Red Sox (Pivetta) vs Astros (Blanco): 8/20/24, 8:10pm

[Maxbialystock]

Nice win!

 

Nope. A great win. A much needed win in a very exciting game. Pivetta was pretty lousy, but he went 5 IP and left the game when it was a 5-5 ties.

 

The bullpen, which I have excoriated repeatedly, was fantastic tonight. 4 IP, 0 runs.

 

And right now you have the winning mojo, so feel free to start the next game thread anytime between now and 11 am tomorrow (your rule).

[Brock Beauchamp]

Yes, currently live in Temecula. Go to Escondido sometimes. The comment pertains to a frequent occurrence here that when any player fails to come through in the CLUTCH ( a denied concept) and is criticized , some commenters immediately go to season long or even career long stats to justify the player's existence. Alex Speier of the Globe, a Red Sox reporter, was nicknamed Stat Masterson by the NESN announcers for his in depth knowledge of the numbers.

 

To be fair, "clutch" is a VERY rare thing. We have literally 100 years of data to show that only a few select players even have a hint of it over an entire career.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Nope. A great win. A much needed win in a very exciting game. Pivetta was pretty lousy, but he went 5 IP and left the game when it was a 5-5 ties.

 

The bullpen, which I have excoriated repeatedly, was fantastic tonight. 4 IP, 0 runs.

 

And right now you have the winning mojo, so feel free to start the next game thread anytime between now and 11 am tomorrow (your rule).

 

Hey, back off. You say it's great, I say it's good. Let's not create a fight over this.

 

But yeah, it appears I have a little MOJO going. I'm happy to keep that rolling.

[moonslav59]

To be fair, "clutch" is a VERY rare thing. We have literally 100 years of data to show that only a few select players even have a hint of it over an entire career.

 

Agreed, and if you did a random generated sample, you'd find the same amount of select few that "had it" over their entire career.

 

Even Papi had very similar career numbers with clutch or playoff numbers. Reggie Jackson, too.

[Maxbialystock]

Casas has an injury that may take a very long time to heal-if it ever heals. He tore some cartilage. Because cartilage has no blood supply it can’t heal-it’s like what happened to Pedroia but not in as bad a location. He may always feel some pain when he swings. There was no point in keeping him in Worcester. I don’t know what Devers’ injury is. If it’s muscular or osseous (bone) it will most likely heal in time if it’s rested.

Torn cartilage is a bitch

 

Your medical knowledge is far better than mine. But I'm pretty sure the Sox have access to enough medical expertise to make good decisions about whether to keep a player on the active roster. Right now I think they all want to play. McGuire is especially bitter because he got booted off. Smith probably feels that way too. But so do Devers, Duran, Abreu, Wong, Rafaela, Hamilton, Casas, O'Neill, Refsnyder, et al. Maybe not all the guys in the bullpen, however. For them, Madame Defarge is sittin' and knittin' right behind the Sox dugout.

 

Because--my opinion--we Sox fans have been spoiled rotten by John Henry, we now have a powerful sense of entitlement. That means outbidding the far wealthier Dodgers for Mookie Betts. It means one of the top three payrolls in MLB. And it means regular excursions the Postseason and winning the WS about every 5th season.

[Maxbialystock]

Hey, back off. You say it's great, I say it's good. Let's not create a fight over this.

 

But yeah, it appears I have a little MOJO going. I'm happy to keep that rolling.

 

Our perspectives differ for obvious reasons.

 

Tomorrow is Criswell vs. some 41 years old guy named Verlander. Plus he's a righty. Sox by a touchdown.

[FredLynn]

Your medical knowledge is far better than mine. But I'm pretty sure the Sox have access to enough medical expertise to make good decisions about whether to keep a player on the active roster. Right now I think they all want to play. McGuire is especially bitter because he got booted off. Smith probably feels that way too. But so do Devers, Duran, Abreu, Wong, Rafaela, Hamilton, Casas, O'Neill, Refsnyder, et al. Maybe not all the guys in the bullpen, however. For them, Madame Defarge is sittin' and knittin' right behind the Sox dugout.

