When does DD push the panic button..??

[moonslav59]

Yes there was but that was a generation ago.

 

Yesd, but you said "always been..." and you referenced the old slugging days, so I thought you meant way back.

[moonslav59]

Tudor.

 

I knew I was forgetting someone!

 

In the early to mid 80's we saw...

Clemens

Hurst

Tudor

Ojeda

Boyd

Nipper

 

Now, we can't even develop an Al Nipper!

 

[oldtimer]

I knew I was forgetting someone!

 

In the early to mid 80's we saw...

Clemens

Hurst

Tudor

Ojeda

Boyd

Nipper

 

Now, we can't even develop an Al Nipper!

 

 

I know it is a long time ago, but Dick Radatz has a few great years for Boston in the early 60's. He was virtually unhittable until his arm started giving him issues. His signature pitch was a fastball that appeared to rise and move into right handed hitters. Great reliever and then gone although the Sox may have got him back for a year after he became ordinary.

[notin]

I knew I was forgetting someone!

 

In the early to mid 80's we saw...

Clemens

Hurst

Tudor

Ojeda

Boyd

Nipper

 

Now, we can't even develop an Al Nipper!

 

 

The 90’s were the Suppan-Rose-Pavano years....

[moonslav59]

The 90’s were the Suppan-Rose-Pavano years....

 

...and Tony Armas Jr.

[Bellhorn04]

The 90’s were the Suppan-Rose-Pavano years....

 

Let's hope Eovaldi doesn't become the next Carl "American Idle" Pavano.

[notin]

...and Tony Armas Jr.

 

Technically not a Sox farm product. The Sox acquired him from the Yankees for Mike Stanley, I believe...

[Kimmi]

I'm not making stuff up. While what I said may not be verbatim quotes it accurately reflects what's being said here.

 

As I said above, some folks say, "I believe in the statistics BUT..." so I'd have to ask at what point do those who "believe in the statistics BUT..." believe a player's emotions begin to control his performance? Because their saying "BUT" means they believe it does at some point.

 

Where is that point and what does it control?

 

I have posted many examples of my belief in how players' emotions affect their game, even going so far as to say that I have no stats to back that up. You just choose to ignore or not believe such posts because it doesn't suit your agenda against stat geeks.

 

That said, if there are stats that strongly suggest that my opinion is incorrect, I'm going to acknowledge that my opinion is probably wrong and go with the stats.

[Kimmi]

This is pretty darn good stuff right here...

 

Actually, it's not.

[Kimmi]

It's been a long-term problem of the team, and a strange one at that.

 

What's also sort of strange or interesting is that Theo Epstein with the Cubs is following the same basic pattern of acquiring pitching by free agency and trades, not from within.

 

I think it's been a long time philosophy of the Sox, Theo, and other organizations to draft the best possible player, not to draft based on need or by a specific position.

[S5Dewey]

I have posted many examples of my belief in how players' emotions affect their game, even going so far as to say that I have no stats to back that up. You just choose to ignore or not believe such posts because it doesn't suit your agenda against stat geeks.

 

That said, if there are stats that strongly suggest that my opinion is incorrect, I'm going to acknowledge that my opinion is probably wrong and go with the stats.

 

Giving my head a good hard shake: IOW, if there are stats to prove that your opinion is incorrect you're going to acknowledge that your opinion is (probably ) wrong and go with the new stats. So at the end of the day it's still all about the stats for you.

 

All you're doing is confirming what I've been saying, that for people who believe in the stats, stats is all there is.

[S5Dewey]

Actually, it's not.

 

I said: "...very few things in baseball are "repeatable skills". Throwing a baseball is a repeatable skill. Throwing it accurately isn't. Swinging a bat is a repeatable skill. Hitting a baseball with that bat isn't." I felt like Captain Obvious when I posted it.

 

What are you implying? That throwing a baseball is not a repeatable skill? I've got a 4 year old grandson who can throw a baseball repeatedly. He doesn't always know where the ball is going but he can throw it repeatedly. Or that throwing it accurately is repeatable? If it were repeatable there would never be a throwing error and a pitcher would never put the ball anyplace other than where he wants it.

 

That swinging a bat is not a repeatable skill? That same grandson can swing a bat. He can't hit a barn with it but he can swing it repeatedly. Or that hitting a baseball with that bat isn't? If it were repeatable a batter would never swing and miss at a ball.

[Kimmi]

Giving my head a good hard shake: IOW, if there are stats to prove that your opinion is incorrect you're going to acknowledge that your opinion is (probably ) wrong and go with the new stats. So at the end of the day it's still all about the stats for you.

 

All you're doing is confirming what I've been saying, that for people who believe in the stats, stats is all there is.

 

Saying that I would believe the stats over my opinion is not the same thing as saying that emotions do not play an important part of the game. You are reading into that what you want to hear.

 

Not everything can be explained by stats.

 

As an example, DCater just made a post about how he felt Marco Hernandez was successful because he knows that Cora has his back. I completely (and strongly) agree with the importance of knowing that your manager has your back. There are no stats to support that.

 

Until or unless someone can show me that I'm wrong, I'm going to believe that this is one of many cases where emotions play an important part of the game.

