a700hitter

They are rationalizations because without knowledge of the FO strategy it is an unsubstantiated excuse. If you like what they did in the off season, that is okay. You usually come armed with stats and data to back up your arguments, but I don't remember seeing any compelling data in this regard. I have seen arguments (not by you) that this collection of mediocrity is an execution of the FO forward thinking strategy. Eyerolls. That is not backed up by data. It's a guess at best. IMO, an argument like that is baseless rationalization.

Yuk!

Day games are not the best barometer. It will not show up in a box score or in a stat, but Hanley Ramirez's instincts looked pretty bad today in the OF today. He took a wild route on contact today as if the ball was over his head. The ball settled gently in the glove of XB on the lip of the OF grass. It was a routine infield pop up. I will be watching him closely, because that was an amateurish break on contact.

Yep, and because people are just speculating as to FO strategy -- pulling it out of their you know what's. I don't like their moves, and I don't care about speculating about FO strategy. If people like their moves, that is fine, but it's bogus when people conclude that the FO executed its strategy. As for resigning ourselves to the situation, there is no alternative. I have had to resign myself to having had a jackass boss from time to time, but I still complained about it. Does resigning ourselves to a situation mean that we can't have an opinion about it?

He looked like dog doo today. Some very weak hitters hit him pretty hard today.

i am not a scientist either, but a ball with a lot of over-spin does look like it is picking up speed on a hard infield and artificial turf. It's like a rising fastball. It's not rising. It' s just not sinking at the same rate as other fast balls. Scientists did publish papers concluding that the curve ball was an optical illusion.

Is there an expiration date on issues we discuss? If anyone is still alive who remembers the 1948 season they are probably still questioning the decision to start Denny Galehous in the playoff game against the Guardians. The only thing that settles an issue is winning. Winning ends whining. Until this staff proves that it isn't just a collection of no-name mediocrities, I will be pissed about losing Lester. Any explanation offered is just a weak-ass rationalization as far as I am concerned. If those excuses make people feel better, good for them. I not buying any of it.

Moose came back to haunt the Yankees in the 1963 World Series with the Dodgers hitting a big Homer or 2.

Cliff Lee is done. I wonder if that makes it more or less likely that Hamels gets traded.

So Victorino is healthy and Castillo is banged up? Go figure.

Where did they send Moncado to start camp? What is the word on Castillo's injury? Is it the same injury that shut him down in Winter Ball?

The baseball players whose opinions I would value probably don't know which end of the pencil to hold.

The question comes down to who you believe -- analytics produced by pencil-pushers or the guys that played the game.

That is what I said.

Yaz with runners in scoring position performed better than his career slash line. With RISP and 2 out his OBP was 44 points better than his career mark and his OPS was .829 versus .841 for his career. These numbers probably reflect that he was feared and that opposing managers would rather walk him than let Yaz beat them. In late and close situations, his numbers are pretty close to his career numbers.

It is more important for the team that he steps up his game on the defensive side of the ball.

Big Schill could dominate with substandard stuff in the post season in 2007, because the pressure didn't affect his execution. Call it anecdotal if you like, but I'd rather have him taking the bump in a big game over just about anyone, including Clemens and Randy Johnson. They had better careers, but neither was as good in big games as Big Schill. Clemens was famous for being over-amped.

He hit a nice bomb today. Plus power when he gets the barrel on the ball.

Yep.

Not good for us.

The misconception by some people is that the clutch player steps up his game in high pressure situations. I know that I am repeating this from my earlier posts. The clutch player doesn't get better in big spots. His abilities are what they are regardless of the situation. The clutch player is less affected by and handles the pressure better than the other guy. BSN talked about jelly legs on the mound, and that hits the professionals too. If a pitcher is feeling the jelly legs, he is more likely to miss his spot and the clutch hitter will do what he would in the 1st inning or any other non-pressure situation with a fat pitch. He will hit it hard. I have heard Goose Gossage interviewed about facing Yaz in the 1978 one game playoff. He said that his legs were shaking so badly that he thought it was noticeable. Not everyone had Gossage's stuff, even when he had jelly-legs. Yaz said that Gossage had two fast balls -- up and in and down and away. He guessed up and in, but the pitch was down and away and Gossage beat him.

And I disagree with your bolded statement. I'll go with what the professional golfers told Boswell. These were some golf pros from the local golf club. These were the top PGA players. Even at the highest level of professional sports, athletes feel the pressure and it affects performance. It doesn't take much to give the other guy an edge. It is a game of inches.

I don't think I called anyone a choker, nor did Tom Boswell in his book. The point Boswell was making backed up by the golfers he spoke with was that they all choke, except in their opinion the remarkable Nicklaus. The key to winning golf was to choke less than the rest of the field. I think that is probably true in baseball as well. A player's abilities to perform obviously are not enhanced in key situations, but the so-called clutch player handles the pressure better than other players. Since baseball involves competition against other players, if the batter handles pressure better than most pitchers handle it, his stats might be better in those situations. His skills didn't get better in those situations. He just handled the pressure better. Player are not robots. If they were robots, they wouldn't suffer prolonged slumps and enjoy tremendous hot streaks. There is an undeniable mental part to the game and it affects performance.

I read something by Tom Boswell about Jack Nicklaus. Boswell's research from interviewing many golfers was that they all choked. Theyadmitted it to Boswell. The successful ones were the ones who choked the least or who choked last. Nicklaus was a god-like figure among golfers, because Nicklaus never choked in their opinion.

In a big situation (bases loaded 2 outs in the 9th inning down by one run), you look down your bench and you have ARod and Papi in their primes available to hit, who do you select to hit? A righty is on the mound, but the lefty with equivalent stuff and stats is in the bullpen for Ortiz. For Yankee fans, the same situation, but on the bench is Jeter and ARod in their primes, who do you have bat?