What will be the 2017 greatest weakness for the Sox?

[moonslav59]

Is the overlap between "Really good players" and "players good by some sort of clutch criteria" small enough to pay a ton extra for it? I just don't see it.

 

I don't think "clutch" is a skill set or a repeatable skill or quality.

 

Do I think some players have a tendency to rise above "when it counts?" Yeah, a few, but even the great ones go through long droughts with no big clutch hits.

 

Several players have been labelled as chokes and then went on to be great. Others, like Josh Beckett, started out looking like one of the best clutch performers of all time and ended up fizzling out "when it counted".

 

Trying to acquire a player due to a clutch performance or two usually doesn't work out (see Pablo).

 

For those who feel "clutch" is identifiable in certain players, give me a list of the 9 best and let's revisit that list after this season.

[sk7326]

I believe in clutch moments. And certainly who wouldn't have wanted David Ortiz up in those spots? I just happen to note that I also liked my chances with David Ortiz up pretty much any hour of the day. And his actual postseason resume has both high highs and some dead spots ... a lot of the clutch moments are a function of getting a lot of swings at it.

[moonslav59]

I believe in clutch moments. And certainly who wouldn't have wanted David Ortiz up in those spots? I just happen to note that I also liked my chances with David Ortiz up pretty much any hour of the day. And his actual postseason resume has both high highs and some dead spots ... a lot of the clutch moments are a function of getting a lot of swings at it.

 

I can think of no better example than Papi to make claims that "clutch" is a skill set, yet the numbers are mixed.

 

Career OPS: .931

Career Post Season OPS: .947

Career Late & Close OPS: .870

Career High Leverage OPS: .941

 

I get the argument that he was facing tougher pitchers in the post season and for the most part late in games during the season, but the numbers look pretty even across the board.

 

That being said, I'd take Manny up to bat late in any playoff game over anybody else.

 

Manny would probably be my number 2. Here's his numbers:

 

Career Regular Season: .996

Post Season: .937

Late & Close: .894

High Leverage: 1.018

[Bellhorn04]

For those who feel "clutch" is identifiable in certain players, give me a list of the 9 best and let's revisit that list after this season.

 

I don't think you'll be getting any takers on that one.

 

My list of the identifiably clutch is very short anyway. David Ortiz, Curt Schilling, Dave Henderson, Madison Bumgarner...

[Bellhorn04]

As for Beckett, he did have some rough outings late in his postseason career (he was pretty clearly injured in 2008), but his postseason numbers are still exceptional with a 3.07 ERA, a .94 WHIP and a 4.71 K/BB.

[Eddy Ballgame]

I don't think you'll be getting any takers on that one.

 

My list of the identifiably clutch is very short anyway. David Ortiz, Curt Schilling, Dave Henderson, Madison Bumgarner...

 

You can't forget the guy they call "Mr. October."

[Fisk]

I don't think you'll be getting any takers on that one.

 

My list of the identifiably clutch is very short anyway. David Ortiz, Curt Schilling, Dave Henderson, Madison Bumgarner...

Dave Henderson one of the great homeruns in Redsox history.

[Bellhorn04]

You can't forget the guy they call "Mr. October."

 

Point taken.

[Bellhorn04]

Dave Henderson one of the great homeruns in Redsox history.

 

And it would be two of the greatest homeruns in Sox history if not for...you know.

[cp176]

clutch = Yaz = 1967

[Bellhorn04]

clutch = Yaz = 1967

 

I missed it, but I know he was superhuman that year.

[moonslav59]

So, you can win the "clutch" label with just one hit?

 

Not in my world.

 

[cp176]

So, you can win the "clutch" label with just one hit?

 

Not in my world.

 

 

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.

[moonslav59]

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.

 

I was referring to the Dave Henderson is clutch statement.

 

I wasn't a baseball fan in 1967 at age 8. I only remember Yaz from 1971 on.

[Kimmi]

It's hard to prove someone had a bad year because of the spotlight. The Renteria case looks like the pressure got to him, but he was playing hurt all year as well.

 

No, it's not absurd to think it might get to some players, but my point is that if this can get under some of our players' skin, then the pressure of the playoffs would expose that weakness eventually or anyways.

 

 

Perhaps, but I don't think the pressure of the playoffs is quite the same thing as the everyday and possibly ongoing scrutiny that I'm talking about. Carl Crawford comes to mind.

[Bellhorn04]

So, you can win the "clutch" label with just one hit?

 

Not in my world.

