What will be the 2017 greatest weakness for the Sox?

[a700hitter]

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.

At least, I make an effort to understand your pile of gibberish. LOL!!

[a700hitter]

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.

And yes, it is your fault. If you cannot clearly communicate your thoughts to an intelligent person who knows the subject matter, that is on you.

[notin]

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

 

There is a big difference in getting a clutch hit and being a clutch hitter. Francisco Cabrera got one of the biggest clutch hits in Braves history. That never made him a guy they wanted up in key situations.

 

The problem with proving or disproving the existence of a clutch hitter is the lack of any actual definition - especially one that does not contain the word "clutch."

 

But if anyone ever makes one, it had to include David Ortiz. That goes without argument.

 

Last season Ortiz had an OPS Off 1.021. In innings 7-9, his OPS was 1.046. Basically the same. But in Late and Close situations as defined by B-R, his OPS was .903. Still awesome but a little worse.

 

So did Ortiz come through better"in the clutch"? Or was he just an awesome hitter who got some very big hits based on his hitting ability?

Edited February 7, 2017 by notin

[mvp 78]

There is a big difference in getting a clutch hit and being a clutch hitter. Francisco Cabrera got one of the biggest clutch hits in Braves history. That never made him a guy they wanted up in key situations.

 

The problem with proving or disproving the existence of a clutch hitter is the lack of any actual definition - especially one that does not contain the word "clutch."

 

But if anyone ever makes one, it had to include David Ortiz. That goes without argument.

 

Last season Ortiz had an OPS Off 1.021. In innings 7-9, his OPS was 1.046. Basically the same. But in Late and Close situations as defined by B-R, his OPS was .903. Still awesome but a little worse.

 

So did Ortiz come through better"in the clutch"? Or was he just an awesome hitter who got some very big hits based on his hitting ability?

Tough part would be trying to normalize that close and late stats since Papi probably faced a ton of really tough lefties in the late innings, something he wouldn't typically see innings 1 - 6 or in blowouts.

[Spudboy]

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

 

Yeah I like you Moon and you add a lot to this board. But sometimes I too have some difficulty understanding what point you are making.

 

I'm not taking sides here. Just being fair, I hope.

 

How about we not get up into each others faces over silly issues like Clutch and Choke?

 

Save the venom for Yankee fans ( Doc excluded ).

[Bellhorn04]

And then there's the question of whether a 'late and close' situation in a game in mid-April actually carries any significant additional pressure. I don't think it does.

[mvp 78]

And then there's the question of whether a 'late and close' situation in a game in mid-April actually carries any significant additional pressure. I don't think it does.

 

Unless they are playing the EVIL EMPIRE. All those games are super duper important and maybe more important than even the playoffs!!!!

[notin]

Tough part would be trying to normalize that close and late stats since Papi probably faced a ton of really tough lefties in the late innings, something he wouldn't typically see innings 1 - 6 or in blowouts.

 

That is an excellent point.

 

However, and do give this some thought before answering, if we are talking about a hitter who excels in the clutch, does it matter? Isn't part of clutch hitting the the opposing team makes it as tough as they csn?

 

I guess we really do need a definition of a clutch hitter. ...

[S5Dewey]

There is a big difference in getting a clutch hit and being a clutch hitter. Francisco Cabrera got one of the biggest clutch hits in Braves history. That never made him a guy they wanted up in key situations.

 

The problem with proving or disproving the existence of a clutch hitter is the lack of any actual definition - especially one that does not contain the word "clutch."

 

But if anyone ever makes one, it had to include David Ortiz. That goes without argument.

 

Last season Ortiz had an OPS Off 1.021. In innings 7-9, his OPS was 1.046. Basically the same. But in Late and Close situations as defined by B-R, his OPS was .903. Still awesome but a little worse.

 

So did Ortiz come through better"in the clutch"? Or was he just an awesome hitter who got some very big hits based on his hitting ability?

