Dream Lineup for the last 25 years!!

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. Yes

4. Not a chance. Anecdotal evidence not allowed.

 

For the sake of contributing to a thread, and not necessarily sparking an argument, I'd like to weigh in on 4. For those who have played the game most of our lives, and not just on a professional level, we all know there are certain guys who for some reason are more effective, more reliable performers than the rest of us "in the clutch".

 

Now, the definition of clutch is obviously debatable, and I'm sure there are stats that number-crunchers can offer (such as "late, pressure" categories). But the whole concept is also subjective -- to me, my favorite clutch David Ortiz moment came in the first inning, when he homered to give Boston a lead in Game Seven of the '04 LCS; it was right after Johnny Damon was gunned out at the plate, and it instantly silenced a blood-thirsty Yankee Stadium crowd in a pennant-clincher. The Sox never trailed.

 

Considering current politics, I hate to use the phrase "game-changer"... but guys on the bench all know a guy on every team. It's usually the best player who gets the best rep -- but not always -- and that's where the qualitative data supersedes the quantitative. George Brett was better than ARod; anyone who watched the postseasons in the 1970s and 80s could tell you that. Brett's manager never batted him eighth in a playoff lineup in a season when he was the reigning MVP.

[notin]

For the sake of contributing to a thread, and not necessarily sparking an argument, I'd like to weigh in on 4. For those who have played the game most of our lives, and not just on a professional level, we all know there are certain guys who for some reason are more effective, more reliable performers than the rest of us "in the clutch".

 

Now, the definition of clutch is obviously debatable, and I'm sure there are stats that number-crunchers can offer (such as "late, pressure" categories). But the whole concept is also subjective -- to me, my favorite clutch David Ortiz moment came in the first inning, when he homered to give Boston a lead in Game Seven of the '04 LCS; it was right after Johnny Damon was gunned out at the plate, and it instantly silenced a blood-thirsty Yankee Stadium crowd in a pennant-clincher. The Sox never trailed.

 

Considering current politics, I hate to use the phrase "game-changer"... but guys on the bench all know a guy on every team. It's usually the best player who gets the best rep -- but not always -- and that's where the qualitative data supersedes the quantitative. George Brett was better than ARod; anyone who watched the postseasons in the 1970s and 80s could tell you that. Brett's manager never batted him eighth in a playoff lineup in a season when he was the reigning MVP.

 

Yeah to me that always felt like more of a statement about the manager than A-Rod...

[S5Dewey]

For the sake of contributing to a thread, and not necessarily sparking an argument, I'd like to weigh in on 4. For those who have played the game most of our lives, and not just on a professional level, we all know there are certain guys who for some reason are more effective, more reliable performers than the rest of us "in the clutch".

Yep. But do you have any idea how far away "never" is? Because that's how long it will be before you get the stat geeks here to agree with us. It's a battle you cannot win here although most people* who have played the game and been in pressure situations will agree that "clutch" exists.

 

*most people being virtually everyone whom I've ever played competitive sports with. When I tell them that I'm in an ongoing debate over whether clutch exists they just roll their eyes and say, "Of course it exists".

 

So, good luck with this topic. I gave up on it a long time ago recognizing that people will believe whatever their biases lead them to believe.

[Kimmi]

For the sake of contributing to a thread, and not necessarily sparking an argument, I'd like to weigh in on 4. For those who have played the game most of our lives, and not just on a professional level, we all know there are certain guys who for some reason are more effective, more reliable performers than the rest of us "in the clutch".

 

Now, the definition of clutch is obviously debatable, and I'm sure there are stats that number-crunchers can offer (such as "late, pressure" categories). But the whole concept is also subjective -- to me, my favorite clutch David Ortiz moment came in the first inning, when he homered to give Boston a lead in Game Seven of the '04 LCS; it was right after Johnny Damon was gunned out at the plate, and it instantly silenced a blood-thirsty Yankee Stadium crowd in a pennant-clincher. The Sox never trailed.

