Sox hitting??

[Bellhorn04]

John Farrell: "Our group has got such grit, such determination. The competitiveness, there’s no quit in them.""

 

Are any or all of those things statistically quantifiable? Or could they be lumped into one category called, "digging deeper"?

 

It's my belief there are a whole range of factors that can affect a player's performance in one game or even one at-bat. Some of those factors may be physiological or psychological - the hitter just feels good, he's confident, alert, he's 'seeing the ball well', as the expression goes. Some of the factors may be mental or strategic - the hitter has studied this pitcher and has a good idea what he throws in certain situations. Some of the factors are luck and randomness - the hitter guesses right on the pitch, or he hits the ball through a hole in the infield, when he was basically just trying to make good contact.

 

When you've got so much stuff going on it's virtually impossible to say exactly why the hitter succeeded that time. As we all know even the best hitters only hit .300. And even the best clutch hitters can't keep coming up with big hits on a consistent basis because the odds are stacked against them.

 

With all that said I do consider Ortiz and Schilling to have been clutch performers in the postseason.

[devildavid]

John Farrell: "Our group has got such grit, such determination. The competitiveness, there’s no quit in them.""

 

Are any or all of those things statistically quantifiable? Or could they be lumped into one category called, "digging deeper"?

 

They should be lumped into the category called sports cliches.

[ohiosoxfan]

I haven't read all 186 previous pages, so I may be repeating something mentioned earlier. That said, I feel the Red Sox need a big power hitter. They lost that puzzle piece when Big Papi retired and I don't see a replacement for him. There have been suggestions that the Sox trade for Giacarlo Stanton in the off season. That would be an adequate, albeit expensive, alternative. I have checked the Red Sox farm system and I really don't see a power hitter there. I feel a clean up/DH player is a strong need and I hope Dombrowski does something along those lines.

[moonslav59]

John Farrell: "Our group has got such grit, such determination. The competitiveness, there’s no quit in them."

 

Hey.... if Jf says so, then it must be.

[moonslav59]

There would be no shortage of at bats for Nunez, that's for sure. Having a player like him would be good insurance for Pedroia, and to a lesser extent Devers and Bogaerts. I'm just afraid that he will be looking for more than the Sox are willing to pay. Nunez did say that he would be interested in returning, so that's encouraging.

 

I think we can pay all the arbs and option raises, sign a big bat for clean up and Nunez and still be under the second penalty tier of the luxury tax.

 

I'm not saying we will or should do so, but I think it can be done.

 

I wish Nunez was a better fielder, but with a team seeming lacking in offense going into 2018, having a super sub who could possibly hit over .800 is something that could put us over the top.

[oldtimer]

I think we can pay all the arbs and option raises, sign a big bat for clean up and Nunez and still be under the second penalty tier of the luxury tax.

 

I'm not saying we will or should do so, but I think it can be done.

 

I wish Nunez was a better fielder, but with a team seeming lacking in offense going into 2018, having a super sub who could possibly hit over .800 is something that could put us over the top.

 

Totally agee and to that add that we need to revamp our utility field players. Young, Holt and Davis are not the Red Sox future. We can do as well and more cheaply from the Travis, Hernandez, Lin and Marrero group or possibly someone who will emerge from the minors in the next few months.

[moonslav59]

Totally agee and to that add that we need to revamp our utility field players. Young, Holt and Davis are not the Red Sox future. We can do as well and more cheaply from the Travis, Hernandez, Lin and Marrero group or possibly someone who will emerge from the minors in the next few months.

 

If we sign a FA 1Bman and Nunez our 13 position players should be:

 

1. Bogey SS

2. Betts RF

3. Beni LF

4. ____ 1B

5. Devers 3B

6. Pedey 2B

7. JBJ CF

8. HRam DH

9. Vaz C

 

Bench: Nunez, Leon, and two from Travis, Hernandez, Lin, Holt (?) and Marrero

 

Edited September 20, 2017 by moonslav59

[mvp 78]

I'm glad you see Devers at 3b.

