A Realistic View of 2023: Part II

[mvp 78]

I complain about people who complain about complaining.

 

And soon there is complaining singularity.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

How is dWAR calculated for catchers? His framing isn't great (0 Framing Runs). He had that passed ball last night (0 Blocks Above Average). Aside from pop time and caught stealing %, what makes him a great catcher?

 

Dunno, but on baseball dinosaur reference.com, Wong is a TriCERAtops

[mvp 78]

Dunno, but on baseball dinosaur reference.com, Wong is a TriCERAtops

 

IHATEYOUanakinscreaming.gif

[moonslav59]

That's just a hit in a crucial situation. The word "clutch" adds nothing.

 

(Just trying to start a pointless semantic debate here.)

 

Yes, a clutch hit is different from a lead off hit in a 10-0 game.

 

Clutch exists- just not as a repeatable skill.

 

You mention Schill: what about Beckett, who was on his way to being the best of the best, then... Ooops!

[moonslav59]

Also wouldn't an .800 OPS late and close be better than a .800 OPS overall?

 

Because "Late and close" often means you're facing elite relievers.

 

Maybe not. Many teams had SP'ers way better than their 8th and 9th inning guys.

[moonslav59]

I think “clutch” means succeeding in a crucial situation. The debate was never about that happening vs not happening, but whether or not it was a skill. To me, there was always a strong overlap between players who repeatedly succeeded in crucial situations and players who repeatedly succeeded overall…

 

The thing is, if you randomly created sample sizes in clutch situations- many which are comparatively small, you would not end up with every hitter batting exactly like his career norm any more than you would, if you looked at his Monday numbers vs Wednesday. Some would do better- some would do worse.

 

Just the fact that some players have better numbers is this highly selective sample sizes, does not prove clutch is a skill.

[Bellhorn04]

Yes, a clutch hit is different from a lead off hit in a 10-0 game.

 

Clutch exists- just not as a repeatable skill.

 

You mention Schill: what about Beckett, who was on his way to being the best of the best, then... Ooops!

 

But that's what I'm saying: there's no difference between a crucial hit and a clutch hit, so there's no need for the word clutch.

 

Schilling's record was virtually unblemished. Beckett's became blemished but was still pretty damn good. I don't see why it wouldn't be about the preponderance of data, just as it is with everything else.

[moonslav59]

But that's what I'm saying: there's no difference between a crucial hit and a clutch hit, so there's no need for the word clutch.

 

Schilling's record was virtually unblemished. Beckett's became blemished but was still pretty damn good. I don't see why it wouldn't be about the preponderance of data, just as it is with everything else.

 

Because a random generated sample size distribution would have some pitchers with numbers like Beckett and Schilling that has nothing to do with the computer being "clutch."

 

I've do not hear anyone say that was a "crucial hit" as much as saying a "clutch hit."

[moonslav59]

But that's what I'm saying: there's no difference between a crucial hit and a clutch hit, so there's no need for the word clutch.

 

Schilling's record was virtually unblemished. Beckett's became blemished but was still pretty damn good. I don't see why it wouldn't be about the preponderance of data, just as it is with everything else.

 

I guess Schilling turned a lot of clutch hitters into chokes.

[mvp 78]

Because a random generated sample size distribution would have some pitchers with numbers like Beckett and Schilling that has nothing to do with the computer being "clutch."

 

You're so old that you don't even know about the computer cheating when you play video games against it. C'mon now...

[Nick]

I can't ever remember a time when so many secondary players are all hot at the same time.

 

Duran Wong Valdez and now Arroyo.

 

That is on top of Verdugo and Yoshida.

 

Was it last year this time we were complaining that we only had 3productive hitters? Devers Xander and JD?

Edited May 3, 2023 by Nick

[Bellhorn04]

I guess Schilling turned a lot of clutch hitters into chokes.

 

Pitchers do have the advantage, ya know. That's why I think an example of a pitcher is better.

 

But you've made it clear enough where you stand LOL

[Bellhorn04]

I can't ever remember a time when so many secondary players are all hot at the same time.

 

Duran Wong Valdez and now Arroyo.

 

That is on top of Verdugo and Yoshida.

 

Was it last year this time we were complaining that we only had 3productive hitters? Devers Xander and JD?

 

It's just a nutty game, man. So much stuff happens that no one could have possibly predicted.

[Bellhorn04]

The random sample thing does not disprove clutch's existence. It indicates that a sample like Schilling's MIGHT BE a result of randomness. But that's a whole different thing. It's generally impossible to prove a negative.