 

Considering current politics, I hate to use the phrase "game-changer"... but guys on the bench all know a guy on every team. It's usually the best player who gets the best rep -- but not always -- and that's where the qualitative data supersedes the quantitative. George Brett was better than ARod; anyone who watched the postseasons in the 1970s and 80s could tell you that. Brett's manager never batted him eighth in a playoff lineup in a season when he was the reigning MVP.

 

Hey 5GG, I appreciate your response. Obviously, the idea of 'clutch' is one that has sparked many debates and one that both sides feel very strongly about. You are far from being alone in your opinion. There was a time not too long ago that I completely agreed with you because I have been on those teams and experienced what I believed was clutch. Needless to say, I have since changed my mind.

[Kimmi]

Yeah to me that always felt like more of a statement about the manager than A-Rod...

 

As much as I don't like the guy, I am batting prime ARod in a clutch situation over most other batters.

[notin]

As much as I don't like the guy, I am batting prime ARod in a clutch situation over most other batters.

 

Me too.

 

The main argument against him is his post-season track record. But it's 330 plate appearances spread out over 17 years. And he had some very good post-season series. Because, rankly, he was just flat out good...

[mvp 78]

As much as I don't like the guy, I am batting prime ARod in a clutch situation over most other batters.

 

sad!

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

As much as I don't like the guy, I am batting prime ARod in a clutch situation over most other batters.

 

I actually never disliked him for steroids, only because he was better than the thousands or who knows how many others that also did them. But yelling "I got it" on a pop-up while running the bases, or slapping the ball out of Bronson's glove -- stunts like that would get you drilled at any level, from high school on up.

 

If I had to pick my top team to win one game, ARod wouldn't make it, based solely on performance in most of the games he played in that mattered most. Other guys that Red Sox fans (and LA, KC etc) love to hate -- like Reggie Jackson and Pete Rose -- would be in my line-up. Rose had a higher batting average and OPS in 14 postseason series than he did in his regular-season career. And he wasn't just lucky to be on many teams with great pitching, like Reg.

 

It exists.

[notin]

I actually never disliked him for steroids, only because he was better than the thousands or who knows how many others that also did them. But yelling "I got it" on a pop-up while running the bases, or slapping the ball out of Bronson's glove -- stunts like that would get you drilled at any level, from high school on up.

 

If I had to pick my top team to win one game, ARod wouldn't make it, based solely on performance in most of the games he played in that mattered most. Other guys that Red Sox fans (and LA, KC etc) love to hate -- like Reggie Jackson and Pete Rose -- would be in my line-up. Rose had a higher batting average and OPS in 14 postseason series than he did in his regular-season career. And he wasn't just lucky to be on many teams with great pitching, like Reg.

 

It exists.

 

How are you defining clutch here?

 

Reggie has an .885 OPS in 318 postseason plate appearances spending 16 seasons. ARod has an .822 OPS in 330 postseason plate appearances spanning 17 seasons. Not a big difference in that respect.

 

And really, you’re picking Hall of Famers. The clutch hitter argument was that there were no players who “excelled in clutch situations” compared to their non-clutch plate appearances. A guy with a .900 OPS in clutch appearances and a .910 OPS in non-clutch ones does come through in the clutch, but he isn’t dispelling the myth. He’s just awesome.

 

Find me the average hitter who comes through repeatedly in the clutch “above and beyond” his normal abilities.

 

 

And it’s probably not a guy in the Hall of Fame. More like someone like Pat Tabler, who is the closest I have ever found to doing this..,

[S5Dewey]

How are you defining clutch here?

 

We can't define it because "clutch" is in the mind of the player. It's stepping up to the plate and knowing (more than usual) that it's important that you get a hit in this situation. It's the ability and mindset to throw a strike to home plate from 375' when a runner is breaking for home. In basketball it's the ability to drain that 22'-er as the gun is going off. It's the ability to 'turn it up' when you think you have to.