 

It's pretty obvious that there are some questions asked there that only Papi could answer. He could be asked if he felt any different in certain situations than in others - if he felt he could 'turn it on' when he needed to and be successful.

 

I think most of us would agree that there is such a thing as a "choker" (or a chocker, if you will!) whether it's at work on on the golf course. Some people simply don't respond well to pressure. We continually talk about a player putting too much pressure on himself and the negative effect of it. He's choking, if you will. So if we can buy into that why can't we buy into the exact opposite being true - that some people respond better than others to pressure?

 

When Chuck Knoblock couldn't get the ball to first base if they'd let him use a wheelbarrow it was mental. He choked up when he tried to throw the ball and it affected his ability to throw. Whether it's choking or being clutch, it's all mental and it's all real.

[a700hitter]

 

I guess we really do need a definition of a clutch hitter. ...

It's like pornography. You know it when you see it and the players and coaches can see it.

[Bellhorn04]

That is an excellent point.

 

However, and do give this some thought before answering, if we are talking about a hitter who excels in the clutch, does it matter? Isn't part of clutch hitting the the opposing team makes it as tough as they csn?

 

I guess we really do need a definition of a clutch hitter. ...

 

To me a clutch hitter is one who does as well or better in high leverage situations as they do in normal situations. A really refined measurement of this would have to take into account strength of opposition, in my opinion.

[mvp 78]

That is an excellent point.

 

However, and do give this some thought before answering, if we are talking about a hitter who excels in the clutch, does it matter? Isn't part of clutch hitting the the opposing team makes it as tough as they csn?

 

I guess we really do need a definition of a clutch hitter. ...

 

Yes, it should matter. Even if Papi has ice in his veins, I don't expect him to hit better than normal against LHP in late innings. To me, clutch is just replicating normal performance under high stress situations.

[moonslav59]

And yes, it is your fault. If you cannot clearly communicate your thoughts to an intelligent person who knows the subject matter, that is on you.

 

Nobody else had trouble understanding. They may have disagreed, but they understood my point.

 

Only you keep having trouble.

 

Yet, somehow that's my fault in your eyes.

[Bellhorn04]

It's pretty obvious that there are some questions asked there that only Papi could answer. He could be asked if he felt any different in certain situations than in others - if he felt he could 'turn it on' when he needed to and be successful.

 

I think most of us would agree that there is such a thing as a "choker" (or a chocker, if you will!) whether it's at work on on the golf course. Some people simply don't respond well to pressure. We continually talk about a player putting too much pressure on himself and the negative effect of it. He's choking, if you will. So if we can buy into that why can't we buy into the exact opposite being true - that some people respond better than others to pressure?

 

When Chuck Knoblock couldn't get the ball to first base if they'd let him use a wheelbarrow it was mental. He choked up when he tried to throw the ball and it affected his ability to throw. Whether it's choking or being clutch, it's all mental and it's all real.

 

And if you really want to get into the psychology of it, it has a lot to do with the effect of negative thoughts on performance.

 

I think when David Price takes the mound in a playoff game he's got mental baggage. It's hard for him not to think about past playoff games and his poor record and the media attention to it and all that crap.

 

'Sports psychologist' has been a profession for a while now, after all.

[a700hitter]

Nobody else had trouble understanding. They may have disagreed, but they understood my point.

 

Only you keep having trouble.

 

Yet, somehow that's my fault in your eyes.

But it doesn't matter to you anyway.

[moonslav59]

Yeah I like you Moon and you add a lot to this board. But sometimes I too have some difficulty understanding what point you are making.

 

I'm not taking sides here. Just being fair, I hope.

 

Fair enough.

 

I've been accused of being too verbose, so sometimes I try to say things as briefly as possible. That means not explaining the nuances involved or the context of a rolling debate. I get that.

 

The difference is, you don't misstate my positions.

 

There's only one guy who keeps continuously misstating my positions, even after I have gone out of my way to explain it it in ever simplified ways.