 

Because--my opinion--we Sox fans have been spoiled rotten by John Henry, we now have a powerful sense of entitlement. That means outbidding the far wealthier Dodgers for Mookie Betts. It means one of the top three payrolls in MLB. And it means regular excursions the Postseason and winning the WS about every 5th season.

 

I’m not trying to make medical decisions about the players at all. Or roster decisions-just guessing why they brought Casas up. Medicine is my area. Just explaining the nature of Casas’ injury since it’s public knowledge now. Haven’t heard what is wrong with Devers’ shoulder.

[moonslav59]

I'm sure glad Casas finally said he was ready for the bigs, again.

 

Duran has been buttah!

[moonslav59]

Duran is now 15th in OPS and just .003 from #14 Jose Ramirez.

 

The sky seems to be the limit for this guy.

68 XBHs

31 SBs (only 4 CS)

Very good defense.

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

Even Papi had very similar career numbers with clutch or playoff numbers. Reggie Jackson, too.

 

And that's why career numbers and epic moments aren't the same thing. Reggie had epic moments, so did Papi, do did Kirby.

 

That doesn't mean any of them were clutch hitters. They just hit that one time in the clutch. Or maybe a few times in the clutch when we were all watching.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

And that's why career numbers and epic moments aren't the same thing. Reggie had epic moments, so did Papi, do did Kirby.

 

That doesn't mean any of them were clutch hitters. They just hit that one time in the clutch. Or maybe a few times in the clutch when we were all watching.

 

This is exactly why career stats are unnecessary in this discussion -- but I certainly understand how some fans always go to stats for info, since it's part of being a baseball fan.

 

But what you described is perception -- a reality based on observation. That exists.

 

Anyone who has played a lot of competitive baseball into adulthood probably knew a few teammates or opponents who earned certain reputations in big moments. A common fact is they were probably good players in the first place.

 

What may be easier to prove is the existence of good players who for some reason were not considered clutch. How reviled was ARod by Yankee fans until he finally won in 2009? David Price couldn't win a postseason start until 2018. Verlander was 0-6 in four World Series before he finally won. Kershaw had a losing record in the postseason for a decade... the pressure of losing builds on these guys, gets in their heads, and affects performance -- and they're professionals!

[notin]

This is exactly why career stats are unnecessary in this discussion -- but I certainly understand how some fans always go to stats for info, since it's part of being a baseball fan.

 

But what you described is perception -- a reality based on observation. That exists.

 

Anyone who has played a lot of competitive baseball into adulthood probably knew a few teammates or opponents who earned certain reputations in big moments. A common fact is they were probably good players in the first place.

 

What may be easier to prove is the existence of good players who for some reason were not considered clutch. How reviled was ARod by Yankee fans until he finally won in 2009? David Price couldn't win a postseason start until 2018. Verlander was 0-6 in four World Series before he finally won. Kershaw had a losing record in the postseason for a decade... the pressure of losing builds on these guys, gets in their heads, and affects performance -- and they're professionals!

 

The problem is - perception isn’t always reality.

 

Was ARod really that bad in the postseason? Or did he have a few bad moments that got amplified by his high profile unlikeability? He did have a postseason OPS of .822, which, while it is certainly lower than his career OPS of .930, still isn’t exactly the stuff chokers are made of. The extremely likable Mookie Betts has a .710 OPS in the postseason (against a career OPS of .900), yet no one thinks of him as a postseason choke artist like they do A-Rod…

[mvp 78]

The problem is - perception isn’t always reality.

