What will be the 2017 greatest weakness for the Sox?

[moonslav59]

Nor can the inverse be proved, but you have seemingly made that conclusion.

 

No definitive determinations (or "conclusions") can be made on samples of this size, and even if the sample sizes were large enough, a random generation would produce extremely low and high numbers in a few cases, which would make a claim that someone is a "choke" unprovable.

 

You are right. The reverse cannot be "proved" either.

 

It's like the movie War Games, where the best choice is "not to play the game". If you want to call not playing the game a "conclusion" on my part, so be it.

 

Edited February 2, 2017 by moonslav59

[a700hitter]

No definitive determinations (or "conclusions") can be made on samples of this size, and even if the sample sizes were large enough, a random generation would produce extremely low and high numbers in a few cases, which would make a claim that someone is a "choke" unprovable.

 

You are right. The reverse cannot be "proved" either.

 

It's like the movie War Games, where the best choice is "not to play the game". If you want to call not playing the game a "conclusion" on my part, so be it.

 

But you did conclude that clutch doesn't exist. That is non "not playing the game."

[moonslav59]

But you did conclude that clutch doesn't exist. That is non "not playing the game."

 

I was referring to labeling a player "clutch" or "choke".

 

Using the terms "choke" or "clutch" to describe an event is another argument. Has Papi had "clutch hits"? I'm fine with using that terminology.

 

Based on many "clutch" hits and performances scattered among fewer down performances, I would not "play the game" of trying to label him a clutch player or someone else a "choke".

 

Hell, I was arguing with posters claiming JBJ was a bum based on his first 500+ PAs, so I'm not about to make determinitive proclamations based on significantly less sample sizes than that.

 

[a700hitter]

I was referring to labeling a player "clutch" or "choke".

 

Using the terms "choke" or "clutch" to describe an event is another argument. Has Papi had "clutch hits"? I'm fine with using that terminology.

 

Based on many "clutch" hits and performances scattered among fewer down performances, I would not "play the game" of trying to label him a clutch player or someone else a "choke".

 

Hell, I was arguing with posters claiming JBJ was a bum based on his first 500+ PAs, so I'm not about to make determinitive proclamations based on significantly less sample sizes than that.

 

Talking out of both sides of your mouth. You agree that clutch can't be proved or disproved, but yet you deny the existence of it. I have no idea what this ^ post means.

[cp176]

At the end of the day, clutch vs. non-clutch is just another topic to toss around.

 

As is having the home field advantage! regardless of what the stats can be used to show - if you ask the payers and they say playing at home matters then it does. I'm a lover of many things that that really can't be proven. lol

[Bellhorn04]

Maybe we should have a separate thread for clutch vs. non-clutch. It's a topic that never seems to go away.

[moonslav59]

Talking out of both sides of your mouth. You agree that clutch can't be proved or disproved, but yet you deny the existence of it. I have no idea what this ^ post means.

 

My position is clear.

 

The term "clutch" is generally used to describe someone or a team coming through in a key moment to do what it takes to win a close game or come from behind.

 

The term "choke" is generally used to describe someone or a team that blows a big lead or comes up short "when it counts" and loses.

 

I'm fine with using those words in that context.

 

This debate has been about labeling a player a "choke" or "clutch". Here is where I disagree. I'm not sure why you have such a hard time understanding a simple position. I realize when I said "there is no clutch" in the context of the conversation on labeling a player one or the other, I probably should have added that to my statement, so those that have a hard time understanding context could follow along. I have always been very consistent on not going along with making definitive judgments based on small sample sizes, and my idea of "small" is much bigger than many posters.

 

To put it simply:

 

I'm okay with people saying an act was "clutch" or "a choke".

 

I'm not okay with labeling a player or a team "clutch" or "choke" based on sample sizes that are too small to be valid.