[moonslav59]

But it doesn't matter to you anyway.

 

Not really, but it does make me curious why someone would do what you do.

[a700hitter]

Not really, but it does make me curious why someone would do what you do.

Because you are not clear. That is why. That is on you.

 

As far as your accusation about misrepresentation, I directly quote you, so you are misrepresenting yourself.

Edited February 7, 2017 by a700hitter

[moonslav59]

Because you are not clear. That is why. That is on you.

 

Lack of comprehension skills is on you. Lack of any understanding of how a rolling debate goes, where you don't have to keep going back and qualifying all your statements, because it was said before is something you have a hard time grasping.

 

I'm fine with a misinterpretation here and there, but after you called me out on that statement, I explained it several times.

 

You continue to keep misstating my position, even after a very easily understood and clear explanation of my position.

 

That's on you.

 

Own it.

 

I owned up to how my statement could have been taken out of context.

[mvp 78]

Alright, time to hug it out.

[a700hitter]

Lack of comprehension skills is on you. Lack of any understanding of how a rolling debate goes, where you don't have to keep going back and qualifying all your statements, because it was said before is something you have a hard time grasping.

 

I'm fine with a misinterpretation here and there, but after you called me out on that statement, I explained it several times.

 

You continue to keep misstating my position, even after a very easily understood and clear explanation of my position.

 

That's on you.

 

Own it.

 

I owned up to how my statement could have been taken out of context.

I was an attorney for 35 years, and I interpreted complex legal document successfully over the course of my career. There is nothing wrong with my comprehension skills. LOL!!

 

As far as your accusation about misrepresentation, I directly quote you most of the time, so you are misrepresenting yourself.

[moonslav59]

Because you are not clear. That is why. That is on you.

 

As far as your accusation about misrepresentation, I directly quote you, so you are misrepresenting yourself.

 

You crack me up.

 

You clearly have no clue about what the word "context" means.

 

You totally ignored my explanations, even the most simple ones....my guess is out of spite or complete ignorance, but maybe there is some other reason for your continued misstatements and misrepresentations.

[moonslav59]

I was an attorney for 35 years, and I interpreted complex legal document successfully over the course of my career. There is nothing wrong with my comprehension skills. LOL!!

 

As far as your accusation about misrepresentation, I directly quote you most of the time, so you are misrepresenting yourself.

 

A lawyer. That explains it.

 

Like questioning the meaning of "is".

[a700hitter]

Alright, time to hug it out.

I think he needs to unbunch hs undies.

[moonslav59]

I think he needs to unbunch hs undies.

 

What if I go commando?

 

[a700hitter]

You crack me up.

 

You clearly have no clue about what the word "context" means.

 

You totally ignored my explanations, even the most simple ones....my guess is out of spite or complete ignorance, but maybe there is some other reason for your continued misstatements and misrepresentations.

Take a deep breath. Get a glass of water. Calm down. Don't make me get ugly with you.

[notin]

Yes, it should matter. Even if Papi has ice in his veins, I don't expect him to hit better than normal against LHP in late innings. To me, clutch is just replicating normal performance under high stress situations.

 

I like the start of that definition.

 

Of course, it does require some sort of definition of high pressure situations. Bellhorn gave a good starting point that games in April have less pressure that games in September. Technically that only applies to good teams, since bad teams are still in the race in April. But I get the idea.

 

I can work with "replicating normal performance."

 

I disagree on the point about LHP. But maybe that's all part of the high pressure situation...

Edited February 7, 2017 by notin

[harmony]

A lawyer. That explains it.

 

Like questioning the meaning of "is".

You got somethin' against lawyers?

[Kimmi]

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.'

 

Ortiz is more likely than most players to come through in a big moment because he's a great hitter.

 

His postseason numbers being better than his overall numbers is randomness, just like a player having worse numbers than average is randomness.

[Kimmi]

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

 

Nowhere did I ever make an assumption about you that was insulting and flat out wrong.