Bellhorn04
-
Posts
54,663 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
75
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 Bellhorn04
-
Just go ahead and pencil him in.
-
Yes, they're projecting his cancerous nature to kick in during the World Series.
-
Clowns.
-
Totally fair.
-
'His successes will outnumber and outlive his failures?' To me that's a pretty weak description of a guy with Brady's incredible regular season record, 7 AFC championships and 5 Super Bowls. I imagine they'll find something a little better than that to put on his plaque in Canton.
-
Well, you're allowing for the possibility that Price's postseason issues could be attributable to something other than randomness, now, aren't you?
-
And ERA is hardly the best measuring stick, as you well know.
-
Whether the guy does great in the clutch or lousy in the clutch, you always have a readily available explanation other than mental factors.
-
I would argue that Brady has proven himself to be a clutch performer, even though he has had his failures. His ability to execute those late touchdown drives in the last 2 Super Bowl wins was phenomenal. Some people may have unrealistic definitions of clutch. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
-
Yes he was. David Price is a very good pitcher, too. You know the rest...
-
If you look at it on a proportionate basis, 1.89 is about 55% of 3.54 and 3.38. So a comparable number for 2016 might be more like 2.30. I think the even more impressive numbers for Gibby are the 9 innings per start (most on short rest), the WHIP and the K/BB.
-
That's for freaking sure.
-
Let's consider the case of Bob Gibson as a clutch performer. Gibson had 81 postseason innings to his credit. So, of course, the sample isn't large enough. But those 81 innings came in a total of 9 games. That's right, an average of 9 innings per game. One 8-inning game, one 10-inning complete game, and 7 9-inning complete games. The 9 games came in a total of 3 postseasons. They also came in a total of 3 series - the World Series of 1964, 1967 and 1968. This was before divisional play began. So Gibson pitched 27 innings in each of 3 World Series. He pitched 5 games on 3 days rest and one game on 2 days rest. For the 9 games he had a 1.89 ERA, a .89 WHIP and a 5.41 K/BB. He was MVP of the 1964 and 1967 World Series.
-
As I said before, though, I think the real problem is in defining high leverage situations, and I would like to see a study that places much more weight on the leverage of the game. Which would narrow the samples down to postseason games and crucial late-season games. Which, unfortunately, also makes the samples too small when combined with the randomness factor.
-
I'm not sure why it's so difficult to define, really. It's not all that complicated, or it shouldn't be, in my opinion. A clutch player is a player whose performance in high-leverage situations is equal to or better than their overall performance. A clutch player is someone whose numbers indicate they're not adversely affected by pressure.
-
Thornburg out with shoulder impingement
Bellhorn04 replied to jacksonianmarch's topic in Boston Red Sox Talk
Beautiful. Will we ever see Smith or Thornburg throw a pitch for us? -
So what, there's not even such a thing as a clutch play?
-
Well, obviously, the less reasonable and less down-to-earth you make the definition, the easier it is to discredit.
-
To me this illustrates a big perception problem with 'clutch' and why we need to come up with a more sensible and realistic definition. It's just plain stupid to define a clutch player as someone who magically elevates under pressure and can do it every time.
-
Just because something could be random doesn't mean that it is in fact random. There are alternative explanations.
-
I don't think so either.
-
The fact that Papi and Schilling can be explained away by randomness doesn't disprove anything. It merely provides an alternate explanation that can't be ruled out.
-
Disprove, or fail to prove?
-
I don't think there any actual examples of this happening.
-
Researchers are up against a perfect storm of small sample sizes and randomness trying to prove or disprove clutch. A guy might have a sensational postseason record, like Schilling, but it can still be attributed to randomness. Nothing proven, nothing disproven.
