A Realistic View at 2021: Part I

[Bellhorn04]

I know there are posters here who will argue forever against the very existence of the dreaded c-words in baseball and sports. Some of them even played the game past Little League. But if it's all a myth, how did an ex-player like Bob Tewksbury go back to college to become a Certified Mental Performance Consultant? Why do teams even have a job called Mental Skills Coach? How can The Center for Anxiety and Traumatic Stress Disorders and Complicated Grief at Massachusetts General Hospital conduct "state-of-the-art research aimed at improving the standard of care for people suffering from anxiety disorders"?

 

I happen to agree that there are a lot of psychological factors at work in pro athletes, and the proliferation of sports psychologists tends to confirm it.

 

But the impact of these factors on actual performance is probably very erratic and virtually impossible to quantify. You have to avoid assumptions and generalizations. And the average sports fan loves assumptions and generalizations.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

I happen to agree that there are a lot of psychological factors at work in pro athletes, and the proliferation of sports psychologists tends to confirm it.

 

But the impact of these factors on actual performance is probably very erratic and virtually impossible to quantify. You have to avoid assumptions and generalizations. And the average sports fan loves assumptions and generalizations.

 

I think the impossibility to quantify is what frustrates so many otherwise rational people who watch and root for other people playing a game.

[moonslav59]

I happen to agree that there are a lot of psychological factors at work in pro athletes, and the proliferation of sports psychologists tends to confirm it.

 

But the impact of these factors on actual performance is probably very erratic and virtually impossible to quantify. You have to avoid assumptions and generalizations. And the average sports fan loves assumptions and generalizations.

 

Very well said.

 

Also, players can change, but once they are labelled, sometimes it is hard to change the fan's perceptions, and maybe being called a "choke" even adds to the pressure..

 

Josh Beckett was on his way to becoming one of the greatest "money pitchers" in MLB history, then ooops! (He's still got a pretty awesome record, in total.)

 

David Price was the poster boy for not being a "money pitcher," then ooops!

 

Barry Bonds.

 

To me, to many definitive judgements and assumptions are made on tiny and scattered sample sizes, like the playoffs.

 

It's not that I don't believe some players handle pressure better than others. To me, it seems rather obvious some would likely do that or not do that and some do and some don't, but even this can change as a player learns, grows, experiences or matures.

 

If someone appears to be a "choke," he may not actually be one due to the randomness of a small sample size.

 

If the pressure did cause a player to "choke," he may not be one going forward.

 

[notin]

I know there are posters here who will argue forever against the very existence of the dreaded c-words in baseball and sports. Some of them even played the game past Little League. But if it's all a myth, how did an ex-player like Bob Tewksbury go back to college to become a Certified Mental Performance Consultant? Why do teams even have a job called Mental Skills Coach? How can The Center for Anxiety and Traumatic Stress Disorders and Complicated Grief at Massachusetts General Hospital conduct "state-of-the-art research aimed at improving the standard of care for people suffering from anxiety disorders"?

 

It's not that I think there are no mental factors. Even Yogi Berra said baseball is "90% mental and the other half is physical." So according to him, the mental half of the game is almost the entire game.

 

But my theory is players who cannot handle the mental aspect of the game don't make it to the majors. For all the talk about the mental pressure and media pressure, I've always felt there is more pressure to perform in the minors, where a failure to perform means a failure to get promoted. In the majors, there is pressure to keep any job you have. There is pressure from the guy behind you trying to replace you as one of the only 750 people in the world capable of holding an MLB roster spot. But this is the type of pressure these players face day in and day out. I am not so sure it can be equated to any single specific game situation...

[moonslav59]

It's not that I think there are no mental factors. Even Yogi Berra said baseball is "90% mental and the other half is physical." So according to him, the mental half of the game is almost the entire game.

 

But my theory is players who cannot handle the mental aspect of the game don't make it to the majors. For all the talk about the mental pressure and media pressure, I've always felt there is more pressure to perform in the minors, where a failure to perform means a failure to get promoted. In the majors, there is pressure to keep any job you have. There is pressure from the guy behind you trying to replace you as one of the only 750 people in the world capable of holding an MLB roster spot. But this is the type of pressure these players face day in and day out. I am not so sure it can be equated to any single specific game situation...