 

 

My extended point is this:

 

If "clutch" or "choke" sample sizes were large enough, let's say 700 or 800 PAs or more, it might still be hard to determine if a player is a choke or a clutch based on the fact that if you set a random generator based on common baseball outputs and set the PAs at 800 to create a 100,000 sample sizes, you would find some sample sizes seemed overly high or low from the norm. Let's say 1,000 sample sizes were 25% or more above the norm, and 1,000 sample sizes were 25% or more below the norm. Then, you look at the 100,000 "real" MLB sample sizes and find that the amount of players 25% above or below the normal is about the same as the random generator, then a mathematician could say that those group of players performances fell within the statistical frame and could be just random vs any sort of influence from a mental ability to rise above the pressure.

 

Even if you found that the number of baseball players significantly better and/.or worse than a random generator says should be the norm, you'd still have a hard time determining if a single player truly had something special in his make-up that caused the variance, or whether he might just be that statistical subgroup that randomly did better or worse.

 

All baseball players go through hard times and good times. It's entirely possible that a player just happened to have that good or bad time at the precise moment the playoffs started with no emotional or psychological factors influencing that result. It could happen again 3 years later, when that player reaches the playoffs again. It could happen a third time- just as one could flip a coin and get heads 5 times in a row.

 

In my opinion, There's just no way of knowing for sure if a player is "clutch" or "a choke".

[moonslav59]

Maybe we should have a separate thread for clutch vs. non-clutch. It's a topic that never seems to go away.

 

Not much else to talk about, I guess.

 

We've beaten every other Sox issue to death ten times over.

[Bellhorn04]

Not much else to talk about, I guess.

 

We've beaten every other Sox issue to death ten times over.

 

Yeah, exactly. Gotta talk about something.

[mvp 78]

Yeah, exactly. Gotta talk about something.

 

1. Shoot Steve Lyons out of a cannon so that he can never call a Sox game again!

 

2. What blonde chick are they going to replace Gary Streikweeksdnflenkski with?

[a700hitter]

My position is clear.

Succinct and clear is not your hallmark. That doesn't make you a bad poster. It is just an accurate evaluation of your posting style

In my opinion, There's just no way of knowing for sure if a player is "clutch" or "a choke".

Yeah, and I don't think you would get much disagreement with this, but then you will say that it doesn't exist. Not being able to prove something doesn't equate with it not existing. That is clear and succinct.

[a700hitter]

1. Shoot Steve Lyons out of a cannon so that he can never call a Sox game again!

 

2. What blonde chick are they going to replace Gary Streikweeksdnflenkski with?

Gary is out? What a loss to the broadcast.

[moonslav59]

[/b]Succinct and clear is not your hallmark. That doesn't make you a bad poster. It is just an accurate evaluation of your posting styleYeah, and I don't think you would get much disagreement with this, but then you will say that it doesn't exist. Not being able to prove something doesn't equate with it not existing. That is clear and succinct.

 

I get caught up in a conversation and sometimes leave out statements that define the context.

 

I can understand someone reading "Clutch does not exist" in isolation and think I mean I do not even think the term is applicable in any situation.

 

I also assume everyone has been following the whole conversation, sometimes spreading over more than one thread, so I assume people have read and remembered that my position is that it is okay to use the terms "clutch" and "choke" to describe events, but not to definitively define a player or team as such, perhaps even with large enough sample sizes.

 

I have been consistently arguing (perhaps more than anyone else) the position that using small sample sizes to define someone is unfair. I assumed everyone knew that about me, since I've been a bit of a broken record on the subject for years.

 

I feel my idea of a significant sample size is probably larger or much larger than just about everyone here.

[mvp 78]

Gary is out? What a loss to the broadcast.

 

https://twitter.com/garystriewski/status/826527184957341698

 

People elsewhere are saying things like "I didn't like him at first, but he really grew on me. I'll miss him."

 

Huh? This guy was useless and not even good as a punching bag.

[a700hitter]

I get caught up in a conversation and sometimes leave out statements that define the context.

 

I can understand someone reading "Clutch does not exist" in isolation and think I mean I do not even think the term is applicable in any situation.

 

I also assume everyone has been following the whole conversation, sometimes spreading over more than one thread, so I assume people have read and remembered that my position is that it is okay to use the terms "clutch" and "choke" to describe events, but not to definitively define a player or team as such, perhaps even with large enough sample sizes.