 

The situations can be entirely different. It's easy to say that when you're at bat and your team is down by a run late in the game that it's a clutch situation. However, one can also want to 'turn it up' when the pitcher threw one high and tight in the most recent AB and the hitter wants to show the pitcher up a bit. Or when the hitter in front of you gets walked to get to YOU. Or when you just bet someone in the dugout $100 that you can get a hit off this guy.

 

We can't define clutch because clutch is in the mind of the player.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

How are you defining clutch here?

 

Reggie has an .885 OPS in 318 postseason plate appearances spending 16 seasons. ARod has an .822 OPS in 330 postseason plate appearances spanning 17 seasons. Not a big difference in that respect.

 

And really, you’re picking Hall of Famers. The clutch hitter argument was that there were no players who “excelled in clutch situations” compared to their non-clutch plate appearances. A guy with a .900 OPS in clutch appearances and a .910 OPS in non-clutch ones does come through in the clutch, but he isn’t dispelling the myth. He’s just awesome.

 

Find me the average hitter who comes through repeatedly in the clutch “above and beyond” his normal abilities.

 

 

And it’s probably not a guy in the Hall of Fame. More like someone like Pat Tabler, who is the closest I have ever found to doing this..,

 

Dewey says it better than me. I was ready to just quote the Supreme Court (in recognition of porn)... but it definitely goes beyond stats -- even though I love that Pat Tabler baseball card. For Reggie, it was more consensus than just his Mr. October nickname; MLB writers twice voted him World Series MVP, once for Oakland, once for NY, plus he blew out his leg stealing home with the pennant-winning run that sent the A's to their first WS. I can't stand the guy, but he played on 11 first-place teams.

 

He stepped up, even in something seemingly inconsequential as the 1971 All-Star game, with his 600-foot asterisk pinch home run in Detroit (it hit the light pole on the roof or it's still going). Btw, Frank Robinson was named MVP, because his "clutch" HR put the AL ahead, but Jackson turned that game around. And you can bet it mattered to the guys in the dugout, since it was the only ASG the AL won in a 20-year span; ya, the NL had a nice 19-1 run from '63 through '82.

[notin]

Dewey says it better than me. I was ready to just quote the Supreme Court (in recognition of porn)... but it definitely goes beyond stats -- even though I love that Pat Tabler baseball card. For Reggie, it was more consensus than just his Mr. October nickname; MLB writers twice voted him World Series MVP, once for Oakland, once for NY, plus he blew out his leg stealing home with the pennant-winning run that sent the A's to their first WS. I can't stand the guy, but he played on 11 first-place teams.

 

He stepped up, even in something seemingly inconsequential as the 1971 All-Star game, with his 600-foot asterisk pinch home run in Detroit (it hit the light pole on the roof or it's still going). Btw, Frank Robinson was named MVP, because his "clutch" HR put the AL ahead, but Jackson turned that game around. And you can bet it mattered to the guys in the dugout, since it was the only ASG the AL won in a 20-year span; ya, the NL had a nice 19-1 run from '63 through '82.

 

 

I think the biggest problem with the clutch/no clutch argument is both sides are answering different questions. That names like Frank Tobinson, Reggie Jackson, etc. even come into it is not what my understanding of it was at all.

 

But the whole Potter Stewart counterargument was just a method of failing to define it in the first place...

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

I think the biggest problem with the clutch/no clutch argument is both sides are answering different questions. That names like Frank Tobinson, Reggie Jackson, etc. even come into it is not what my understanding of it was at all.

 

But the whole Potter Stewart counterargument was just a method of failing to define it in the first place...

 

Like I tried to say in my first post of the day...

 

You don't have to have played competitive team sports lately, just take a look at game threads from the past few decades (from fans of any team). Not even stat geeks -- of which I include myself -- can deny that there are certain batters or pitchers that most of us would rather see up there, out there or in there in a tight spot... and they're not always the most popular players with the best numbers.

