What will be the 2017 greatest weakness for the Sox?

[User Name]

What I mean is, if a guy like Ortiz has good numbers in big moments, you say 'well that's because he's simply a good player.'

 

If a guy like David Price has bad numbers in big moments, you say 'well that's randomness and small sample size.'

 

Why are you trying to use logic on talksox?

[Spudboy]

Why are you trying to use logic on talksox?

 

"Unpresidented".

[S5Dewey]

Why do you assume that people who believe in stats have not played on championship teams?

 

Your statement is very insulting.

 

I don't find it any more insulting than being told that something doesn't exist - after I've lived it.

[a700hitter]

I don't find it any more insulting than being told that something doesn't exist - after I've lived it.

There is a smugness on the part of the statheads who think that stats can prove or disprove whether the mental aspect of the game can negatively or positively impact on performance. Only the competitors can know the look of defeat in an opponent's eyes or demeanor or the look of indomitable spirit.

[cp176]

There is a smugness on the part of the statheads who think that stats can prove or disprove whether the mental aspect of the game can negatively or positively impact on performance. Only the competitors can know the look of defeat in an opponent's eyes or demeanor or the look of indomitable spirit.

 

I think that you are right but I don't get out much. I'm not sure if it is just a talksox thing or if the feeling is nationwide. I think that probably all coaches and GMs realize the vast amount of knowledge that can come from the overwhelming amount of data that gets collected. I think that they just don't get overwhelmed by it. It isn't a contest to see who is right or who is wrong.

[User Name]

I don't find it any more insulting than being told that something doesn't exist - after I've lived it.

 

Your personal experience proves or disproves nothing.

[moonslav59]

Some points I'd like to make....

 

Of course the "mental aspect of the game" has something to do with higher or lower performance and productivity. I don't think anyone doubts that.

 

I do think mental toughness plays into performance levels, but the point that is being missed is that just because someone says "clutch" or "choke" cannot be proven with data, due (at times) in part to insufficient sample sizes, does not mean we believe mental aspects don't play a role in events happening. Sometimes, I think people read too much into some statements.

 

There are many "statheads" that played the game at various levels and lengths of time. There is not a clear line of demarcation between athletes and people who understand and use data.

 

"Proof" is a loaded word. It's very hard to prove an event occurred because of mental determination or just plain random luck. One can believe in something without being able to prove it. One can disbelieve in something the same way. Those that don't believe that being clutch is a skill set or repeatable skill can point to random generators of data and point out how eerily similar the results are to true life and say, maybe the results we saw from Papi or Schilling were just random events that fell within the normal range of results seen by randomness.

 

I do believe Papi, Manny and Schilling had extra determination and the ability to concentrate (and relax) during high pressure situations. I'm okay with saying they "came through in the clutch". My point has always been that one cannot prove they were clutch or just lucky. It is possible to be lucky over a pretty large sample size.

 

I think it is unfair to categorically claim someone is a choke or clutch based on scattered and small sample sizes that appear to match up with random generated data. I can't say DEFINITIVELY that anybody is clutch or choke.

[a700hitter]

Some points I'd like to make....

 

Of course the "mental aspect of the game" has something to do with higher or lower performance and productivity. I don't think anyone doubts that.

 

I do think mental toughness plays into performance levels, but the point that is being missed is that just because someone says "clutch" or "choke" cannot be proven with data, due (at times) in part to insufficient sample sizes, does not mean we believe mental aspects don't play a role in events happening. Sometimes, I think people read too much into some statements.

 

There are many "statheads" that played the game at various levels and lengths of time. There is not a clear line of demarcation between athletes and people who understand and use data.

 

"Proof" is a loaded word. It's very hard to prove an event occurred because of mental determination or just plain random luck. One can believe in something without being able to prove it. One can disbelieve in something the same way. Those that don't believe that being clutch is a skill set or repeatable skill can point to random generators of data and point out how eerily similar the results are to true life and say, maybe the results we saw from Papi or Schilling were just random events that fell within the normal range of results seen by randomness.