[oldtimer]

If we sign a FA 1Bman and Nunez our 13 position players should be:

 

1. Bogey SS

2. Betts RF

3. Beni LF

4. ____ DH

5. Devers 3B

6. Pedey 2B

7. JBJ CF

8. HRam DH

9. Vaz C

 

Bench: Nunez, Leon, and two from Travis, Hernandez, Lin, Holt (?) and Marrero

 

 

Don't get your advocacy here? Did you mean the FA first baseman in the 4th slot? If we do sign Nunez, who would you prefer as DH, Nunez or Hanley? Unless Hanley improves which is really questionable, I would play Nunez when he wasn't filling in for Pedey. I think the question remains on Devers best position with now 13 errors in 46 games. A lot on throwing across the diamond.

[moonslav59]

Don't get your advocacy here? Did you mean the FA first baseman in the 4th slot? If we do sign Nunez, who would you prefer as DH, Nunez or Hanley? Unless Hanley improves which is really questionable, I would play Nunez when he wasn't filling in for Pedey. I think the question remains on Devers best position with now 13 errors in 46 games. A lot on throwing across the diamond.

 

Yes, it is more likely we get a 1Bman than a 3Bman or DH-only type. (I went back and corrected it.)

 

I'd have Nunez play more than HRam, but HRam would get more PAs at DH.

[devildavid]

Tonight the Sox hitting showed the value of taking pitches and getting on base. They won without hitting a ball out of the infield, adrenaline be damned!

[moonslav59]

I'm glad you see Devers at 3b.

 

I'd still rather have Moose than Hosmer, assuming cost is not an issue, but I doubt that happens.

 

The best idea is probably to try for a 1 year fix at 3B then go hard at Machado next winter. That gives Devers another year to show growth on defense at 3B.

 

I'm not sure if signing a "bridge" is a great idea when the "window" is only open for a finite time.

[moonslav59]

If we sign a FA 1Bman and Nunez our 13 position players should be:

 

1. Bogey SS

2. Betts RF

3. Beni LF

4. ____ 1B

5. Devers 3B

6. Pedey 2B

7. JBJ CF

8. HRam DH

9. Vaz C

 

Bench: Nunez, Leon, and two from Travis, Hernandez, Lin, Holt (?) and Marrero

 

 

Maybe we sign JD Martinez to DH...

 

 

1. Bogey SS

2. Betts RF

3. Beni LF

4. Martinez 1B/DH

5. Devers 3B (1B)

6. Pedey 2B

7. JBJ CF

8. HRam 1B/DH or Nunez 3B/DH

9. Vaz C

 

Bench: Nunez, Leon, and two from Travis, Hernandez, Lin, Holt (?) and Marrero

 

Edited September 20, 2017 by moonslav59

[oldtimer]

I'd still rather have Moose than Hosmer, assuming cost is not an issue, but I doubt that happens.

 

The best idea is probably to try for a 1 year fix at 3B then go hard at Machado next winter. That gives Devers another year to show growth on defense at 3B.

 

I'm not sure if signing a "bridge" is a great idea when the "window" is only open for a finite time.

 

it will be interesting. Moreland, who has looked good at times, is not good enough in my opinion. I don't see an obvious answer.

[devildavid]

It's my belief there are a whole range of factors that can affect a player's performance in one game or even one at-bat. Some of those factors may be physiological or psychological - the hitter just feels good, he's confident, alert, he's 'seeing the ball well', as the expression goes. Some of the factors may be mental or strategic - the hitter has studied this pitcher and has a good idea what he throws in certain situations. Some of the factors are luck and randomness - the hitter guesses right on the pitch, or he hits the ball through a hole in the infield, when he was basically just trying to make good contact.

 

When you've got so much stuff going on it's virtually impossible to say exactly why the hitter succeeded that time. As we all know even the best hitters only hit .300. And even the best clutch hitters can't keep coming up with big hits on a consistent basis because the odds are stacked against them.

 

With all that said I do consider Ortiz and Schilling to have been clutch performers in the postseason.

 

One of the most unexpected clutch performers in the postseason was Derek Lowe. He could be a train wreck at times in the regular season but he seemed to relax and have fun in the postseason.

[moonslav59]

it will be interesting. Moreland, who has looked good at times, is not good enough in my opinion. I don't see an obvious answer.

 

We could get lucky and get one of these (bridge) guys to bite on a one year deal and then have a career year like Morrison has just had:

 

Duda

 

Alonso

 

Morrison (again)

 

Santana

 

[oldtimer]

We could get lucky and get one of these (bridge) guys to bite on a one year deal and then have a career year like Morrison has just had:

 

Duda

 

Alonso

 

Morrison (again)

 

Santana

 

 

True, but it is a crap shoot.

