What will be the 2017 greatest weakness for the Sox?

[Bellhorn04]

Terry Francona provides a pretty good example of why Boston can be a hard place to play (or manage). The guy wins 2 titles in 8 years after the 0 for 85 stretch, and yet for many Sox fans he was Francoma or Sit and Spit or a guy who was just lucky to have such good teams. The biggest shock for me when I first joined a Red Sox forum in 2007 was how much grief Francona was taking there.

[a700hitter]

Terry Francona provides a pretty good example of why Boston can be a hard place to play (or manage). The guy wins 2 titles in 8 years after the 0 for 85 stretch, and yet for many Sox fans he was Francoma or Sit and Spit or a guy who was just lucky to have such good teams. The biggest shock for me when I first joined a Red Sox forum in 2007 was how much grief Francona was taking there.

An 8 year run is pretty good for any manger in any town. Plus, Francona didn't lose his job, because Boston is a tough town. He lost his job, because he admittedly lost control of the clubhouse.

Edited February 4, 2017 by a700hitter

[Bellhorn04]

An 8 year run is [retty good for any manger in any town. Plus, Francona didn't lose his job, because Boston is a tough town. He lost his job, because he admittedly lost control of the clubhouse.

 

And I don't disagree with any of that.

[notin]

Terry Francona provides a pretty good example of why Boston can be a hard place to play (or manage). The guy wins 2 titles in 8 years after the 0 for 85 stretch, and yet for many Sox fans he was Francoma or Sit and Spit or a guy who was just lucky to have such good teams. The biggest shock for me when I first joined a Red Sox forum in 2007 was how much grief Francona was taking there.

 

It did seem like too many fans thought that team could win with any manager and those titles were a given. I don't know why they thought it was such a cinch, when many of them claim to have been fans for Sox teams that I thought were easily as good or better than the 2004 team.

 

Francona never got credit because fans like over managers. They won't admit it, but a lot of fans really think a manager needs to be calling for bunts, steals and hit and run plays all the time or he isn't doing his job. A lot of them also think a manager isn't doing his job if a pitcher gives up two hard hit balls in one inning without being replaced, snd they think s good manager can turn a bad bullpen into a good onr by using pitchets right (or, more accurately, by not using guys wrong.)

[Bellhorn04]

It did seem like too many fans thought that team could win with any manager and those titles were a given. I don't know why they thought it was such a cinch, when many of them claim to have been fans for Sox teams that I thought were easily as good or better than the 2004 team.

 

Francona never got credit because fans like over managers. They won't admit it, but a lot of fans really think a manager needs to be calling for bunts, steals and hit and run plays all the time or he isn't doing his job. A lot of them also think a manager isn't doing his job if a pitcher gives up two hard hit balls in one inning without being replaced, snd they think s good manager can turn a bad bullpen into a good onr by using pitchets right (or, more accurately, by not using guys wrong.)

 

Ain't it the truth.

[moonslav59]

So, is John Farrell a weakness on this team?

[Kimmi]

You'd be far better than that woman that does games for The Yankees. She sucks donkey dicks.

 

Well, I'm not sure how much of a compliment that is. LOL

 

I could not do play by play. I'd be too emotional and too much of a homer in terms of cheering for the Sox and against the opponent.

[Bellhorn04]

So, is John Farrell a weakness on this team?

 

Pretty hard to answer that one.

[moonslav59]

Pretty hard to answer that one.

 

Yeah, it is.

 

I'm not usually one to blame the manager, and I was one of the last ones to agree that Bobby V needed to go. I'm not a big JF fan at all, but I'm not sure I'd go so far as to call him a "weakness". I know some here do.

 

I would not call him "strength".

[Kimmi]

But to me the whole idea is trying to evaluate individual players...I don't really understand.

 

As you know, we've debated this topic many times before, and it's been a while since I've read some of the articles, but I have read in depth about the existence or non-existence of clutch. I can't remember the specifics of what they did with the postseason performances (I searched briefly but could not find what I was looking for.), but IIRC, they grouped 'clutch players' together and supposed chokers together to get a large enough sample. To S5, they are not 'averaging' the good performances with the bad so that they 'cancel' each other out.

 

Beyond that, this topic has been dissected by the stat geeks in every way imaginable.

 

They come to the same conclusion every time - that clutch does not exist, meaning that it is not a repeatable skill, meaning that there is no predictive value in it. Any differences in the stats that you might see are exactly what you would expect to see due to ..... here's that word again.... randomness.

