. And second,*are you saying "anti-stat" people are always so open-minded when it comes to change and are willing to embrace anything that challenges their "expertise"? You know, like defensive metrics?

 

3a. You sure have this habit of asking multiple questions! I didn't know there was going to be a quiz.

 

3a.1 I'm sorry they find that challenging. I'm also sorry you find it to be an "incorrect answer", but in order to know that one is incorrect you must know the "correct" one. Would you be willing to share the correct one with us? My point is that people tend to believe what they want to believe, often times what the already "know" to be true.

 

3a.2. No.

[notin]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you express concern in a number of posts about Sale being a clubhouse diva and that sort of thing?

 

I did.

 

And Mr. Sale certainly gave some cause last year to have his maturity questioned. Hopefully his new situation works out better for him...

[notin]

Clutch exists and so does choking. IMO the debatable issue is whether those labels are applicable to certain players at certain points in time.

 

I'm fine with labeling individual moments / h its / games / performances as clutch or choke. Attributing those labels to any one player across his career is what I question...

[a700hitter]

I'm fine with labeling individual moments / h its / games / performances as clutch or choke. Attributing those labels to any one player across his career is what I question...

And that can be debated.

[Eddy Ballgame]

And that can be debated.

 

It's all definitely debatable, but I'd be willing to bet that if you polled every player in baseball, without their answers being tied to them, on which teammate they'd want at the plate with the game on the line, the teammate with the best "stats" wouldn't be the answer a lot more often than people think.

[moonslav59]

And that can be debated.

 

That all can and has been debated.

 

I guess it may never end.

[moonslav59]

I'm fine with labeling individual moments / h its / games / performances as clutch or choke. Attributing those labels to any one player across his career is what I question...

 

That's what I believe, but it took me 17 paragraphs to say it!

 

Hijole!

 

[Bellhorn04]

Can I refer to David Ortiz and Curt Schilling not as clutch but as 'postseason heroes' then?

[moonslav59]

Can I refer to David Ortiz and Curt Schilling not as clutch but as 'postseason heroes' then?

 

You have my permission.

 

(Not that you needed it.)

[Kimmi]

You consider yourself to be a "stat geek." So no one is labeling you in a way that you don't label yourself. "Anti-stat" and "traditionalist" are not accurate for the people who you pin those labels on.

 

First off, as far as I know, I haven't 'pinned' the traditionalist label on any poster here. Yes, I talk about baseball traditionalists, but not about any poster in particular. At any rate, IMO, it's in no way a derogatory term, and it is not an all or nothing term. My father is a baseball traditionalist. I respect him more than any other man, and I have no desire to call him something derogatory. I, myself, am a traditionalist in many ways, even in certain aspects of baseball, and I am proud of it.

 

As a self-proclaimed stat geek, I have been labeled as someone who has never played on winning teams and therefore have to rely on statistics to answer everything. I have been labeled by you as being smug and, ironically, as someone who likes to give derogatory labels to everyone that I disagree with.

 

Unfortunately, there comes a point in many of your debates, where you stop debating the issue and you resort to trying to discredit the other poster with insults. You have labeled me as a homer, then turned around and labeled me as a negative whiner.

 

I made the mistake of engaging you with this nonsense. I won't make it again. If you're not up to the challenge of discussing or debating baseball with me, then you're not worth my time. Stick to baseball.