sk7326
-
Posts
7,631 -
Joined
-
Last visited
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 sk7326
-
I don't think the "does clutch exist" question is germane for whether I enjoy the big games, or get nervous at big times or have had hero worship for Big Papi. I have had all of those - but it's not sufficient for management to evaluate players. That is the crux of the thing.
-
How his tour ended in Boston obscures just what a ridiculously good player he was before his injury ... he was good after too, but the 2003 postseason was meh and 2004 was what it was.
-
On this note, the ability to have a good season is built almost entirely on un-clutch moments, boring Tuesdays in front of fans looking at their smartphones and trying to get on the Dance-Cam. I'd be worried if a dude is dialed in only during TV friendly times (that'd be a frontrunner).
-
Nomar was a bleepin' monster in 1998 and 1999 postseasons - 2003 ordinary. So I'm not sure that's a conclusive statement either. Luck and health are facts of any postseason - it's not fun to chock up things to it, but there you go. And besides, big occasions are a function of good teams (usually) as much as anything. I don't think the argument is even that clutch exists/doesn't exist. I'm a fan - it sure as hell exists to me when I watch. But there has not been a definition of those situation which meaningfully separate hitters or pitchers in a way that is siginificantly different from those players rank in general. The extreme cases largely do not exist ... the guy who is Nicky Punto 90% of the time but magically turns into 2004 Barry Bonds in the 8th inning with the tying run on base (and if he did, you'd ask whether he was asleep during the Nicky Punto times).
-
My favorite quote (iirc) came from John Hollinger, the Memphis NBA VP and former ESPN basketball writer ... He sees it more as "guys who love the sport so much they're willing to do the boring math to try to figure out what happened"
-
Disagree here - you look at his last seasons pre Boston, he was a terrible hitter from the left side. Mozel tov to him, but taking at bats from his stronger side is alarming.
-
He has a lot of hits in big moments - now does that mean you can make a meaningful evaluation of hitters in just those circumstances? No. After all, Ortiz is the best recent Red Sox hitter in non-clutch situations too.
-
Baltimore for one, where Tommy Hunter had 11 saves and Britton had 37. Cleveland had a couple of guys with double digit saves The Cards had a closer who handled most of their saves - Trevor Rosenthal - he was also not very good (1.41 WHIP, eek) Joe Nathan is another proven closer who had 35 saves, and was terrible (1.53 WHIP, eek) Granted the former two teams have good managers and the latter not so much. (at least in terms of this sort of stuff) Put another way - I did not see Mark Melancon's ability to be tough and strong during his tour here.
-
Oh I never disputed that - just the idea that things like RISP, 7th inning and on, or whatever is proof of anything. It just strikes me that while I'd like to have Ortiz up with the game on the line, I'd also like to have him up when it isn't.
-
I think there are issues of long term bullpen usage which precludes teams from using closers more liberally. Certainly a lot of what Farrell does is monitoring Koji's odometer. Guys like to know when they're gonna pitch it seems - the committee approach is tough. Grady when he tried it did not seem to know what he was doing. But some managers are ok with not letting the regular guy go the 9th every single time too.
-
and the Giants won 3 titles with three different closers with much deck chair shuffling throughout. And as dominating as Uehara was, it is hard to separate his role from Tazawa and Breslow (the latter often had much more perilous gigs) - and the Red Sox were the best team in the league from the start of the season.
-
Most of the aforementioned were getting John Wetteland 1996 saves - swooping in for 3 outs with bases empty while Mariano Rivera did all the real work.
-
It is a role - that has been shown clearly. That is, managers have tried to just match up the entire way, and have generally been unable to. Guys like to know when they are going to pitch. Even advanced guys like Maddon, Francona whomever still give the 9th over to a designated pitcher. But you look at really good teams. All four of 2013's LCS participants basically found their closer on the fly. Two of the LCS participants last year did. Now there are some guys who had extraordinary performances (Rivera, Uehara 2013, Kimbrel, Foulke 2004) - the guys who you'd want to come into the 8th inning of a big game is who I'm talking about - but a lot of the times it's just finding a guy and giving him a spin.