 

Maybe a few examples: on the 2013 Sox, Nava hit .300 and Salty had an .800+ OPS as the regular leftfielder and catcher, but Gomes .240 and Ross .216 were in there more during crunch-time in the postseason; also, Jim Leyritz will always be a legend in NY for his "timely" home runs.

[Kimmi]

sad!

 

Yes, ARod is very sad.

[Kimmi]

I actually never disliked him for steroids, only because he was better than the thousands or who knows how many others that also did them. But yelling "I got it" on a pop-up while running the bases, or slapping the ball out of Bronson's glove -- stunts like that would get you drilled at any level, from high school on up.

 

If I had to pick my top team to win one game, ARod wouldn't make it, based solely on performance in most of the games he played in that mattered most. Other guys that Red Sox fans (and LA, KC etc) love to hate -- like Reggie Jackson and Pete Rose -- would be in my line-up. Rose had a higher batting average and OPS in 14 postseason series than he did in his regular-season career. And he wasn't just lucky to be on many teams with great pitching, like Reg.

 

It exists.

 

The shame about ARod is that he was good enough that he didn't need the steroids. The steroids alone is not the reason I dislike him. The fact that he played for the Yankees is a huge factor in my dislike of him, along with many on and off field antics, some of which you mentioned.

 

I don't know if ARod would make my all-time team or not, but my point is that I would choose ARod over a player who is not as good as ARod, based on postseason stats or heroics.

 

It does not exist.

[Kimmi]

Like I tried to say in my first post of the day...

 

You don't have to have played competitive team sports lately, just take a look at game threads from the past few decades (from fans of any team). Not even stat geeks -- of which I include myself -- can deny that there are certain batters or pitchers that most of us would rather see up there, out there or in there in a tight spot... and they're not always the most popular players with the best numbers.

 

Maybe a few examples: on the 2013 Sox, Nava hit .300 and Salty had an .800+ OPS as the regular leftfielder and catcher, but Gomes .240 and Ross .216 were in there more during crunch-time in the postseason; also, Jim Leyritz will always be a legend in NY for his "timely" home runs.

 

Sorry, but none of what you're posting shows that clutch exists.

[S5Dewey]

Sorry, but none of what you're posting shows that clutch exists.

 

Copied and pasted from a previous post:

...do you have any idea how far away "never" is? Because that's how long it will be before you get the stat geeks here to agree with us. It's a battle you cannot win here although most people* who have played the game and been in pressure situations will agree that "clutch" exists.

 

*most people being virtually everyone whom I've ever played competitive sports with. When I tell them that I'm in an ongoing debate over whether clutch exists they just roll their eyes and say, "Of course it exists".

 

So, good luck with this topic. I gave up on it a long time ago recognizing that people will believe whatever their biases lead them to believe.

[Bellhorn04]

Copied and pasted from a previous post:

...do you have any idea how far away "never" is? Because that's how long it will be before you get the stat geeks here to agree with us. It's a battle you cannot win here although most people* who have played the game and been in pressure situations will agree that "clutch" exists.

 

*most people being virtually everyone whom I've ever played competitive sports with. When I tell them that I'm in an ongoing debate over whether clutch exists they just roll their eyes and say, "Of course it exists".

 

So, good luck with this topic. I gave up on it a long time ago recognizing that people will believe whatever their biases lead them to believe.

 

I love the clutch debate, I think it's interesting and fun.

 

One thing I have mentioned a few times is that in another sport, professional golf, nobody argues whether clutch and choke exist or not. Everyone agrees that they do.

 

So it might be sort of interesting to examine the similarities and differences between the two games.

 

Unfortunately we don't have many golf fans here.

[notin]

Copied and pasted from a previous post:

...do you have any idea how far away "never" is? Because that's how long it will be before you get the stat geeks here to agree with us. It's a battle you cannot win here although most people* who have played the game and been in pressure situations will agree that "clutch" exists.