 

I like this viewpoint and agree. You'd have to be incredibly physically gifted to make the bigs while being a person who wilts under pressure..

[jad]

I happen to agree that there are a lot of psychological factors at work in pro athletes, and the proliferation of sports psychologists tends to confirm it.

But the impact of these factors on actual performance is probably very erratic and virtually impossible to quantify. You have to avoid assumptions and generalizations. And the average sports fan loves assumptions and generalizations.

 

Now wait. The proliferation of sports psychologists no more proves the existence of the things they purport to cure than the proliferation of conspiracy theorists proves that they're on to something.

[Bellhorn04]

Very well said.

 

Also, players can change, but once they are labelled, sometimes it is hard to change the fan's perceptions, and maybe being called a "choke" even adds to the pressure..

 

Josh Beckett was on his way to becoming one of the greatest "money pitchers" in MLB history, then ooops! (He's still got a pretty awesome record, in total.)

 

David Price was the poster boy for not being a "money pitcher," then ooops!

 

Barry Bonds.

 

To me, to many definitive judgements and assumptions are made on tiny and scattered sample sizes, like the playoffs.

 

It's not that I don't believe some players handle pressure better than others. To me, it seems rather obvious some would likely do that or not do that and some do and some don't, but even this can change as a player learns, grows, experiences or matures.

 

If someone appears to be a "choke," he may not actually be one due to the randomness of a small sample size.

 

If the pressure did cause a player to "choke," he may not be one going forward.

 

 

I guess you can add Kershaw to the list now.

 

And it's worth noting, Kershaw almost didn't get the chance for redemption this year. If the Dodgers didn't come back from 3-1 against the Braves, Kershaw would have been wearing some of it again.

 

One thing about both Price and Kershaw is this: they got a lot of chances to turn things around!

[Bellhorn04]

Now wait. The proliferation of sports psychologists no more proves the existence of the things they purport to cure than the proliferation of conspiracy theorists proves that they're on to something.

 

That seems like a fair observation. Note that I left myself some wiggle room with 'tends to confirm it'.

[notin]

Now wait. The proliferation of sports psychologists no more proves the existence of the things they purport to cure than the proliferation of conspiracy theorists proves that they're on to something.

 

Psychology itself had created a few fields that can be considered unquantifiable. Does the recent proliferation of pet psychologists mean we have an uprise in Lhasa Apsos struggling to deal with the troubles in their daily lives?

[Bellhorn04]

Psychology itself had created a few fields that can be considered unquantifiable. Does the recent proliferation of pet psychologists mean we have an uprise in Lhasa Apsos struggling to deal with the troubles in their daily lives?

 

Honestly, you can say this about any form of psychology.

[notin]

Honestly, you can say this about any form of psychology.

 

I think I sort of implied it

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

The perceptions are not just created by the fans or the media. Otherwise, GMs from big markets wouldn't have to consider the very real question of whether a player can thrive under their big scrutiny and big expectations.

 

There would also be no second-guessing from those who can afford to cut their losses, like the Sox sending Edgar Renteria back to the NL after one year... or when the Yankees traded three players mid-season, including Tewksbury, for Steve Trout, and then watched in horror as he melted from a winning pitcher for a last place team to a winless arm on a first-place team... that ultimately finished fourth. NY couldn't wait to dump him.

[a700hitter]

Gray couldn't pitch in the Bronx for the home team. Something tells me the pressure may not get any better there wearing red stockings as a visitor. He's on my ixnay list with Tanaka, Paxton and Happ.

Gray would look like Pedro to me after the garbage that the Red Sox rolled out to the mound in 2020.

[notin]

The perceptions are not just created by the fans or the media. Otherwise, GMs from big markets wouldn't have to consider the very real question of whether a player can thrive under their big scrutiny and big expectations.