-
I think it is a little more specific. Crawford changed gigs because the Red Sox gave him a giant pile of money. He came to Boston, and for whatever reason, hated his new job. Not every company is the same in any field, and you can be happy in one place and miserable in another. That can (and does) seep into performance. He made a poor lifestyle choice - and while nobody is weeping for him paywise - one of the downsides of that 7 year hitch is that HE was stuck there too. (until the trade fell from the sky) I think that stands outside of whether he can come through in a big spot.
-
That's a lot of not very special pitchers who have capably handled the biggest inning in the game.
-
Fernando Rodney, Jason Motte, Joel Hanrahan, Brandon League, Derek Lowe, Sergio Romo, Grant Balfour, Jose Mesa
-
Yeah - I noted in my edit. If they go 11, I think Bradley makes more sense as a defensive replacement - unless you want to pencil in Victorino as a backup CF. I'd be afraid he shattered into tiny pieces if he had to do that.
-
Assuming 12 pitchers come up north, projecting the 25: C: Vasquez 1B: Napoli 2B: Pedroia 3B: Sandoval SS: Bogaerts LF: Ramirez CF: SOMEBODY RF: Victorino DH: Ortiz 4 roster spots left Backup C: Hanigan Backup IF: Holt Backup OF: Craig, Nava Centerfield is the only position where we have minor league options left - so 2 of Betts, Castillo and Bradley will be in AAA (I include Bradley because I am a nice person). Now, theoretically the team could cut Nava (they could cut anybody, but assuming a realistic maximum the team wants to eat). But otherwise something has to give numberswise. Now if the Red Sox bring 11 pitchers - which is possible but I doubt myself - Castillo might be the next man up. But if that's the case, Bradley might be a better choice early. This would give Castillo regular game reps (for a guy who has not played much baseball lately), and an excellent defensive CF replacement since I am deathly afraid of Victorino breaking in half.
-
Which explains why the last two World Series champs cycled through closers during the season.
-
Let's put it this way - I am sure the Yankees did not sign Swisher without watching him play. The analytics people reveal that he is terrific on base and power guy relative to cost ... the scouts can tell you that he can get by in the outfield in NY (i.e. what worked with Oakland was not temporary) and you put it together. I think there is a perception at work here - that some orgs only have grumpy old scouts who have "seen it all", and that some only have mathematicians, and that you only use one set of tools to make a decision. Gotta have both, and the two disciplines complement each other. I will also note that "scouting" is a misused term in some ways - amateur and pro scouting are completely different areas and treated separately by the organizations.
-
Tricky part with Lee is the no-trade. The money is steep, but that is a non-issue - if the Sox think he is worth it, they can pay for it. Something like guaranteeing the team option might be necessary to get him to waive it. And if he really is deemed as good enough for 1-year, given that he is a command and feel guy, it is probably good enough for 2 years.
-
Oh I am not dismissing that - and rules of thumb do not mean 100%. And I do think the externalities of playing in Boston did affect Crawford. That is not clutchness (which I isolate as within the game) so much as job environment. The latter exists to me, although it might be smaller than writers make it. Who knows why a guy isn't comfortable in a new job. I don't pshaw big plays and whatever - as a fan I love it, but it is a fan's view. I don't think it's something an org can necessarily plan for (clutch hitting). After all, for the most part, good players at the best times are (at a minimum) good players the other times. So acquiring good players is still a smart way to go.
-
Well it depends on how you frame the problem. The analysis that has been done on "clutch" trying to isolate those situations (close and late, base runners, down a run) all have resulted in no satisfactory answers. You just get good hitters being good hitters. You also get to the conceptual problem - for instance Ortiz hit one of the most clutch home runs in recent history in 2013. He also had a very bad series in general - considering the Sox lost 2 games, there were a myriad of important at bats he did not deliver. Did the clutchiness go away? Now, just thinking about it, I'd expect anti-clutchness to be more measurable - but there has not been a unified definition of what is a clutch situation. Kimmi is right though. Large issues of makeup keep guys out of the show.
-
Only suspense with Moncada is whether he starts in Greenville or Salem. Given how little baseball he has played lately, Greenville makes the most sense and let him crash through levels on his own pace.
-
True - although he does have options, which might make him in the minors at least a short short term way to solve the roster issue.