Jump to content
Talk Sox
  • Create Account

User Name

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    18,192

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Profiles

Boston Red Sox Videos

2026 Boston Red Sox Top Prospects Ranking

Boston Red Sox Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits

Guides & Resources

2025 Boston Red Sox Draft Pick Tracker

News

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by User Name

  1. User Name
    I know now what I must do. I will bring an end to the great "clutch" debate using quantifiable methods. Stay tuned, members of the TalkSox community, for you are about to watch magic unfold.
  2. User Name
    Or it's a slow day at the office, either/or.
  3. User Name
    It's not circular reasoning. Are you saying that you can't have a significant amount of good AB's with s***** results? You know who's a good example of this? Let's go back to Nick Swisher. Good AB's, bad results. Yankees buy low, get a bunch of good seasons for a cheap price because the guy was just flat-out unlucky with the White Sox. I bet Kenny Williams thought "you make your own luck", before facepalming into giving the guy away.
  4. User Name
    But what is a "key moment"? That's part of the issue. Is it only when the season's on the line, postseason, close games? If a guy drives in the game-winning run in 20 games during the regular season, then has a bad postseason series and his team gets bounced from the playoffs, is he un-clutch?
  5. User Name
    But the closer doesn't pitch every 9th inning of every close game.
  6. User Name
    Baseball reference has a "leverage" calculator for regular season situations: If you want an actual example of a guy whose mid/high leverage stats trump his low leverage situation stats, well, David Ortiz: Low 900 OPS Mid 945 OPS High 946 OPS But what exactly does this prove? It proves that he's a guy who doesn't wilt under the spotlight, but you still can't present the argument that he's "clutch", because it's not a repeteable skill. For the sake of argument, let's look at Bagwell, who you've made out to be "un-clutch" because of his failures in the postseason: Low .938 Med .943 High .981 This is a guy who consistently played "up" to big moments and contribute to wins for the Astros, but all of it is dismissed because of the arbitrary idea of "clutch" assignment.
  7. User Name
    121 AB's.
  8. User Name
    To summarize: You get guys who rise up to occasions and guys who soil their pants in pressure situations. These are quantifiable through data, or appraisable through observation. But "clutch" entails, by definition, a skill. But "clutch" can't be a measurable skill because it's not repeatable. This is mostly an argument about semantics, but the point is, that "clutch" by its standard definition, does not exist. It just doesn't.
  9. User Name
    fred, this is wrong. You are wrong. Most of the prominent statistical data proponents do nothing but rave about the value of scouting and advocate for the mixture of both in order to gain effective insight into performance valuation of prediction. Almost all of the proponents for statistical analysis on here (or anywhere for that matter) say the same thing: Combining both approaches is what works best, but nothing is foolproof. You are suffering from a case of selective reading here.
  10. User Name
    You are just wrong on pretty much everything here except for two things: Pressure matters, and it's true that some pitchers/hitters can't handle it. But your continued incorrect assessment that closers are the only BP pitchers who can handle pressure is so wrong it makes me want to punch a kitten. It's wrong, you're wrong. Setup men face as much pressure as closers do, and are a lot of the time better pitchers than the closer itself. The only reason the closer myth persists is because of archaic thinking like this. Number two, aren't you a stats guy who claims to have invented a model for accurate predictions? If so, how can you accept a statistically insignificant sample as the basis for anything? Stop.
  11. User Name
    Rising to the occasion or shrinking on it is exactly what it is. The problem is with the "clutch" terminology. You can quantify a guy who exceeds expectations, or one who shrinks under them, but not the mythical creature known as "clutch". Also, denying the luck factor in baseball is like trying to deny the existence of dinosaurs. See, that's the beautiful thing about facts, they are true whether we want to believe in it or not, and the fact is that luck plays a significant factor in performance within limited samples. Let me ask you a question: Do you think Xander Bogaerts is "unclutch"?
  12. User Name
    Again, as I posted above, you get people who perform above or below their career averages in pressure situations. But "clutch" would imply not only a repeatable skill, but a statistically significant sample to prove. It's not possible to present either. Again, where are the crappy hitters performing like All-Stars in pressure situations? You're only presenting HOF caliber hitters. One who has succeeded, and one who hasn't in a SSS and with failing health.
  13. User Name
    "Clutch" does not exist. That is the point, that it's not a repeatable skill. Even more so, if you want to prove it exists, find me a statistically significant sample of below-average hitters who hit like All-stars in pressure situations. What you have are guys who underperform or overperform in pressure situations, but not by a significant enough sample to make the myth of "clutch" a reality, specially in baseball, where the only constant for hitters is that they will fail most of the time. Also, where's the "clutch" for pitchers then?
  14. User Name
    Have I told you that you're absolutely hilarious sometimes?
  15. User Name
    I think whoever gets traded does so before the season starts
  16. User Name
    My eyes hurt.
  17. User Name
    Nice
  18. User Name
    Really fred? You're complaining already? Holy crap.
  19. User Name
    Koji's a perfect example of how any really good reliever can close, not the other way around. There have been some championship teams where the best reliever isn't even the closer.
  20. User Name
    Stop using common sense damn you!
  21. User Name
    You can learn to handle the media/fans, or you can switch teams. It's almost impossible to overcome self-imposed pressure/mental blocks. Just ask Rick Ankiel.
  22. User Name
    And have been the closers for championship teams to boot. Like with hitters, there are guys who wilt under pressure. But any good pitcher can close. The variable here is being "good". The funny thing is that most great closers have either been failed starters or very good setup men. Some people around here are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole so they can keep spouting their archaic (and disproven) theories, because reasons.
  23. User Name
    iortiz and common sense don't get along very well unfortunately.
  24. User Name
    They could also start the season with 11 pitchers, but that would also muddle the OF picture even more.
  25. User Name
    It doesn't matter how much they're paying him. He needs to start in Pawtucket and get regular, unimpeded reps. He'll be up for good eventually when Victorino gets his season-ending back injury.
×
×
  • Create New...