 

I have been consistently arguing (perhaps more than anyone else) the position that using small sample sizes to define someone is unfair. I assumed everyone knew that about me, since I've been a bit of a broken record on the subject for years.

 

I feel my idea of a significant sample size is probably larger or much larger than just about everyone here.

Blah blah blah. After a while it is white noise with all of your caveats and exceptions and confusing context. Sometimes reading your posts is like reading a warning label on an over the counter painkiller. It tells me everything except whether it will make my headache go away.

[a700hitter]

 

People elsewhere are saying things like "I didn't like him at first, but he really grew on me. I'll miss him."

 

Huh? This guy was useless and not even good as a punching bag.

If they are going to put on someone for fluff who knows little or nothing about the game,they should be either female eye candy (because the audience is overwhelmingly male) or extremely funny. Gary misses the boat on both counts.

[mvp 78]

If they are going to put on someone for fluff who knows little or nothing about the game,they should be either female eye candy (because the audience is overwhelmingly male) or extremely funny. Gary misses the boat on both counts.

 

24/7 Guerin Austin

[dgalehouse]

It is debatable whether athletes can actually raise the level of their performance in " clutch " situations. However , there can be no doubt that choking is real. Some people get so caught up with stats and probabilities that they forget that we are talking about human beings , not the roll of dice or the spinning of a wheel. Humans have emotions like nervousness , anxiety and fear. Some are able to deal with it better than others. It is easy to spot choking in sports like golf , basketball, pool , etc. In a head to head situation in baseball , one player's choking may make it seem that the opponent is raising his game. In the end, " clutch" may simply be being able to control one's emotions in pressure situations. In a sport like baseball, even then there is no guarantee of success.

[Bellhorn04]

It is debatable whether athletes can actually raise the level of their performance in " clutch " situations. However , there can be no doubt that choking is real. Some people get so caught up with stats and probabilities that they forget that we are talking about human beings , not the roll of dice or the spinning of a wheel. Humans have emotions like nervousness , anxiety and fear. Some are able to deal with it better than others. It is easy to spot choking in sports like golf , basketball, pool , etc. In a head to head situation in baseball , one player's choking may make it seem that the opponent is raising his game. In the end, " clutch" may simply be being able to control one's emotions in pressure situations. In a sport like baseball, even then there is no guarantee of success.

 

Agree 100%.

[moonslav59]

Blah blah blah. After a while it is white noise with all of your caveats and exceptions and confusing context. Sometimes reading your posts is like reading a warning label on an over the counter painkiller. It tells me everything except whether it will make my headache go away.

 

Just follow the conversation- that's the context.

 

When I try to keep it simple, you misunderstand me.

 

When I go on and on trying to explain it, you say, "blah, blah, blah".

 

If you don't know my position on sample sizes by now, you never will.

[moonslav59]

It is debatable whether athletes can actually raise the level of their performance in " clutch " situations. However , there can be no doubt that choking is real. Some people get so caught up with stats and probabilities that they forget that we are talking about human beings , not the roll of dice or the spinning of a wheel. Humans have emotions like nervousness , anxiety and fear. Some are able to deal with it better than others. It is easy to spot choking in sports like golf , basketball, pool , etc. In a head to head situation in baseball , one player's choking may make it seem that the opponent is raising his game. In the end, " clutch" may simply be being able to control one's emotions in pressure situations. In a sport like baseball, even then there is no guarantee of success.

 

Or, one person could look like he's clutch, when it was really the other guy choking.

 

I have no issues with people saying, "that was a clutch hit." or "Man the Patriots really choked in that game!" (LOL).

 

I do think there are mental and emotional issues involved with high pressure situations, and how players perform under these circumstance can certainly be influenced by these factors.

 

My issue has just been about assigning definitive labels to players based on small sample sizes that are usually associated with playoff numbers. Then, even if the sample size is large enough, it is hard to prove conclusively that the results are based on a human factor or just randomness.