 

There would also be no second-guessing from those who can afford to cut their losses, like the Sox sending Edgar Renteria back to the NL after one year... or when the Yankees traded three players mid-season, including Tewksbury, for Steve Trout, and then watched in horror as he melted from a winning pitcher for a last place team to a winless arm on a first-place team... that ultimately finished fourth. NY couldn't wait to dump him.

 

Renteria is a favorite among people who like to highlight how some players "cannot handle a big market", but how bad was he compared to the player he was before? His OPS in Boston was .721, but the season before in St. Louis, it was .728. And his career OPS before signing with Boston was .746. So it's not like he was struggling at the plate compared to his prior performance. Granted, he had a horrific season in the field, making a career high 30 errors. And that seemed like a lot for a player who had won 2 Gold Gloves in the previous 3 seasons. Of course, his putout numbers and assist numbers in Boston were also among the best of his career as well. Defensive metrics are not available for his early career, but he did posts some comparably poor UZR numbers in Atlanta and DRS numbers in San Francisco afterwards. So while it was the worst defensive season of his career, it wasn't ridiculously out of line. Not to mention, one thing I noticed that year was he did not dive for anything. I have always wondered if he had some sort of injury that he was playing through. But because Tony LaRussa said he wouldn't be able to handle Boston (which I read between the lines to mean "Renteria is nothing without Tony LaRussa"), he drew the "can't handle pressure" label. Which was a label that seemed really odd to attach to a guy who once got a walk off hit in extra innings of game 7 of a World Series. I mean, isn't that the scenario we all drew up in our backyards as kids? "Game 7. Score tied. Extra innings. Bases loaded. And here's the pitch..."

 

Or did some of you draw up "Everyone's watching. One bad swing here and the media will fillet him like a halibut. And here's the pitch..."

[Bellhorn04]

Renteria is a favorite among people who like to highlight how some players "cannot handle a big market", but how bad was he compared to the player he was before? His OPS in Boston was .721, but the season before in St. Louis, it was .728. And his career OPS before signing with Boston was .746. So it's not like he was struggling at the plate compared to his prior performance. Granted, he had a horrific season in the field, making a career high 30 errors. And that seemed like a lot for a player who had won 2 Gold Gloves in the previous 3 seasons. Of course, his putout numbers and assist numbers in Boston were also among the best of his career as well. Defensive metrics are not available for his early career, but he did posts some comparably poor UZR numbers in Atlanta and DRS numbers in San Francisco afterwards. So while it was the worst defensive season of his career, it wasn't ridiculously out of line. Not to mention, one thing I noticed that year was he did not dive for anything. I have always wondered if he had some sort of injury that he was playing through. But because Tony LaRussa said he wouldn't be able to handle Boston (which I read between the lines to mean "Renteria is nothing without Tony LaRussa"), he drew the "can't handle pressure" label. Which was a label that seemed really odd to attach to a guy who once got a walk off hit in extra innings of game 7 of a World Series. I mean, isn't that the scenario we all drew up in our backyards as kids? "Game 7. Score tied. Extra innings. Bases loaded. And here's the pitch..."

 

Or did some of you draw up "Everyone's watching. One bad swing here and the media will fillet him like a halibut. And here's the pitch..."

 

Nonetheless, it's a stone cold fact that Theo traded him after one season and was willing to take a financial bath in the process.

[harmony]

Psychology itself had created a few fields that can be considered unquantifiable. Does the recent proliferation of pet psychologists mean we have an uprise in Lhasa Apsos struggling to deal with the troubles in their daily lives?

In the past century psychology has evolved from a largely qualitative field to a predominantly quantitative hard science ... perhaps overly so.

 

We need to distinguish seeking quantitative answers from not seeking answers at all.

[moonslav59]

Nonetheless, it's a stone cold fact that Theo traded him after one season and was willing to take a financial bath in the process.

 

I think we ended up paying something like $33M for 1 year of Renteria.

[Bellhorn04]

I think we ended up paying something like $33M for 1 year of Renteria.

