Bellhorn04
-
Posts
54,897 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
76
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
2026 Boston Red Sox Draft Pick Tracker
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by Bellhorn04
-
I'm quite sure, actually, that a definition of clutch could be produced that would be reasonably satisfactory to everyone. We all have a general knowledge of what it means. Putting it into specific terms would take the kind of work it takes for a government to put something new in the tax code.
-
That's a good point as well. Some postseason at-bats are in garbage time and that needs to be taken into consideration.
-
Well, that's a good point...now you're providing a plausible reason for why Bagwell's postseason numbers may have been depressed. Much better than randomness, at any rate.
-
Choking is definitely no illusion and not a product of bad luck. If one accepts the idea that 'clutch' is actually an absence of choking, then 'clutch', or 'non-choking' if preferred, has to be acknowledged as real.
-
And according to Sherman of the NY Post, Betances is unhappy with how the Yankees have dealt with him the last 2 years. FWIW
-
The execution of the pitch is the most important thing, no question. But I think we can all agree that the selection of the type and location of pitch and the sequencing of the pitches is pretty damn important too.
-
That's just my simplistic reference point. I figure an average postseason at-bat is quite a bit higher leverage than an average regular season at-bat, because almost every postseason game can determine whether the team moves on or goes home. Anybody can go to B-R and see those two sets of numbers side by side. The difference for Bagwell is huge, that's why I'm picking on him. A more sophisticated measurement of high-leverage at-bats is obviously possible, but it's not readily available for the average fan.
-
What this reminds me of too is the debate about 'game-calling', and how the research was unable to show that there was such a thing as a superior 'game-caller', not even one named Jason Varitek.
-
By now I'm fine with the idea that they can't find evidence that clutch exists. I just can't equate that with providing evidence that it doesn't exist. As S5 said earlier, I think, this is almost like a debate over religious beliefs.
-
But the samples are for groups, as I understand it, not for individual players. This is where the statistical methodology becomes incomprehensible for the layman.
-
There aren't a whole lot of quotes from players or managers about clutch and choking. But after Game 3 of the 1999 ALCS when the Red Sox beat the Yankees 13-1 at Fenway, with Pedro pitching for the Sox and Clemens getting knocked out of the game in the third inning, Joe Torre said he thought the moment may have been too big for Clemens, or words to that effect. Certainly an admission that the circumstances of the game can affect a player's performance.
-
Well there is some truth in that, I think, S5. The manager's main job is not to make things happen, but to not screw things up. I'm a believer in clutch but I think that's the main principle that applies. Keep your head while others are losing theirs. The ability to be calm and focused and not think too much about how big the moment is.
-
OK, that's all fair, but what this means to me is that there is not 'strong evidence' of anything one way or the other. That's my big beef. You're saying the samples are too small and there's too much randomness, but that there's 'strong evidence' that clutch does not exist.
-
We're going round in circles, but you're not addressing the question of why not all good hitters hit well in clutch situations. Hall of Famer Jeff Bagwell had a .948 career OPS, but only .685 in the postseason. Because he's such a good hitter, shouldn't he have almost automatically hit well in clutch situations?
-
I think that's the definition us 'clutch' believers have pretty much reached a consensus on. All MLBers may be clutch, to have gotten that far, but are they all equally clutch? And does reaching the big leagues prepare you for playing with your team's season on the line?
-
Of course I never said Miller was the only good reliever in that pen. Here are the actual numbers for the 2016 postseason: Miller 19.1 IP 1.40 ERA Allen 13.2 IP 0.00 ERA Shaw 10.1 IP 4.35 ERA Otero 6.2 IP 2.70 ERA Clevenger 5.2 IP 4.76 ERA If you look at the game logs, in every late and close situation it was Miller, Shaw and Allen. Miller was indeed the relief ace, logging a huge number of innings. Allen was the lights-out closer. Those are the two guys that did it. The rest were okay.
-
Are you saying that Tito didn't use Miller properly in the playoffs this year?
-
Yes, but it's about placing emphasis on the known situation over the unknown situation. The known situation is a 2 run lead, 2 runners on and none out. For the 8th inning, if Miller gets you through the 6th and 7th you bring Shaw in with NOBODY ON BASE. Also you may have INCREASED YOUR LEAD. So it makes sense to deal with this known situation with your best reliever. I'm not disputing your point that you need multiple good relievers to make this work.
-
I don't think it's just forum fluff. Hypothetical situation: It's a playoff game. You're leading 2-0 going to the bottom of the 6th. Your starter has been okay but is probably tiring. The first two guys get on and you pull him. Who do you bring in? If it was the 2016 Guardians Tito would have brought Miller in there, whereas the traditional move would be to bring in Shaw. By bringing in Miller you improve your chances of snuffing out what might be a game-turning rally. That's an example of using the relief ace in the critical moment instead of saving him for a save opportunity that might not come. You may be able to use Miller for the 7th as well. You may score some runs in the 7th and the 8th and build a big lead.
-
Dojji, there is some merit in your point but you're oversimplifying. Good teams now generally have at least 3 relievers that could be classified as good. Let's look at the 2016 Guardians. Their top 3 relievers, the guys that Francona used as much as possible in the postseason, were Miller, Allen and Shaw. You could call Miller Mr. Excellent - 1.45 ERA for the season Call Allen Mr. Very Good - 2.51 ERA Call Shaw Mr. Good - 3.24 ERA The traditional way to employ these 3 guys would be to use Mr. Good, then Mr. Very Good, then Mr. Excellent. But what Tito generally did was use Mr. Excellent, Mr. Good, then Mr. Very Good.
-
Whether it's true or not, there is definitely a perception that some pitchers who are good in the seventh or eighth inning aren't really built to handle the pressure of being the closer.
-
That may be part of it. The other big factor, though, is that the 9th inning is considered the most important inning, the highest-leverage inning, the inning where the game is most on the line. The postseason does seem to raise the value of the closer, although this past postseason also showed that in today's game, a guy like Andrew Miller who doesn't pitch the 9th can also be a huge weapon.
-
I don't think there's any question that baseball is the hardest sport to identify clutch because randomness is such a factor. But if it exists in other major sports it seems credible that it also exists in baseball. Maybe the discussion of clutch should also be looking at other sports. Why would baseball be different? S5 was talking about the kid making the 2 free throws at the end of the game. I wonder if clutch free throw shooting stats in the NBA have ever been looked at.
-
Clearly it's impossible for a hitter to come up big every time, or even half the time. The odds are stacked too heavily against him. I think it's plausible that some hitters might be better than average in the clutch, though.
-
I think it's quite possible that baseball is the hardest sport in which to identify clutch or non-clutch because of the issues with randomness and sample sizes. Nobody's going to argue very strenuously against Michael Jordan or Tom Brady being clutch.
