Jump to content
Talk Sox
  • Create Account

Bellhorn04

Community Moderator
  • Posts

    54,662
  • 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

  1. I agree that big regular season games should be part of the discussion.
  2. Yeah, exactly. Gotta talk about something.
  3. Maybe we should have a separate thread for clutch vs. non-clutch. It's a topic that never seems to go away.
  4. You seem to be responding on the wrong thread. UserName was responding to Emp9 about Hanley.
  5. I think Kaat is clearly acceptable.
  6. I'm opposed to including nicknames.
  7. At the end of the day, clutch vs. non-clutch is just another topic to toss around.
  8. I don't think so. The idea that someone can be clutch is that some players handle pressure better than others. It's not so much that they get better than their regular selves, it's that they remain their regular selves while their opponents succumb to the pressure more. As I've said many times I believe there are significant psychological factors. This is just one of them.
  9. Your two statements are pretty contradictory. Why not just say it can't be either proven or disproven.
  10. There are also some very good players whose postseason numbers inexplicably fall woefully short of their regular season numbers. Based on my primitive research, the poster boy being Jeff Bagwell.
  11. The repeatability of clutch hitting is certainly severely limited by the fact that, in general terms, the hitter is always at a great disadvantage to the pitcher and the defense.
  12. Just because he popped up on that last at-bat in 1978 doesn't mean he wasn't clutch. Yaz homered and singled and drove in two runs in that game. The odds are always heavily stacked against the batter. You can't expect any hitter to come through all the time. All you can do is look at the preponderance of the numbers - the averages.
  13. There isn't necessarily a 'purpose' in labeling guys like Ortiz and Henderson and Schilling as clutch. It's just a way of giving them some extra credit for their achievements in big moments. I don't see the purpose in denying them that simply because the sample sizes can never be large enough to satisfy some arbitrary standard.
  14. You have to watch him though, as with his comparison of Olerud and Grace to Papi on the other thread.
  15. Oh, I know, Kimmi. That's okay, I still like you. :-)
  16. Your numbers for 1986 are the right ones, mine are a little off. There actually seems to be an odd glitch in the Game Log totals on that page.
  17. Dave Henderson was a slightly above average player who had 3 tremendous postseasons. 1986 BOS 15 games 324/378/730 1.108 OPS 4 HR 12 RBI 1988 OAK 9 games 333/385/500 885 OPS 1 HR 5 RBI 1989 OAK 9 games 281/410/719 1.129 OPS 3 HR 5 RBI
  18. But it's not based on just one hit.
  19. I missed it, but I know he was superhuman that year.
  20. And it would be two of the greatest homeruns in Sox history if not for...you know.
  21. Plus you almost have to be really good with the name Sam Travis.
  22. As for Beckett, he did have some rough outings late in his postseason career (he was pretty clearly injured in 2008), but his postseason numbers are still exceptional with a 3.07 ERA, a .94 WHIP and a 4.71 K/BB.
  23. I don't think you'll be getting any takers on that one. My list of the identifiably clutch is very short anyway. David Ortiz, Curt Schilling, Dave Henderson, Madison Bumgarner...
×
×
  • Create New...