 

Papi seems like the best example to use, since we all are well ware of his heroics. To me, his playoff sample size is way too small to make any definitive judgement, but he was certainly on his way to showing (or maybe "proving" to some posters) he was "clutch". Let's look at his larger sample size of regular season "Late & Close" numbers. One would think that if Papi was really "clutch", he'd have equal or better numbers than his career high in Late & Close situations( Plate Appearances in the 7th or later with the batting team tied, ahead by one, or the tying run at least on deck). Here is the data:

 

Career OPS: .931

 

Career Late & Close: .870 in 1451 PAs, which to me is at least very close to a valid sample size number.

 

One can argue he was facing better pitching, so we can expect a player not to do better than the norm and maybe still be called "clutch". I get that point, but he's 60 points down. If I wasn't a Sox fan, I might use this as evidence to say his playoff numbers are just random numbers, and that nobody can "prove" he's "clutch".

 

BTW, he's .942 in High Leverage (1665 PAs), which could be used to prove he "is clutch" after all.

 

All this data is enough to make your head spin, as some seem to contradict the others, but all in all, I'd say Papi's numbers in high pressure situations during the regular season look pretty supportive of his playoff numbers (.947 in 369 PAs).

 

If any ML baseball player can ever be definitively called "clutch", it would have to be Papi. I just think it's hard to prove when looking at it from a statistical probability standpoint and sample sizes that are not large enough to be valid.

 

I know one thing, I was always glad he was on our team, especially when it counted. (Same with Manny.)

 

[mvp 78]

Since when has "clutch" only referred to Postseason stats? Shouldn't close and late stats matter too? What about any big game down the stretch run?

[moonslav59]

Since when has "clutch" only referred to Postseason stats? Shouldn't close and late stats matter too? What about any big game down the stretch run?

 

I showed Papi's "Late & Close" numbers and agree, they should be used, but Papi's career Late & Close numbers are 60 points below his career OPS, meaning if you separated the two sample sizes (Late & Close vs non Late & Close) the differential would be more than 60 points.

 

High leverage shows Papi in a better light- slightly better than non high leverage.

 

I don't think any of these numbers prove anything one way or the other, except that maybe as the sample size gets large enough to approach or reach validity, they seem to get closer to the norm (as statistical probabilities would project in a random generator).

[Spudboy]

24/7 Guerin Austin

 

ATM candidate.

[a700hitter]

Just follow the conversation- that's the context.

 

When I try to keep it simple, you misunderstand me.

 

When I go on and on trying to explain it, you say, "blah, blah, blah".

 

If you don't know my position on sample sizes by now, you never will.

i understand your small sample size position. It is not that difficult to understand. And you could say it with 80% fewer words and posts. What I don't understand is how you can say in one post that Clutch can neither be proved or disprove and then in the next breath categorically deny that it exists. That makes no sense. And then you go into this who riff about how a hit can be clutch but will not let someone characterize the player as clutch. You start to get into the realm of nonsense.

[Bellhorn04]

Since when has "clutch" only referred to Postseason stats? Shouldn't close and late stats matter too? What about any big game down the stretch run?

 

I agree that big regular season games should be part of the discussion.

[Bellhorn04]

I showed Papi's "Late & Close" numbers and agree, they should be used, but Papi's career Late & Close numbers are 60 points below his career OPS, meaning if you separated the two sample sizes (Late & Close vs non Late & Close) the differential would be more than 60 points.

 

I'm willing to bet the reason for that is that in a lot of those late & close situations he was facing a tough lefty reliever.

[Bellhorn04]

Another purely personal belief of mine is that the leverage OF the game matters more than the leverage WITHIN the game.

 

To put that in simple terms, I think the first at-bat in an elimination postseason game carries more pressure than a late & close at-bat in the first game of the season.

[Hugh2]

Depth, on both sides of the ball.

[moonslav59]

What I don't understand is how you can say in one post that Clutch can neither be proved or disprove and then in the next breath categorically deny that it exists. That makes no sense.

 

I explained it already, and once again, you misunderstood my position.

 

And you wonder why I need 80% more words.