sk7326

no - total package. That said, if Betts played CF full time, he'd be at least as good. He is a Top 10 player already overall - and in both his amateur and pro careers has shown to be the sort of athlete we all knew growing up, who could be good at anything you threw at him.

2.5 year age gap and the possibility JBJ is the 3rd best CF in their current outfield (and I like Bradley!) make me value Bogaerts significantly more.

I suspect there will have to be a hard choice between Bradley and Betts - which is, in other words, not a hard choice.

The land of "adequate corner OF" is large and not particularly costly to acquire - because of Betts, Red Sox are in a position where they can substitute Bradley with somebody legitimately excellent.

flip flop Bogaerts and Bradley ... 2.5 year age gap + quality of substitutes

development will matter more - if you want ceiling at least. players might be a bit rawer. we'll see what happens - the team has had a lot of success drafting superior athletes and counting on them figuring stuff out.

Yeah, especially with the variable of pitcher health, and the Red Sox' own resources - I am less concerned about mortgaging 4-5 years from now. Am I concerned that the Sox have less ceiling in their org than they used to? Sure, especially without the same sort of monetary tools available to them (because of the recent CBA changes regarding amateurs). But their ability to solve that is on the scouting and development staff - and doing things like taking Jason Groome despite being a tough sign is a good omen there. Dombrowski being aggressive trading guys he has not identified as future cornerstones does not bother me - providing we are getting the right guys back blah blah blah. The Red Sox will always have the resources to find worker bees. (and yes I recognize the luxury tax constraints - but that's John Henry's choice) And the stars they do have are so young that they will be heading into their primes in 3-4 years! Yes, the Sox might not be able to re-sign all of them, but that is fine. (Bradley for instance is clearly 3rd in priority among the outfielders)

Of course - just was noting that because Yaz played his entire career in the pre-Wild Card era, and that the Red Sox - and that the first few years of his career predated the Impossible Dream when the Sox had very few spots to deliver the resume of Ortiz-ian legendary highlights. (and obviously less media etc) I think Ortiz is the greatest "clutch hitter" in Red Sox history - not because he was better in those spots than, say, Williams or Yaz (though he might have been), but because he has had many more chances to deliver in those sorts of "historical" spots.

And do you know who those players are? They are really good. That is kind of the point about clutch vs non-clutch. It is not whether the players are robots - it is not whether nerves affect players the same way. The question is whether - in general, for the population - there is a meaningful consistent difference between say, your best hitters over the season and your best hitters in these situations. And for me, the answer is basically no.

David Ortiz, because of expanded playoffs - as well as the general quality of the Red Sox during his time here, had ... I have to think ... the most number of chances to deliver in big spots of any of the great hitters in Red Sox history. (Yaz may have had more since his career was 750 years long) There were more "pennant chases" and certainly more playoff games. There are some big spots which are obvious while its happening. There are others that seem big after something happens. (for instance, the Reggie Jackson homerun in the Bucky Dent game was every bit as big) Can a big spot occur in the 1st inning? (like Ortiz' homerun in Game 7 of the 2004 ALCS) The definitions are all squishy and ultimately for our enjoyment/narrative.

I don't agree with buying what you can make. I understand Dombrowski's temptation and views differ here.

It was a weird trade at the time too - the investment in the closer was understandable but probably could have been sourced a lot cheaper.

Long season - 159-3 is still a good record. Sale was outstanding. But again, the 3rd and 4th time through the order penalties are legitimate - once they came up the 4th time, you knew it could be dicey.

4th time through the order - need to have a quick trigger finger\

Sure - and postseason data is very small anyway (against good teams, which is important) But the bottom line to me is that clutch moments are almost always decided post hoc (and really more for us fans). The players are not robots - but by and large, the guys you want up with the game on the line are the guys you'd like to have up in general. David Ortiz is the greatest clutch hitter in Sox history. But then, he also has had far, far, far more chances to deliver in big spots than any other player in Red Sox history.

Why not? I saw how much Ortiz stunk in the 2008 ALCS, or the 2009 ALDS or (let's face it except for the grand slam) the 2013 ALCS. Nobody brings those up either - it is why the clutch discussion is a bit weird. I am content with knowing Ortiz was good - and the team was good enough to get him to the plate with a lot on the line.

Control is simply throwing strikes. Command I think has to do more with movement - do your pitches do what they are supposed to do. If you want the curve to go in the dirt, will it? Can't really have command without control, but you can have the reverse.

I think the thread asks the wrong question (I have been away - so yes I am late here). The question is "is there a definition of clutch hitting that is meaningfully separate from good hitting". And empirically, the answer is no. The answer is not perfect - because life is messy - but from a general rule of thumb perspective, that is the essence. So much of what is called a clutch situation is applied post-hoc. My favorite example is Big Papi - who has so many big hits. But he has also been on tons of good teams - of course he had the chance. I think it was Parcells who talked about luck being preparation meeting opportunity - and ultimately, there has not been a definition of clutch that is much better than that.

I think it is smart to bet on the track record - so the Red Sox should have the eject button ready for Leon. But - he was really good last season, and clearly DESERVES the chance to prove that his transformation last year will hold.

Caught stealing % is a bit like RBIs - it is a team accomplishment. Remember for a lot of Epstein's time here - the Red Sox were the worst stolen base team in the league. But they also were vigilant in not wanting their pitchers to worry about different mechanics, slide steps etc. Get the batter out, the rest solves itself. Also - it's not 1983 anymore. The times to run are chosen so carefully - and (generally, though better than in recent years) so much less frequent that there is just not going to be much variation among catchers in this area. I mean certainly some catchers have better arms than others - but I am not sure it comes out in the results that differently.

Inside the park HR Straight Steal of Home Anytime an outfielder brings a homerun back For the sort of rarer things, the 17+ strikeout game (which has happened about as often as perfect games)

He is also 28 years old (in a later blooming position granted) - there are more reasons to believe fluke than real. But - given the situation, he deserves the chance to prove me wrong.

It's not the last 4 weeks - it is the REST OF HIS CAREER. 177 ABs of a 5 year career as a fringe major leaguer. Now I think he deserves to start the year as #1.

As Ueck says, catching a knuckleball is easy. Just wait for it to stop rolling.

Leon had 6 good weeks and was the Sandy Leon flavored pumpkin the rest of the time. Now he deserves the right to prove me wrong. The team would be best off if Swihart did what it took to win the gig.