sk7326

Consistency and repeatibility is the proof that it exists. Now - at least for me - the issue is not whether big moments exist. Of course they do. (this seems to be a popular strawman) It is whether the ability to deliver then is really differentiating. Clutch would be a little easier to get behind as a thing if there were, say players the caliber of Sandy Leon - who delivered Papi-esque production in higher leverage spots. At best, clutch performers are a subset of a group of players who were already far more likely to deliver than their counterparts.

All of this is true - and great players embody all of it (and therein lies the problem). You have the odd David Price - but his splits are so rare that it does not seem to prove anything.

He was a remarkable postseason pitcher - he was also a remarkable, very underrated all the time pitcher. He also pitched quite poorly in the 2007 ALCS. So even there there was a blip.

Clutch definitions always seem to be applied post-hoc which is problematic. Every systematic definition of a clutch situation has largely revealed no statistically significant evidence. Again - that doesn't mean that such situations don't exist - but the evidence is scant. Are some players better than others in those spots? Sure. Is it a significantly different list of players than simply players who are good? I am skeptical. Pitchers with men on base of course is meaningful - pitching out of the stretch is a different skill after all. After all - every favorite example comes with a pretty good counter. Papi is an all time clutch player. He had a miserable 2008-2009 and 2016 postseason. ARod choked a lot. He was the Yankees best player in their 2009 title run. David Price can't get it done in big games. He pitched his best down the stretch for teams chasing division titles the last two seasons.

In his chat, someone noted the Red Sox either had or dealt 7 of his Top 24, which is pretty ridiculous

Org Sleeper Pick http://www.espn.com/blog/keith-law/insider/post?id=6739

It would have changed the narrative. Would he have gotten better? Who knows? But he became a great hitter - and with the Red Sox being so successful, a number of those moments found him.

Martinez' production was fairly low variability to - until the very end, he was a ridiculously good hitter. Ortiz had a 3 year stretch where he seriously lost it - which I do think people tend to forget. It makes the autumn of his career remarkable of course.

When I meant unclutch - I note that he was the league's best player. I would have wanted him up at every hour of the day - not just the big moments. That is my issue with the clutch player definition - it does not deny psychology. It does not deny the reality of players coming up big. It's just that in almost every case - those identified also happened to be the best players in the sport. They weren't hulking up - they were that way the entire time. The moment found them.

Fairly short years - we knew he could hit (that was the big surprise of his 2015 - that he didn't hit at all). Money is sort of a who cares - if John Henry wants to lay it out, hooray.

Yaz was the best player in the entire league in 1967. He was unclutch as well. (which sort of proves the point)

All projections are bearish to some degree - I commented on upside not probability. Although Travis has moved quickly since he was drafted.

To some extent ... as you know, the winner's curse infects FA. That and the age of the average UFA makes it a difficult pool to jump into for longer term help. If you look at some of the biggies Sandoval - a shaky contract when it was awarded, the player has more than lived down to the pessimism Ramirez - a pretty good contract considering. He was lousy the first year, and bounced back last year. Has been a mixed bag, but I'd happily do it again largely. (although I'd have put him in the infield from the jump) Victorino - an MVP-caliber one season, which paid for the entire contract more or less. Probably a net loss but not a large one and flags fly forever. Uehara - wish he were more durable, but 2013 was magic, and when he was relatively healthy he was always good. AJ Pierzynski - he was awful. But clearly part of the intent was to have a 1-year stopgap because of how much catching they had in the org. So no harm. There were lots of relievers otherwise, and they do what relievers do ... kind of throw your hands up there

Travis' upside is probably more like Mark Grace or (if you squint really hard) John Olerud. Which ain't shabby at all.

I believe in clutch moments. And certainly who wouldn't have wanted David Ortiz up in those spots? I just happen to note that I also liked my chances with David Ortiz up pretty much any hour of the day. And his actual postseason resume has both high highs and some dead spots ... a lot of the clutch moments are a function of getting a lot of swings at it.

Is the overlap between "Really good players" and "players good by some sort of clutch criteria" small enough to pay a ton extra for it? I just don't see it.

The Red Sox org writeup http://www.espn.com/blog/keith-law/insider/post?id=6345

Adrian Beltre

Biggest question is the bullpen, because of course it is. It's the one area of a team that I couldn't trust even if everybody was in place ...

He was a Vanderbilt signee iirc, and historically Vandy has gotten their HS prospects to go (no wonder, tremendous education, reputation of protecting pitchers). All his advisor had to do was create the threat he'd not sign to the teams he did not want to pay for. Good for him, take whatever leverage you can.

Lot of work to do to rebuild the org's depth and ceiling as a whole - but still a number of studs

On stuff that was traded 7. Michael Kopech (2016 unranked) 17. Yoan Moncada (2016 #17) 21. Anderson Espinoza (2016 #38) 24. Manuel Margot (2016 #25)

#1. Andrew Benintendi (2016 rank: 18) #11. Rafael Devers (2016: #7) #20. Jason Groome (NEW) #98 Sam Travis (2016 unranked)

Relevant blurbs from the 2017 list (behind paywall - you're welcome - ground rule: prospect = rookie eligible in 2017) Full index http://www.espn.com/mlb/insider/story/_/id/18559400/index-top-100-prospects-2017-including-andrew-benintendi-others-mlb Methodology Org Ranking #16. Boston Red Sox

I agree - but I think there was some politics involved there. And the team is not exactly starving there. If there was a quality corner or someone - moving Bradley would make sense. You could end up with a better outfield in the right trade. But that trade is very unlikely - so that is fine. This is a good group.