 

Was ARod really that bad in the postseason? Or did he have a few bad moments that got amplified by his high profile unlikeability? He did have a postseason OPS of .822, which, while it is certainly lower than his career OPS of .930, still isn’t exactly the stuff chokers are made of. The extremely likable Mookie Betts has a .710 OPS in the postseason (against a career OPS of .900), yet no one thinks of him as a postseason choke artist like they do A-Rod…

 

100%. I saw someone complain that Devers was hitting .240 with runners in scoring position. However, his OPS is 844! Yeah, that's lower than his normal OPS, but still decent enough.

 

OBP with runners in scoring position: 373

OBP total: 377

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

The problem is - perception isn’t always reality.

 

Was ARod really that bad in the postseason? Or did he have a few bad moments that got amplified by his high profile unlikeability? He did have a postseason OPS of .822, which, while it is certainly lower than his career OPS of .930, still isn’t exactly the stuff chokers are made of. The extremely likable Mookie Betts has a .710 OPS in the postseason (against a career OPS of .900), yet no one thinks of him as a postseason choke artist like they do A-Rod…

 

Stats are ok if you want to only consider offensive performances, though Mookie may be a tough comp with a villainous Yankee on a Red Sox site.

 

As a Sox fan, I know Betts contributes in so many other ways than just batting: he jump-starts rallies by getting on base and scoring runs -- which may be teammate-dependent, but not so much for his 14-for-15 in postseason stolen base attempts -- and Mookie has delivered on defense; in just the 2018 ALCS, he gunned down a baserunner at second in a big spot, and leaped among fans to rob extra base-hits (when they didn't slap his glove...)

 

... which brings up ARod's defining moment in the '04 ALCS, with his bush-league slapping the ball out of Bronson Arroyo's glove.

[Bellhorn04]

Schilling and Ortiz had incredible postseason resumes. To me they were clutch performers.

 

Postseason offensive numbers are lower on average in the postseason because the caliber of pitching is better, which is mainly because of the off days.

[illinoisredsox]

Agreed, and if you did a random generated sample, you'd find the same amount of select few that "had it" over their entire career.

 

Even Papi had very similar career numbers with clutch or playoff numbers. Reggie Jackson, too.

 

That’s always been my definition of clutch; the ability to relax in big moments and perform at a level close to what you normally do.

 

Most players tense up, reducing their performance level below career norms.

[moonslav59]

Schilling and Ortiz had incredible postseason resumes. To me they were clutch performers.

 

Postseason offensive numbers are lower on average in the postseason because the caliber of pitching is better, which is mainly because of the off days.

 

The thing is, if you randomly generated numbers for players in such scattered and small samples sizes as career playoff PAs or IP, you'd get a few outliers that do better than the norm. How can we know with any certainty that the numbers by Papi and Schill weren't just the luck of being hot, during those selected performances?

 

I get the point about facing tougher pitchers (Papi) and batters (Schill), so equal to regular season stats really means they did better. I bring up the Josh beckett example, a lot. The guy was on his way to becoming one of MLBs best playoff pitcher in history, then suddenly, he wasn't anymore, while still in his prime years.

 

The sample sizes are generally too small and scattered. The deviations from the norm look precisely the same as a randomly generated sample size of players and numbers over such a sample size.

 

I will say, I'm not sure about the idea of a player just being lucky vs some sort of skill helped by some sort of "inner calmness" or whatever we want to call it. That very well may play a role in improved or worse numbers by some players. I just think it is nearly impossible to prove, and I think the idea or "clutch" is hyped and over-stated.

 

Look what people were saying about Devers into mid May, this year. The guy has had some mammoth hits for the Sox, over the years. He goes 5-6 weeks hitting badly with men on base, and all of a sudden he is a choke. Nobody is talking that talk, anymore, except maybe in a few game threads..

[notin]

Schilling and Ortiz had incredible postseason resumes. To me they were clutch performers.

 

Postseason offensive numbers are lower on average in the postseason because the caliber of pitching is better, which is mainly because of the off days.