[moonslav59]

The random sample thing does not disprove clutch's existence. It indicates that a sample like Schilling's MIGHT BE a result of randomness. But that's a whole different thing. It's generally impossible to prove a negative.

 

Yes, you are right, the random generated sample sizes that match up almost precisely with actual results do NOT prove or disprove clutch as a repeatable skill.

 

 

 

[moonslav59]

Pitchers do have the advantage, ya know. That's why I think an example of a pitcher is better.

 

But you've made it clear enough where you stand LOL

 

Remember when people thought Price was a choke artist?

[Bellhorn04]

Yes, you are right, the random generated sample sizes that match up almost precisely with actual results do NOT prove or disprove clutch as a repeatable skill.

 

Of course they don't.

[Bellhorn04]

Remember when people thought Price was a choke artist?

 

Of course. It's just not as simple as some people would like to have it. Maybe some guys are a little more clutch than others. It's a mystery because it's about how the human mind works under stress and things like that. None of us have definitive answers.

[Nick]

Moon, you'll love this.....it looks like Valdez will accumulate either 170 or 171 days of major league service this year. (you need 172 days for one year of service).

 

So if he sticks, we'll have almost 7 years of Valdez. (unless of course he finishes top 3 in the Rookie of the Year voting)

 

What do you know, Bloom was thinking when he brought up Valdez on April 25th.

[Nick]

Update on Core Group Going forward, team control including 2023

 

C. Wong, 6 yrs: McGuire, 3 yrs

1B Casas, 6 yrs

2B Valdez, 7 yrs

3B Devers, 11 yrs

SS Story, 6 yrs

LF Yoshida, 5 yrs

CF Duran, 6 yrs

RF Verdugo, 2 yrs

DH Dalbec, 4 yrs

 

SP Bello, 6 yrs

SP Whitlock, 6yrs

SP Houck, 5 yrs

SP Kutter, 6 yrs

SP Winckowski, 6 yrs

RP Schreiber, 4 yrs

RP Bernadino, 7 yrs

 

Sign two aces and we're there!!!!

 

If we get into the playoffs, all of us owe an apology to Bloom.

[Hugh2]

Maybe not. Many teams had SP'ers way better than their 8th and 9th inning guys.

 

Yes but if you’re looking at those clutch stats they usually have a much larger sample size than a game. Also, that’s not a lot of starters you’re facing. Most guys coming into a game in the 8th 9th on a lot of teams are premium arms.

[moonslav59]

Yes but if you’re looking at those clutch stats they usually have a much larger sample size than a game. Also, that’s not a lot of starters you’re facing. Most guys coming into a game in the 8th 9th on a lot of teams are premium arms.

 

Batters have larger sample sizes vs SP'ers than 9th inning RP'ers.

 

Yes, these days most closers are among the best pitchers on the staff, but back in Papi's day, maybe not so much.

[jad]

Moon, you'll love this.....it looks like Valdez will accumulate either 170 or 171 days of major league service this year. (you need 172 days for one year of service).

 

So if he sticks, we'll have almost 7 years of Valdez. (unless of course he finishes top 3 in the Rookie of the Year voting)

 

What do you know, Bloom was thinking when he brought up Valdez on April 25th.

 

In other words, he knows how to screw his employees. I'll bet that goes over really well in the clubhouse.

[moonslav59]

In other words, he knows how to screw his employees. I'll bet that goes over really well in the clubhouse.

 

It's typical MLB.

 

Plus, it's not like Bloom held off calling up a blue chip prospect who was eating up minor league pitching.

 

Valdez was very likely thrilled he got the call this early in his career. He was hitting .645 and was like our 15th rated prospect.

[moonslav59]

What a difference one week can make.

 

It's funny, because this team still has the same major flaws we have been picking apart for a long time, but suddenly it looks like just about every trade and signing Bloom has made- recent and now back to the Betts deal, is turning to gold before our eyes.

 

I'm not claiming this is anything definitive, at all. It is NOT! I do think it is fine example of why we should not judge so harshly over small sample size- Good or bad.

 

Incredible as it may seem, having Dugo and Wong makes everyone forget Downs. Still having Betts would be great, but things are looking much brighter, now, which is another example of why judging trades before the younger guys have matured is short-sighted.

 

Where are all those "insiders" who cried "Gross overpay" on Yoshida?

 

Not to put Vaz down, at all, but it was a lost season and he had 2 months left on the team: welcome Valdez! (Maybe Abreu amounts to something, too.)

 

How about our new catching tandem? (Yes, it's only a month.)