[Fisk]

I don't believe Farrell is a great game manager, but I do believe he has the respect of the clubhouse, which to me is just as important. Nothing sinks a team more then a bad clubhouse, just look at 2011 for an example.

[Bellhorn04]

As you know, we've debated this topic many times before, and it's been a while since I've read some of the articles, but I have read in depth about the existence or non-existence of clutch. I can't remember the specifics of what they did with the postseason performances (I searched briefly but could not find what I was looking for.), but IIRC, they grouped 'clutch players' together and supposed chokers together to get a large enough sample. To S5, they are not 'averaging' the good performances with the bad so that they 'cancel' each other out.

 

Beyond that, this topic has been dissected by the stat geeks in every way imaginable.

 

They come to the same conclusion every time - that clutch does not exist, meaning that it is not a repeatable skill, meaning that there is no predictive value in it. Any differences in the stats that you might see are exactly what you would expect to see due to ..... here's that word again.... randomness.

 

Sigh...

[moonslav59]

I don't believe Farrell is a great game manager, but I do believe he has the respect of the clubhouse, which to me is just as important. Nothing sinks a team more then a bad clubhouse, just look at 2011 for an example.

 

I think lack of talent has sunk more teams than lack of clubhouse togetherness or cohesiveness.

[moonslav59]

Sigh...

 

Back to square one... again!

 

[Fisk]

I think lack of talent has sunk more teams than lack of clubhouse togetherness or cohesiveness.

 

Well of course a lack of talent sinks a team more, but I was talking about teams with talent. Another example would be the Matt Williams National teams.

[Spudboy]

Sigh...

 

Dito.

[moonslav59]

Well of course a lack of talent sinks a team more, but I was talking about teams with talent. Another example would be the Matt Williams National teams.

 

I think the biggest reason teams with talent are sunk is the fact that there are multiple other teams with talent out there on any given year.

 

Only one team with talent can win each year.

 

Does clubhouse unity help at times? I think so, but I think luck and fractional better talent makes more of a difference.

 

I do believe that believing you can win makes a difference, and any distraction from that mindset can undermine performance levels, so I do agree it is a factor.

[Fisk]

I believe the Sox had a more talented team then the Guardians last year, especially with Carrasco and Salazar hurt. Clubhouse unity helped them get on a roll,which derailed the Sox and came within one game of beating the Cubs. The 13 sox were definitely not the most talented group in the league, but they had a very tight clubhouse which helped them get on a roll.

[moonslav59]

I believe the Sox had a more talented team then the Guardians last year, especially with Carrasco and Salazar hurt. Clubhouse unity helped them get on a roll,which derailed the Sox and came within one game of beating the Cubs. The 13 sox were definitely not the most talented group in the league, but they had a very tight clubhouse which helped them get on a roll.

 

I thought our clubhouse was pretty tight last year. We got outpitched by lesser pitcher (on paper). I'm not so sure it was because their clubhouse atmosphere was better than our. Baseball is a game that is often won by a lesser team. I'm not sure every loss can be attributed to psychological factors.

[Fisk]

I thought our clubhouse was pretty tight last year. We got outpitched by lesser pitcher (on paper). I'm not so sure it was because their clubhouse atmosphere was better than our. Baseball is a game that is often won by a lesser team. I'm not sure every loss can be attributed to psychological factors.

 

Not the only factor they won, but a contributing factor. If it was a fractured clubhouse they would not have gone as far. My whole point in the beginning is the managers value lays as much in the clubhouse as it does with game management.

[Spudboy]

The Guardians won.

 

The Sox lost.

 

That's the way she f***ing goes boys.

[Kimmi]

This is all good time passing chatter isn't it. I would be very interested to hear what other lifelong coaches feel about the concepts of players who tend to choke and those who tend to excel when the games are on the line. It is one thing to analyze and scrutinize from the outside as opposed to actually being involved in the activity. To the people I spent my working life around, concepts like mental toughness although difficult to really describe had some significant meaning. To the people who think that the home field or court doesn't make a difference - you never played a bb game at Lawrence High School in Fairfield, Maine. I get the fact that people tend to think that professional athletes are supposed to be above all of these emotions that mere mortals seem to feel - my opinion is that they are not though.

 

I have said it many times but I'll say it again. As far as I know, there is not a single stat person who has dismissed emotions and the human element aspect of the game. The guys who make it to the majors and stick there are the top .1%. They have to be able to handle the pressure and perform well in the toughest of situations. So it can be said all major leaguers are clutch.