 

*most people being virtually everyone whom I've ever played competitive sports with. When I tell them that I'm in an ongoing debate over whether clutch exists they just roll their eyes and say, "Of course it exists".

 

So, good luck with this topic. I gave up on it a long time ago recognizing that people will believe whatever their biases lead them to believe.

 

 

 

For someone who gave up on this topic, you sure do chime in a lot

[notin]

I love the clutch debate, I think it's interesting and fun.

 

One thing I have mentioned a few times is that in another sport, professional golf, nobody argues whether clutch and choke exist or not. Everyone agrees that they do.

 

So it might be sort of interesting to examine the similarities and differences between the two games.

 

Unfortunately we don't have many golf fans here.

 

The thing is, it is sooooooo difficult to convince anyone about anything that differs from their deeply-held beliefs. This is because of a cognitive bias known as the Backfire Effect (which I think I have discussed on another thread). Basically, most people view having their beliefs challenged as a personal attack (and yes, it actually stimulates the same parts of the brain as does a personal attack), and if you tell them or even PROVE them wrong, most people only dig into their beliefs even deeper and take personal offense. People cannot help this type of reaction. It's how our brains are wired.

 

Doubt me? Read the corona virus thread...

[Kimmi]

Copied and pasted from a previous post:

...do you have any idea how far away "never" is? Because that's how long it will be before you get the stat geeks here to agree with us. It's a battle you cannot win here although most people* who have played the game and been in pressure situations will agree that "clutch" exists.

 

*most people being virtually everyone whom I've ever played competitive sports with. When I tell them that I'm in an ongoing debate over whether clutch exists they just roll their eyes and say, "Of course it exists".

 

So, good luck with this topic. I gave up on it a long time ago recognizing that people will believe whatever their biases lead them to believe.

 

And the same argument goes the other way. It will be forever before we get "those that have played the game" to agree with us.

 

What about those that have played the game and are stat geeks? Wouldn't they have the best take on this?

[Kimmi]

I love the clutch debate, I think it's interesting and fun.

 

One thing I have mentioned a few times is that in another sport, professional golf, nobody argues whether clutch and choke exist or not. Everyone agrees that they do.

 

So it might be sort of interesting to examine the similarities and differences between the two games.

 

Unfortunately we don't have many golf fans here.

 

Has golf entered the world of advanced analytics?

 

I would venture to say that clutch might not exist in golf either.

[Thunder]

Has golf entered the world of advanced analytics?

 

I would venture to say that clutch might not exist in golf either.

 

I don't care what you say about clutch and being clutch, but Tiger Woods in his prime epitomized the meaning of clutch.

 

I would argue that there is more of a clutch element in golf, since it's 1-on-1 in front of large droves of spectators, more so than baseball

[Thunder]

Sorry, but none of what you're posting shows that clutch exists.

 

Did you ever play sports growing up?

[notin]

I don't care what you say about clutch and being clutch, but Tiger Woods in his prime epitomized the meaning of clutch.

 

I would argue that there is more of a clutch element in golf, since it's 1-on-1 in front of large droves of spectators, more so than baseball

 

 

 

When you're hitting, that's exactly what baseball is. 1 on 1 in front of a large drove of spectators. Unless you're on the Marlins. Then the last part does not apply...

[Kimmi]

The thing is, it is sooooooo difficult to convince anyone about anything that differs from their deeply-held beliefs. This is because of a cognitive bias known as the Backfire Effect (which I think I have discussed on another thread). Basically, most people view having their beliefs challenged as a personal attack (and yes, it actually stimulates the same parts of the brain as does a personal attack), and if you tell them or even PROVE them wrong, most people only dig into their beliefs even deeper and take personal offense. People cannot help this type of reaction. It's how our brains are wired.

 

Doubt me? Read the corona virus thread...