[Kimmi]

I said: "...very few things in baseball are "repeatable skills". Throwing a baseball is a repeatable skill. Throwing it accurately isn't. Swinging a bat is a repeatable skill. Hitting a baseball with that bat isn't." I felt like Captain Obvious when I posted it.

 

What are you implying? That throwing a baseball is not a repeatable skill? I've got a 4 year old grandson who can throw a baseball repeatedly. He doesn't always know where the ball is going but he can throw it repeatedly. Or that throwing it accurately is repeatable? If it were repeatable there would never be a throwing error and a pitcher would never put the ball anyplace other than where he wants it.

 

That swinging a bat is not a repeatable skill? That same grandson can swing a bat. He can't hit a barn with it but he can swing it repeatedly. Or that hitting a baseball with that bat isn't? If it were repeatable a batter would never swing and miss at a ball.

 

You were implying that clutch exists because not much in baseball is a repeatable skill.

 

There are some hitting metrics that correlate very strongly from year to year, indicating that the skill is repeatable. Clutch is not one of them.

[moonslav59]

You were implying that clutch exists because not much in baseball is a repeatable skill.

 

There are some hitting metrics that correlate very strongly from year to year, indicating that the skill is repeatable. Clutch is not one of them.

 

I totally agree, but if you believe as I do, and you just said you did, that emotion plays a part in the game, can't one assume some players react to emotional situations (such as super clutch moments) in a differing yet somewhat consistent manner?

[Kimmi]

I totally agree, but if you believe as I do, and you just said you did, that emotion plays a part in the game, can't one assume some players react to emotional situations (such as super clutch moments) in a differing yet somewhat consistent manner?

 

Of course.

 

But not in the sense that they can raise their game to an otherworldly level.

 

IMO, it boils down to 'clutch hitters' being good and smart hitters overall. What they do in clutch situations is similar to what they do on the whole.

[Bellhorn04]

I totally agree, but if you believe as I do, and you just said you did, that emotion plays a part in the game, can't one assume some players react to emotional situations (such as super clutch moments) in a differing yet somewhat consistent manner?

 

I have argued myself that David Ortiz was a clutch hitter. But I would also admit that it's very hard to prove. David had plenty of playoff series where he didn't do very much, and I'm sure he was just as psyched in those series as he was in the ones where he hit well.

 

The thing about hitting is that you're at the mercy of the pitcher and the defense to a large degree. They always have a big advantage over you.

[a700hitter]

Of course.

 

But not in the sense that they can raise their game to an otherworldly level.

 

IMO, it boils down to 'clutch hitters' being good and smart hitters overall. What they do in clutch situations is similar to what they do on the whole.

But if a great player has his emotions under control and his opponent is losing his battle with emotion thus negatively affecting his performance the results for the player with his emotions under control will look other worldly.

[Kimmi]

But if a great player has his emotions under control and his opponent is losing his battle with emotion thus negatively affecting his performance the results for the player with his emotions under control will look other worldly.

 

We don't need to rehash the whole 'clutch' argument.

 

I'll leave it at that.

[notin]

I have argued myself that David Ortiz was a clutch hitter. But I would also admit that it's very hard to prove. David had plenty of playoff series where he didn't do very much, and I'm sure he was just as psyched in those series as he was in the ones where he hit well.

 

The thing about hitting is that you're at the mercy of the pitcher and the defense to a large degree. They always have a big advantage over you.

 

The thing is to me, this aspect of both the clutch argument and the closer argument step all over each other.

 

In clutch arguments, the hitter is credited with responding to pressure. In closer arguments, the requirement is always stated as a pitcher who can handle the pressure.

 

There is pressure on both the hitter and the pitcher in high leverage situations. At some point, this cancels each other out, which is probably why most hitters and pitchers play to their career norms in these situations, and this becomes more noticeable as sample sizes grow...

[jung]

The thing is to me, this aspect of both the clutch argument and the closer argument step all over each other.

 

In clutch arguments, the hitter is credited with responding to pressure. In closer arguments, the requirement is always stated as a pitcher who can handle the pressure.

 

There is pressure on both the hitter and the pitcher in high leverage situations. At some point, this cancels each other out, which is probably why most hitters and pitchers play to their career norms in these situations, and this becomes more noticeable as sample sizes grow...

 

Actually the issue is intensity and focus more than pressure and a pitcher in the 9th inning is trying to maintain intensity and focus for an entire half inning. A hitter is trying to maintain it for a single AB in the 9th inning.

 

Yes the need for a pitcher to maintain intensity and focus across an inning full of guys that are trying to optimize intensity and focus over single AB's is a "pressure" on the pitcher. But the genesis of that pressure is the intensity and focus of individual hitters in AB's vs the intensity and focus the closer has to maintain over the entire inning.

Edited July 6, 2019 by jung

[devildavid]

I have argued myself that David Ortiz was a clutch hitter. But I would also admit that it's very hard to prove. David had plenty of playoff series where he didn't do very much, and I'm sure he was just as psyched in those series as he was in the ones where he hit well.

 

The thing about hitting is that you're at the mercy of the pitcher and the defense to a large degree. They always have a big advantage over you.

 

David Ortiz was a smart hitter. His hitting IQ was off the charts.

[Bellhorn04]

David Ortiz was a smart hitter. His hitting IQ was off the charts.

 

No question about that.