[Slasher9]

One of the most unexpected clutch performers in the postseason was Derek Lowe. He could be a train wreck at times in the regular season but he seemed to relax and have fun in the postseason.

 

clutch doesnt exist. he was just randomly lucky....

[moonslav59]

True, but it is a crap shoot.

 

Agreed.

 

We all know our biggest need is a clean-up hitter. Even that might not be enough.

 

I'd prefer signing someone over opening more holes through a trade. (Plus, it's not my money!)

 

I'm not for rolling the dice at this point. We've already mortgaged too much of our extended future for this 3-4 year window.

 

Why stop now?

 

[moonslav59]

clutch doesnt exist. he was just randomly lucky....

 

Clutch exists.

 

Consistently clutch hitters do not.

[mvp 78]

Clutch exists.

 

Consistently clutch hitters do not.

 

https://www.boston.com/sports/boston-red-sox/2016/10/15/every-david-ortiz-walk-off

[a700hitter]

Clutch exists.

 

Consistently clutch hitters do not.

And an argument can be made that consistently good hitters don't exist. They all slump.

[moonslav59]

And an argument can be made that consistently good hitters don't exist. They all slump.

 

Exactly. That's why there are no clutch hitters or 100% consistent hitters.

 

Good hitters, when given a large enough sample size, do well. Bad hitters will do poorly. A few will happen to be hot or cold during the sample size and may appear to be "clutch" or "chokes" just like any cherry-picked sample size would show a statistical variance within the mathematical projection.

[Bellhorn04]

Here we go.

[cp176]

Where is Dewey and the dead horse??? lol

[S5Dewey]

Everything is relative. Please don't tell me that a hitter who only gets on base 1/3 of the time is a good hitter. He's not. By any reasonable criteria no player in MLB is or has been a "good hitter" just because he's successful 1/3 of the time. A .300 hitter isn't a good hitter unless you compare him to a .250 hitter. Then he looks pretty good. And yet these are the "moving goalpost" standards that the stat people hold the players up to.

 

Some players seem to have developed a reputation among the professionals who write about and broadcast games and the people who actually play the games that they're a "clutch hitter". That's good enough for me!

[a700hitter]

Exactly. That's why there are no clutch hitters or 100% consistent hitters.

 

Good hitters, when given a large enough sample size, do well. Bad hitters will do poorly. A few will happen to be hot or cold during the sample size and may appear to be "clutch" or "chokes" just like any cherry-picked sample size would show a statistical variance within the mathematical projection.

And both arguments are just dopey and boring.

[oldtimer]

Everything is relative. Please don't tell me that a hitter who only gets on base 1/3 of the time is a good hitter. He's not. By any reasonable criteria no player in MLB is or has been a "good hitter" just because he's successful 1/3 of the time. A .300 hitter isn't a good hitter unless you compare him to a .250 hitter. Then he looks pretty good. And yet these are the "moving goalpost" standards that the stat people hold the players up to.

 

Some players seem to have developed a reputation among the professionals who write about and broadcast games and the people who actually play the games that they're a "clutch hitter". That's good enough for me!

 

To me the better hitters show plate discipline (don't often swing at balls outside the zone). When they do swing they make often hard contact and they put the ball in play. More than that, they have the ability to go with the pitch. Judgment of who is the better hitter is relative as one will bat 320 while another 250. Also, one will hit more HR's than another. We all have opinions of who are good hitters our. My opinion is we don't have truly excellent and consistent hitters. Nunez this year has come the closest.

[illinoisredsox]

Everything is relative. Please don't tell me that a hitter who only gets on base 1/3 of the time is a good hitter. He's not. By any reasonable criteria no player in MLB is or has been a "good hitter" just because he's successful 1/3 of the time. A .300 hitter isn't a good hitter unless you compare him to a .250 hitter. Then he looks pretty good. And yet these are the "moving goalpost" standards that the stat people hold the players up to.

 

Some players seem to have developed a reputation among the professionals who write about and broadcast games and the people who actually play the games that they're a "clutch hitter". That's good enough for me!

 

Yep. Remember the difference between the "good" .300 hitter and the "mediocre" .250 hitter amounts to a little more than 1 hit a week over the course of the season for a full-time player (with due respect to Bull Durham, but it's right).

[Spudboy]

Here we go.

 

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!1!!

 

This s*** will never die.