 

I do believe Papi, Manny and Schilling had extra determination and the ability to concentrate (and relax) during high pressure situations. I'm okay with saying they "came through in the clutch". My point has always been that one cannot prove they were clutch or just lucky. It is possible to be lucky over a pretty large sample size.

 

I think it is unfair to categorically claim someone is a choke or clutch based on scattered and small sample sizes that appear to match up with random generated data. I can't say DEFINITIVELY that anybody is clutch or choke.

Saying that "clutch" or "choke" is difficult or impossible to definitively prove is one thing, but concluding that it doesn't exist (which the statheads including you have said is smug and not definitively supportable.

[moonslav59]

Saying that "clutch" or "choke" is difficult or impossible to definitively prove is one thing, but concluding that it doesn't exist (which the statheads including you have said is smug and not definitively supportable.

 

You're still wrong on my point.

 

I've simplified for you, but you still don't get it, don't want to get it, or just can't comprehend it.

[a700hitter]

You're still wrong on my point.

 

I've simplified for you, but you still don't get it, don't want to get it, or just can't comprehend it.

At other times, you have flat out said that it doesn't exist, so I can't take seriously any of your caveats and conditional statements.

 

I'll go one step further and say it is not a science at all.

 

1) It's nonexistent.

2) Even if it existed, the sample sizes can enver be large enought to determine anything definitively.

Edited February 7, 2017 by a700hitter

[mvp 78]

I think it is unfair to categorically claim someone is a choke or clutch based on scattered and small sample sizes that appear to match up with random generated data. I can't say DEFINITIVELY that anybody is clutch or choke.

 

I think it's completely fair to say "David Price has choked in the playoffs." Does that necessarily mean he'll choke the next time he's in the playoffs? Nope.

 

You can say the same thing for Mark Melancon in Boston. Melancon choked as the closer for Boston. Does that mean he would always choke in Boston? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe he does do better in a smaller market in the NL East like DC or Pittsburgh? It would be very fair for someone to say "I don't want the Sox to bring back Melancon, because he choked here."

[a700hitter]

I think it's completely fair to say "David Price has choked in the playoffs." Does that necessarily mean he'll choke the next time he's in the playoffs? Nope.

 

You can say the same thing for Mark Melancon in Boston. Melancon choked as the closer for Boston. Does that mean he would always choke in Boston? Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe he does do better in a smaller market in the NL East like DC or Pittsburgh? It would be very fair for someone to say "I don't want the Sox to bring back Melancon, because he choked here."

As the sample size increases, the player gets more accustomed to those situations and develops better coping mechanisms for the stress. As Price gets to the post season, it would be very possible that he will make some adjustments. But up to now, he has choked.

[mvp 78]

As the sample size increases, the player gets more accustomed to those situations and develops better coping mechanisms for the stress. As Price gets to the post season, it would be very possible that he will make some adjustments. But up to now, he has choked.

 

It's also possible that his previous choking just burrows it's way into his brain and he becomes unable to replicate his normal performances.

 

To me, I think he just sucks when pitching in the cold. He struggled out of the gate last year and has struggled as the weather gets colder in October.

[a700hitter]

It's also possible that his previous choking just burrows it's way into his brain and he becomes unable to replicate his normal performances.

 

To me, I think he just sucks when pitching in the cold. He struggled out of the gate last year and has struggled as the weather gets colder in October.

Cold weather could be a factor, but didn't he choke indoors in Tampa and Toronto?

[jacksonianmarch]

Clutch is a real thing. For those who played, you see people who rise under pressure and those who wilt. You're going to have some trouble quantifying it because I think most players fall into the middle ground with a few choking and a few rising when the lights shine brightest.

[mvp 78]

Cold weather could be a factor, but didn't he choke indoors in Tampa and Toronto?

 

Those two domes are pretty drafty!

[moonslav59]

At other times, you have flat out said that it doesn't exist, so I can't take seriously any of your caveats and conditional statements.

 

Then, go on believing falsehoods if you wish.