 

It is extremely difficult to change another person's strongly held beliefs. That said, for me personally, advanced analytics in baseball changed many of my strongly held beliefs, among them the notion of clutch, line up protection, and a speedy runner on 1st base 'disrupting the defense'. I was shown enough evidence (and not just anecdotal evidence) that very strongly argues against those notions, and it was enough for me to change my opinion. Analytics changed my view of the baseball world, and in a very good way. Needless to say, I love analytics!

 

If someone were to show me strong evidence that clutch does exist (and not just anecdotal evidence) I would rethink my opinion.

 

As for politics, as I said before, that is a debate I will never engage in. For some reason, it is the most enraging topic around. It never ends well, and I have seen that happening in our coronavirus thread, despite Talksox posters usually self-policing very well.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Sorry, but none of what you're posting shows that clutch exists.

 

Sorry, but I disagree with your opinion. All I can say is I agree if you watch the game and study the game, there are probably many ways to look at this supposedly mythical term that somehow became accepted jargon in all competitive sports at all levels for over a century. But if you play the game, you'd know there is not even a debate. You can still tell all the players they're wrong, and even show them data to prove they're wrong, but you'll never change their minds...

 

... or those of a large percentage of fans. Ask Red Sox fans how confident they were after Game One of the 2018 ALCS when Cora announced -- with the Sox down 0-1 -- that he'd be starting David Price, the highest paid pitcher in history, in Game Two. Price had just been crushed in the ALDS vs NY, and was still winless in career playoff starts (btw, he gave up 4 earned and didn't last 5 IP, but Boston prevailed). Then also ask fans how much more confidence they had in Eovaldi starting GM 3 in Houston; especially after he was lights out in Yankee Stadium the previous week.

 

To Price's credit, he then made adjustments and had the best 11 days of his Red Sox career. Many articles about Price used words and phrases like "relief" and "monkey off his back"... were all these professional writers and observers really talking about a monkey that doesn't exist?

[notin]

It is extremely difficult to change another person's strongly held beliefs. That said, for me personally, advanced analytics in baseball changed many of my strongly held beliefs, among them the notion of clutch, line up protection, and a speedy runner on 1st base 'disrupting the defense'. I was shown enough evidence (and not just anecdotal evidence) that very strongly argues against those notions, and it was enough for me to change my opinion. Analytics changed my view of the baseball world, and in a very good way. Needless to say, I love analytics!

 

If someone were to show me strong evidence that clutch does exist (and not just anecdotal evidence) I would rethink my opinion.

 

As for politics, as I said before, that is a debate I will never engage in. For some reason, it is the most enraging topic around. It never ends well, and I have seen that happening in our coronavirus thread, despite Talksox posters usually self-policing very well.

 

I believe the Backfire Effect is mostly something that occurs in person-to-person debates/arguments/conflicts. It's hard to take the personal offense from a written text, and a book can be closed and put down. Not always true with a conflicting opinion or theory.

[Kimmi]

I don't care what you say about clutch and being clutch, but Tiger Woods in his prime epitomized the meaning of clutch.

 

I would argue that there is more of a clutch element in golf, since it's 1-on-1 in front of large droves of spectators, more so than baseball

 

Clutch might very well exist in golf. I don't know. I don't follow that sport like I follow baseball. But, I would not be the least bit surprised if analytic studies showed that clutch does not actually exist in golf. Perhaps Tiger isn't really clutch. Perhaps he is just a great golfer.

 

OTOH, the fact that golf is an individual sport might make it more prone to having clutch players. I don't know.

[notin]

Sorry, but I disagree with your opinion. All I can say is I agree if you watch the game and study the game, there are probably many ways to look at this supposedly mythical term that somehow became accepted jargon in all competitive sports at all levels for over a century. But if you play the game, you'd know there is not even a debate. You can still tell all the players they're wrong, and even show them data to prove they're wrong, but you'll never change their minds...

 

.

 

I don't think that is a fair statement. While some, many, and possibly even most do you cannot be sure about all of them. Don't forget, many of the people who write these articles everyone decries as being "not from players" are actually former players...