 

Of course coaches and players believe in clutch. I will quote Joe Sheehan's explanation on that because he states it so well:

 

"The notion of clutch persists because it allows for a storyline with a hero and a goat, and that's both an easy tale to write and an easy one to read. While it's a facile concept, players buy into it because it's flattering. No one wants to believe that they're successful just because they hit the genetic lottery and that, on a particular day, they performed better than the other, equally-gifted guys. It's much more enjoyable to extrapolate a certain moral superiority from on-field success, to attribute that game-winning double to your heart and desire, rather than to your fast-twitch muscles and hitting the fastball at just the right angle to push it past the diving center fielder. It's this need to turn physics and physicality into a statement about the character of people--to stick labels on them based on their day at work and the bounce of a ball--that is the most damning thing about the myth of clutch."

Edited February 4, 2017 by Kimmi

[Kimmi]

Maybe clutch is just as imaginary as the philosopher's stone. I'm a true believer though.

 

Clutch is a mirage.

[Kimmi]

I think a reading of the book "Francona, The Red Sox Years" by Frnacona and Shaughnessy is a good way to pass the time before spring training commences. Clearly there is so much that goes on from players health, feelings and interactions that get involved with performance. Also the demands put on teams by the front office needs often are opposed to the best interests of winning. So many personalities and non-baseball related issues are playing out continuously. While Theo was a proponent of data driven decision making, he also understood the needs of Francona to have freedom in keeping the clubhouse together in his own way. All of you hung up on Sabermetrics should read this just to raise your awareness of the real world of team dynamics. Concepts like clutch performance and home field advantage can and are impacted by how a manager can set up a rotation and use players in positions where they thrive.

 

Once again, no one is denying the impact that emotions and personal factors can have on players. If a player is unhappy or doesn't feel supported by his coach, I don't think he will perform as well as he would if he's happy and he knows his manager has his back. If a player has a sick child at home or is going through some other personal problem, those things can most definitely affect his performance.

 

That said, that idea is not the same as a player being clutch, and home field advantage is still not nearly as important as many people think it is.

[Bellhorn04]

The problem is that with baseball you can bury so much in randomness.

 

Look at Schilling.

 

Regular season

ERA 3.46

WHIP 1.14

K/BB 4.38

 

Postseason 19 starts

ERA 2.23

WHIP .97

K/BB 4.80

 

He was an excellent pitcher in the regular season but in the postseason he took it to a higher level. Look at those numbers, all against playoff caliber teams, obviously.

 

But what I gather is that the argument is that the excellence of those numbers may be mere randomness - that he could have had a stretch like that in the regular season as well. Well, maybe he could have. But is there really proof that it was all randomness? I don't see how.

[Kimmi]

I don't believe Farrell is a great game manager, but I do believe he has the respect of the clubhouse, which to me is just as important. Nothing sinks a team more then a bad clubhouse, just look at 2011 for an example.

 

IMO, the ability to manage the players and the clubhouse is a lot more important than the in game managing.

 

I don't agree with all of Farrell's calls, but I think he gets a lot more criticism than he deserves. The same was true with Francona. A manager is criticized almost anytime a call does not work. But that does not necessarily mean that it is the wrong call.

[Kimmi]

Sigh...

 

Because you "sighed" me, I am posting this quote from Sheehan to you.

 

"The idea that players' abilities do not change in the clutch is one of those things that gets the anti-stathead crowd riled up, gets them talking about pocket protectors and people who take the fun out of the game. I don't buy it; the fun is the game, in the performances and the competition and the talent that we get to watch.

 

When you have that, who needs a myth?"

[Kimmi]

Well of course a lack of talent sinks a team more, but I was talking about teams with talent. Another example would be the Matt Williams National teams.

 

A prime example would be our 2012 team.

[Bellhorn04]

Because you "sighed" me, I am posting this quote from Sheehan to you.

 

"The idea that players' abilities do not change in the clutch is one of those things that gets the anti-stathead crowd riled up, gets them talking about pocket protectors and people who take the fun out of the game. I don't buy it; the fun is the game, in the performances and the competition and the talent that we get to watch.

 

When you have that, who needs a myth?"

 

Yeah, but the 'performances' are all just randomness in action. The players show up and play and whatever happens happens.

[Kimmi]

The Guardians won.

 

The Sox lost.

 

That's the way she f***ing goes boys.

 

If only the Sox had home field advantage.....