 

I think I'd take the under on that. $33M would be only $7M less than the original contract.

[notin]

Nonetheless, it's a stone cold fact that Theo traded him after one season and was willing to take a financial bath in the process.

 

Point?

 

That doesn't mean he was mentally incapable of playing in Boston.

 

And you left out he was traded for a prospect ranked as BA#9 the previous season...

[oldtimer]

In the past century psychology has evolved from a largely qualitative field to a predominantly quantitative hard science ... perhaps overly so.

 

We need to distinguish seeking quantitative answers from not seeking answers at all.

 

The current DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) has evolved over the years. The idea of mental disorders means inability to cope with life circumstances in our varied world. Some don't like the term mental disorder and instead would like to consider minds which cause divergent behavior. There are those with varying sensory perceptions and/or autism spectrum people who are intelligent and creative. What is normal behavior anyway? I think there are wide variations in the perceptive folks we consider normal. As it applies to baseball players, some will do better in some situations (under pressure) than others. The Jimmy Piersalls of the world show that even people with aberrant behavior can and have succeeded in the game.

[Bellhorn04]

Point?

 

That doesn't mean he was mentally incapable of playing in Boston.

 

I'm not drawing any conclusions on the mentally incapable part. But it's rather unusual to sign a guy to a big 4 year contract and then trade him after one season.

[notin]

I'm not drawing any conclusions on the mentally incapable part. But it's rather unusual to sign a guy to a big 4 year contract and then trade him after one season.

 

It does happen. For example, Carlos Santana signed with the Phillies, played for one year and then got dealt twice in a week, finally ending up in Cleveland. Mike Leake was traded to Seattle at the deadline one season after signing with the Cardinals

[moonslav59]

I think I'd take the under on that. $33M would be only $7M less than the original contract.

 

I meant to say $23M, and my research shows we paid him a $4M bonus, $8M for year one and $11M was sent to the Braves as part of the deal that brought us Andy Marte, who was later flipped with Shoppach for Crisp, Riske and Josh Bard.

 

That was big money back in 2005.

[Bellhorn04]

It does happen. For example, Carlos Santana signed with the Phillies, played for one year and then got dealt twice in a week, finally ending up in Cleveland. Mike Leake was traded to Seattle at the deadline one season after signing with the Cardinals

 

The Renteria case was strange, though, and so was the whole parade of shortstops in that period. We went from Nomar to OCab to Renteria to Gonzalez to Lugo.

[Bellhorn04]

I meant to say $23M, and my research shows we paid him a $4M bonus, $8M for year one and $11M was sent to the Braves as part of the deal that brought us Andy Marte. who was laater flipped with Shoppach for Crisp and Bard.

 

That was big money back in 2005.

 

It was big money. And you would have to say Theo felt Renteria was not a good fit for some reason, to make that move.

[moonslav59]

It was big money. And you would have to say Theo felt Renteria was not a good fit for some reason, to make that move.

 

I think his defensive decline, likely injury-related, was the final straw.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

It was big money. And you would have to say Theo felt Renteria was not a good fit for some reason, to make that move.

 

That was my whole point -- it wasn't the fans nor the media that "ran him out of town".

 

At the time, I didn't understand the downgrade from Cabrera (but didn't know about OC's character issues, either -- still rumors to this day... just like the one of Edgar supposedly blaming his bad D on the way the Fenway grounds crew maintained the infield).

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Renteria is a favorite among people who like to highlight how some players "cannot handle a big market", but how bad was he compared to the player he was before? His OPS in Boston was .721, but the season before in St. Louis, it was .728. And his career OPS before signing with Boston was .746. So it's not like he was struggling at the plate compared to his prior performance. Granted, he had a horrific season in the field, making a career high 30 errors. And that seemed like a lot for a player who had won 2 Gold Gloves in the previous 3 seasons. Of course, his putout numbers and assist numbers in Boston were also among the best of his career as well. Defensive metrics are not available for his early career, but he did posts some comparably poor UZR numbers in Atlanta and DRS numbers in San Francisco afterwards. So while it was the worst defensive season of his career, it wasn't ridiculously out of line. Not to mention, one thing I noticed that year was he did not dive for anything. I have always wondered if he had some sort of injury that he was playing through. But because Tony LaRussa said he wouldn't be able to handle Boston (which I read between the lines to mean "Renteria is nothing without Tony LaRussa"), he drew the "can't handle pressure" label. Which was a label that seemed really odd to attach to a guy who once got a walk off hit in extra innings of game 7 of a World Series. I mean, isn't that the scenario we all drew up in our backyards as kids? "Game 7. Score tied. Extra innings. Bases loaded. And here's the pitch..."