 

 

But it's not based on just one hit.

[cp176]

Dave who? Just kidding- remember it well. It was a clutch hit for sure but that doesn't make him a clutch player in my estimation. Some of us were baseball fans at the age of eight. In many respects, Yaz was a clutch player throughout the course of his career. 1959 - Nellie Fox - probably why I played second base.

[Kimmi]

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.

 

1. I have never said that the fans are not mostly very supportive.

2. Fans do get on players who are playing badly.

3. The idea of clutch is not the same thing as a player not performing at his best because of something that adversely affects him.

4. I have never said that the fans can derail the entire team.

 

What I say and what you read are often two entirely different things.

[Kimmi]

Oh Christ no.

 

Now that you have pointed this obvious point out all the statisticians will inundate the thread with all the WAR that will be replace by a full year of this guy and another good pitcher, etc.

 

You know. The Sox were scoring too many runs anyway!

 

No need for the snarky post.

 

Use the ignore feature if you don't like what the 'statisticians' and the 'experts' have to say.

[Bellhorn04]

Dave who? Just kidding- remember it well. It was a clutch hit for sure but that doesn't make him a clutch player in my estimation. Some of us were baseball fans at the age of eight. In many respects, Yaz was a clutch player throughout the course of his career. 1959 - Nellie Fox - probably why I played second base.

 

Dave Henderson was a slightly above average player who had 3 tremendous postseasons.

 

1986 BOS 15 games 324/378/730 1.108 OPS 4 HR 12 RBI

1988 OAK 9 games 333/385/500 885 OPS 1 HR 5 RBI

1989 OAK 9 games 281/410/719 1.129 OPS 3 HR 5 RBI

[Kimmi]

It makes me chuckle that the same people who vehemently argue against the existence of "clutch" players also believe that an entire teams' performance can be crushed by their home fans. Inconsistent and absurd.

 

Not inconsistent at all because these are two different concepts.

 

And once again, quit exaggerating what I say.

[Eddy Ballgame]

Dave who? Just kidding- remember it well. It was a clutch hit for sure but that doesn't make him a clutch player in my estimation. Some of us were baseball fans at the age of eight. In many respects, Yaz was a clutch player throughout the course of his career. 1959 - Nellie Fox - probably why I played second base.

 

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.

[Kimmi]

Well, I'm a strong believer in psychological factors. I always have been.

 

I am a strong believer in psychological factors as well. I always have been.

 

I still don't believe in clutch though.

[cp176]

Dave Henderson was a slightly above average player who had 3 tremendous postseasons.

 

1986 BOS 15 games 324/378/730 1.108 OPS 4 HR 12 RBI

1988 OAK 9 games 333/385/500 885 OPS 1 HR 5 RBI

1989 OAK 9 games 281/410/719 1.129 OPS 3 HR 5 RBI

 

He had a knack for coming up big when it mattered most didn't he.

[Kimmi]

Sure. Clutch is a thing, I've never denied it. In fact in my mind clutch is directly related -- clutch IMHO is the absence of these psychological factors that can limit a player's success in intense situations.

 

Clutch is basically good players doing good things because they are good players.

[Bellhorn04]

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.

 

Your numbers for 1986 are the right ones, mine are a little off. There actually seems to be an odd glitch in the Game Log totals on that page.

[Bellhorn04]

I am a strong believer in psychological factors as well. I always have been.

 

I still don't believe in clutch though.

 

Oh, I know, Kimmi. That's okay, I still like you. :-)

[Eddy Ballgame]

He had a knack for coming up big when it mattered most didn't he.

 

Dave Henderson definitely seemed to enjoy the lime light. I believe that some guys do more than others. There's no question that if you poll players & coaches, they will tell you that there are certain guys they'd rather have in a big spot more than others, and it's not based on their regular season stats.

[Eddy Ballgame]

Your numbers for 1986 are the right ones, mine are a little off. There actually seems to be an odd glitch in the Game Log totals on that page.

 

Sorry about that. I think we were posting at same time. Didn't see yours until after. Same point, though.

[moonslav59]

Perhaps, but I don't think the pressure of the playoffs is quite the same thing as the everyday and possibly ongoing scrutiny that I'm talking about. Carl Crawford comes to mind.

 

I don't think we can pin CC's demise on too much pressure. He sucked when he went to LA- the land of laid back, comfy, casual. I'm not saying it had nothing to do with him sucking, but there's no way to know.

 

Even if it was, I do think the pressure would probably equate to wilting under the pressure of the playoffs.