 

But at some point, many of those better pitchers have already thrown 160-220 IP, which certainly can affect performance. It’s probably a significant factor in why many of the game’s best pitchers (Maddux, Kershaw, Pedro, Price, Scherzer) were less effective in the postseason, especially since postseason numbers are often a collection of small samples spread out over multiple years and the occasional bad outing can skew the data…

[moonslav59]

But at some point, many of those better pitchers have already thrown 160-220 IP, which certainly can affect performance. It’s probably a significant factor in why many of the game’s best pitchers (Maddux, Kershaw, Pedro, Price, Scherzer) were less effective in the postseason, especially since postseason numbers are often a collection of small samples spread out over multiple years and the occasional bad outing can skew the data…

 

Every great player has short sample sizes of poor numbers. There is no way of knowing if really good or really bad numbers are just some random slump or due to some phycological defect or positive anomality.

[notin]

That’s always been my definition of clutch; the ability to relax in big moments and perform at a level close to what you normally do.

 

Most players tense up, reducing their performance level below career norms.

 

Clutch is defined as the ability to come through in a critical situation where the outcome of the game is at stake. The perception (correct or incorrect) is a player performs beyond his normal skill set in these situations, but that might be more of a fan definition. Especially since many fans treat all postseason AB and IP as critical, when some just blatantly are not.

 

If you think of a clutch player as just being himself in important at bats, that’s plausible. But then the issue is quite often that player is just a good player in any circumstance. I mean, aren’t bad hitters also “clutch” if they have a .600 OPS in both critical and non-critical situations? After all, they don’t succumb to pressure as much as they simply suck.

 

But when clutch is thought of as excelling in critical situations, it gets difficult to prove. Most of our allegedly clutch hitters excel all the time, and really they turn into players thrust on a national stage more often to create memorable or epic moments. Would Derek Jeter be less clutch if he was on the Pirates? If you think so, clutch becomes a byproduct of environment as well.

 

To me, in far too many years of watching MLB, I’ve only seen one player with the ability to excel in critical situations, and that would be former Indian/Royal utility infielder Pat Tabler. Tabler was a .700ish OPS guy throughout his career who somehow posted an OPS over 1.000 with the bases loaded, and he had a reputation regarding this ability to boot. He was often called upon to pinch hit in these situations because of this skill, giving him a disproportionate amount of plate appearances with the sacks full.

 

No idea what it was about Tabler that made him excel in this one situation, but far bettter hitters have performed far worse where he shined.

 

I stand by my belief that the only clutch player ever was Pat Tabler…

[moonslav59]

Clutch is defined as the ability to come through in a critical situation where the outcome of the game is at stake. The perception (correct or incorrect) is a player performs beyond his normal skill set in these situations, but that might be more of a fan definition. Especially since many fans treat all postseason AB and IP as critical, when some just blatantly are not.

 

If you think of a clutch player as just being himself in important at bats, that’s plausible. But then the issue is quite often that player is just a good player in any circumstance. I mean, aren’t bad hitters also “clutch” if they have a .600 OPS in both critical and non-critical situations? After all, they don’t succumb to pressure as much as they simply suck.

 

But when clutch is thought of as excelling in critical situations, it gets difficult to prove. Most of our allegedly clutch hitters excel all the time, and really they turn into players thrust on a national stage more often to create memorable or epic moments. Would Derek Jeter be less clutch if he was on the Pirates? If you think so, clutch becomes a byproduct of environment as well.

 

To me, in far too many years of watching MLB, I’ve only seen one player with the ability to excel in critical situations, and that would be former Indian/Royal utility infielder Pat Tabler. Tabler was a .700ish OPS guy throughout his career who somehow posted an OPS over 1.000 with the bases loaded, and he had a reputation regarding this ability to boot. He was often called upon to pinch hit in these situations because of this skill, giving him a disproportionate amount of plate appearances with the sacks full.

 

No idea what it was about Tabler that made him excel in this one situation, but far bettter hitters have performed far worse where he shined.