 

Or did some of you draw up "Everyone's watching. One bad swing here and the media will fillet him like a halibut. And here's the pitch..."

 

I'm not sure if you're setting me up with all the stats, since I claimed there are certain aspects of performance that can't be quantified. I didn't forget that Edgar had one of the greatest hits in MLB history, but even though he won the World Series, one can argue he did it while a Fish (in a sunny state known for orange juice), instead of in a Fish Bowl (in an uptight state infamous for religious fanatics burning women at the stake).

 

It sure looks like the Sox suddenly changed their minds about him; for all we know, maybe he changed his own mind, didn't like the city or region, and wanted to return to somewhere warmer. It certainly wasn't all about the money.

[moonslav59]

Red Sox, Matt Barnes Discussed Extension Prior To Shutdown

By Steve Adams | December 4, 2020 at 3:03pm CDT

 

Red Sox righty Matt Barnes will be a free agent after the 2021 season, but the 30-year-old tells Alex Speier of the Boston Globe that he hopes to spend his entire career in Boston. To that end, Barnes revealed that he and the organization had discussed a multi-year deal that would have extended his time with the Red Sox “beyond next year.”

 

There’s no indication to this point that the two sides plan to resume talks, although Barnes makes clear that he’s plenty open to the possibility. All 30 big league clubs were impacted by the lack of gate revenue in 2020, and all are still waiting to ascertain just what the 2021 season will look like in terms of fan attendance, length of season and other factors.

 

Barnes saw his strikeout and walk rates both trend in the wrong direction in 2020, although as Speier points out, he finished the season with a strong showing inSeptember. Barnes’ track record on the whole in Boston is quite good, and the past four seasons in particular have seen him assume a prominent role in the team’s relief corps. Dating back to 2017, Barnes owns a 3.83 ERA and a 3.30 FIP, having averaged 13.2 K/9, 4.6 BB/9 and 0.99 HR/9 with a 49.1 percent ground-ball rate. From 2018-19, only four of the 108 qualified relievers in MLB struck out a greater percentage of batters faced than Barnes: Josh Hader, Edwin Diaz, Aroldis Chapman and Kirby Yates.

 

Barnes and the Red Sox agreed to a $4.5MM salary for the upcoming season earlier this week, so his earnings are locked in barring the restructuring of that salary as part of a longer-term deal. Any such contract talks aren’t likely to happen in the near future, however. Extensions are most commonly negotiated during Spring Training even under normal circumstances — hence last spring’s talks referenced by Barnes — and that figures to be more true than ever as teams wait to gather information that will determine their revenue streams in 2021.

 

If Barnes does eventually reach the market next winter, he’ll join what looks to be a rather weak class of free-agent relievers. Assuming a solid season in 2021, Barnes could make a case for himself as one of the more appealing names on the market.

 

-MLBTR

[jad]

That was my whole point -- it wasn't the fans nor the media that "ran him out of town".

 

At the time, I didn't understand the downgrade from Cabrera (but didn't know about OC's character issues, either -- still rumors to this day... just like the one of Edgar supposedly blaming his bad D on the way the Fenway grounds crew maintained the infield).

 

I have some vague recollection of that. But I always liked Cabrera. He also stood up for a lot of Hispanic players (including, if I remember right, Manny), by pointing out that a lot of the things they were blamed for saying (or their mere reticence) was due to reporters not taking into account that for many of them, English was not their first language.