[moonslav59]

Clutch is a real thing. For those who played, you see people who rise under pressure and those who wilt. You're going to have some trouble quantifying it because I think most players fall into the middle ground with a few choking and a few rising when the lights shine brightest.

 

Everyone knows almost all baseball players go through slumps and hot streaks several times over a career and even a season.

 

How can anyone know, for a fact, or prove that a player doing very well in a playoff series is doing so, because he is "clutch" or because he's just hot at the "right time"?

 

I'm not disagreeing that some players have mental skills that allow then a better chance at doing well in high pressure situations. My point is and always has been, that it is near impossible to prove in any definitive way.

 

That's not the same as saying it doesn't exist or can't exist.

 

[S5Dewey]

Your personal experience proves or disproves nothing.

 

I disagree. The fact that it happened proves that it exists. And your comment doesn't remove the fact that it exists.

[S5Dewey]

Everyone knows almost all baseball players go through slumps and hot streaks several times over a career and even a season.

 

How can anyone know, for a fact, or prove that a player doing very well in a playoff series is doing so, because he is "clutch" or because he's just hot at the "right time"?

 

I'm not disagreeing that some players have mental skills that allow then a better chance at doing well in high pressure situations. My point is and always has been, that it is near impossible to prove in any definitive way.

 

That's not the same as saying it doesn't exist or can't exist.

 

 

This is getting very close to being a theological discussion.

[a700hitter]

Then, go on believing falsehoods if you wish.

You caveat your opinions in so many ways that it is hard to know what you are saying sometimes, but with regard to clutch, your predominant opinion, as evidenced in one of your more succinct posts that I quoted, seems to be that it doesn't exist.

[moonslav59]

You caveat your opinions in so many ways that it is hard to know what you are saying sometimes, but with regard to clutch, your predominant opinion, as evidenced in one of your more succinct posts that I quoted, seems to be that it doesn't exist.

 

I explained that statement I made in very simple terms after trying numerous times in other ways.

 

You either refused to accept it or refuse to understand a simple concept like context.

 

Instead, you continue misrepresenting my position. Enjoy yourself. I don't get why you do it, but at this point, I could care less.

 

[moonslav59]

This is getting very close to being a theological discussion.

 

I think, therefore I am.

[Dojji]

Players also believe that good teams know how to win the 1 run games.

 

Ha!

 

That statement is far less ridiculous thsn you make it out to be. It's like tne recent pleasantness last Sunday where I'm convinced one of the biggest factors in the outcome was the pure experience of the winning team at finding ways to win -- whether or not it bears fruit in any individual game it's reasonable to expect that experience, intelligence, and having the skills to play for a single run more easily than your opponent would when the situation warrants it, on average, help a team win more than their share of tight games.

[a700hitter]

I explained that statement I made in very simple terms after trying numerous times in other ways.

 

You either refused to accept it or refuse to understand a simple concept like context.

 

Instead, you continue misrepresenting my position. Enjoy yourself. I don't get why you do it, but at this point, I could care less.

 

Your statements about the topic since you have been on this site have been consistent in that you deny its existence. The rest of your explanations frankly are gobbledegook.

[moonslav59]

Your statements about the topic since you have been on this site have been consistent in that you deny its existence. The rest of your explanations frankly are gobbledegook.

 

You are good at being wrong.

[a700hitter]

You are good at being wrong.

For someone who says that he could care less about what I think, you have an awful lot to say to me.

[a700hitter]

You are good at being wrong.

And you are good at being unclear if someone can be good at that.

[moonslav59]

And you are good at being unclear if someone can be good at that.

 

Funny how you are the only one who continuously misunderstands my points being made.

 

In fact you misunderstand more than the rest of the board combined, but I guess in your eyes that's my fault.

[mvp 78]

Funny how you are the only one who continuously misunderstands my points being made.

 

In fact you misunderstand more than the rest of the board combined, but I guess in your eyes that's my fault.

 

That's a poor correlation. Just because he's the only one making a fuss, doesn't mean everyone else always understands your posts.