 

I stand by my belief that the only clutch player ever was Pat Tabler…

 

You crack me up.

[notin]

Every great player has short sample sizes of poor numbers. There is no way of knowing if really good or really bad numbers are just some random slump or due to some phycological defect or positive anomality.

 

Exactly. Sometimes a guy is just not 100% in one October, and has a couple bad games and gets labeled a choker.

 

Is Scherzer a choker because his postseason games in his late 30s aren’t as good as the ones in his mid 20s? That seems unfair…

[notin]

You crack me up.

 

Tabler’s career OPS was .724. With the bases loaded, it was 1.198.

 

If that isn’t clutch, what is?

[Bellhorn04]

The thing is, if you randomly generated numbers for players in such scattered and small samples sizes as career playoff PAs or IP, you'd get a few outliers that do better than the norm. How can we know with any certainty that the numbers by Papi and Schill weren't just the luck of being hot, during those selected performances?

 

I get the point about facing tougher pitchers (Papi) and batters (Schill), so equal to regular season stats really means they did better. I bring up the Josh beckett example, a lot. The guy was on his way to becoming one of MLBs best playoff pitcher in history, then suddenly, he wasn't anymore, while still in his prime years.

 

The sample sizes are generally too small and scattered. The deviations from the norm look precisely the same as a randomly generated sample size of players and numbers over such a sample size.

 

I will say, I'm not sure about the idea of a player just being lucky vs some sort of skill helped by some sort of "inner calmness" or whatever we want to call it. That very well may play a role in improved or worse numbers by some players. I just think it is nearly impossible to prove, and I think the idea or "clutch" is hyped and over-stated.

 

Look what people were saying about Devers into mid May, this year. The guy has had some mammoth hits for the Sox, over the years. He goes 5-6 weeks hitting badly with men on base, and all of a sudden he is a choke. Nobody is talking that talk, anymore, except maybe in a few game threads..

 

Yes, I agree absolutely that it's impossible to prove or disprove.

[Bellhorn04]

But at some point, many of those better pitchers have already thrown 160-220 IP, which certainly can affect performance. It’s probably a significant factor in why many of the game’s best pitchers (Maddux, Kershaw, Pedro, Price, Scherzer) were less effective in the postseason, especially since postseason numbers are often a collection of small samples spread out over multiple years and the occasional bad outing can skew the data…

 

Yes, that is definitely a possibility.

[moonslav59]

Tabler’s career OPS was .724. With the bases loaded, it was 1.198.

 

If that isn’t clutch, what is?

 

I don't think a random generator would ever spit out a sample like that.

[notin]

I don't think a random generator would ever spit out a sample like that.

 

Especially since the .724 OPS includes his PA with the bases loaded. In all other situations, his OPS is .711.

 

With Tabler, the PA with the bases loaded was only 109 over his career. Granted, he was 43 for 88 in those situations. But is this just another collection of small samples spread out over a larger period? Tabler did have a reputation for hitting with the bases loaded; it’s even mentioned on his Wikipedia page. (And they call him “clutch” in that same paragraph.) Is this just a widely known happenstance or true clutch?

[Bellhorn04]

Pat Tabler is a deceiving guy. He did color on Blue Jays telecasts for years and at first listen he seemed like a typical ex-player just making a check, but he's actually pretty well-informed and a good analyst.

[moonslav59]

Especially since the .724 OPS includes his PA with the bases loaded. In all other situations, his OPS is .711.

 

With Tabler, the PA with the bases loaded was only 109 over his career. Granted, he was 43 for 88 in those situations. But is this just another collection of small samples spread out over a larger period? Tabler did have a reputation for hitting with the bases loaded; it’s even mentioned on his Wikipedia page. (And they call him “clutch” in that same paragraph.) Is this just a widely known happenstance or true clutch?

 

I'd say heppenstance.

[notin]

I'd say heppenstance.

 

Supportable, but 43 for 88 (.489) is some pretty insane happenstance…