 

Imagine, if Duvall didn't get hurt. He could have been the best move Bloom made in a year.

 

Turner, Jansen, Martin- "Over the hill," we heard.

 

Duran "should never get another chance with the Sox."

 

Hell, even Arroyo is turning it around. Maybe Casas, too.

 

It looks like everyone is on a cloud, and I'm with you, but we will see struggles again, at some point. We still have major gaps. Some of these guys will cool off- maybe some I just pumped up. Maybe too many will, at the same time, and we will be back how were were, last week- lick-a-dee-split.

 

I hope not, but the same holes are there. What encourages me is that other teams have major holes, too. We are seeing some, this series.

 

As much as MLB seems to be moving towards parity, I look at our road to the playoffs, and it will not be easy. The teams we are ahead of are HOU, NYY, LAA, SEA and CLE. Those teams are not push-overs. If just one passes us, we'll be out, unless we can pass TOR or BAL.

 

It's going to be a long season.

[S5Dewey]

I guess Schilling turned a lot of clutch hitters into chokes.

 

This raises the question of 'what happens when two clutch players (a hitter and a pitcher) face one another?'

 

It's easy to use "repeatable skill" as an reason for someone's not being clutch - but please define "repeatable skill" for me. The ability to strike a thrown baseball with a bat isn't a "repeatable skill" when batters are striking out every day.

 

I have no doubt that "clutch" exists. It's the ability to summon up a shot of adrenalin, to focus just a bit more than usual in a crucial situation. Does the fact that someone doesn't always succeed in a crucial situation mean that he's not clutch? No, it just means that baseball by its nature is somewhat random.

 

As I said before, anyone who denies the existence of "clutch... isn't. And anyone who is clutch knows it exists.

[moonslav59]

This raises the question of 'what happens when two clutch players (a hitter and a pitcher) face one another?'

 

It's easy to use "repeatable skill" as an reason for someone's not being clutch - but please define "repeatable skill" for me. The ability to strike a thrown baseball with a bat isn't a "repeatable skill" when batters are striking out every day.

 

I have no doubt that "clutch" exists. It's the ability to summon up a shot of adrenalin, to focus just a bit more than usual in a crucial situation. Does the fact that someone doesn't always succeed in a crucial situation mean that he's not clutch? No, it just means that baseball by its nature is somewhat random.

 

As I said before, anyone who denies the existence of "clutch... isn't. And anyone who is clutch knows it exists.

 

So, I must have been randomly lucky back in my day.

[Hugh2]

This raises the question of 'what happens when two clutch players (a hitter and a pitcher) face one another?'

 

It's easy to use "repeatable skill" as an reason for someone's not being clutch - but please define "repeatable skill" for me. The ability to strike a thrown baseball with a bat isn't a "repeatable skill" when batters are striking out every day.

 

I have no doubt that "clutch" exists. It's the ability to summon up a shot of adrenalin, to focus just a bit more than usual in a crucial situation. Does the fact that someone doesn't always succeed in a crucial situation mean that he's not clutch? No, it just means that baseball by its nature is somewhat random.

 

As I said before, anyone who denies the existence of "clutch... isn't. And anyone who is clutch knows it exists.

 

What you’re describing sounds like a physiological response in the human body. This is very measurable. I’d be interesting to see if there’s any empirical evidence backing this up. I have not seen any. I remain convinced clutch exist due to reverse clutch. Players fold, clutch players maintain their composure.

[a700hitter]

This raises the question of 'what happens when two clutch players (a hitter and a pitcher) face one another?'

 

It's easy to use "repeatable skill" as an reason for someone's not being clutch - but please define "repeatable skill" for me. The ability to strike a thrown baseball with a bat isn't a "repeatable skill" when batters are striking out every day.

 

I have no doubt that "clutch" exists. It's the ability to summon up a shot of adrenalin, to focus just a bit more than usual in a crucial situation. Does the fact that someone doesn't always succeed in a crucial situation mean that he's not clutch? No, it just means that baseball by its nature is somewhat random.

.

As I said before, anyone who denies the existence of "clutch... isn't. And anyone who is clutch knows it exists.

we really need a like button.

[cp176]

So, I must have been randomly lucky back in my day.

 

I'm sorry to have to say this, but most of the players who I considered clutch players didn't necessarily tell people that they were.

In my world, there are many who come through more often in the big moments - clutch. There are many more who don't - choke.

 

If a ball struck off the bat of Casas can have an estimated batting average of .850 - (what does that even mean?) then I guess it is ok to truly think that clutch and choke are two things that do exist.