Kimmi

Nice! Make it count Sox!

LOL NS. Exactly.

It's a start.

There's one. Chip away guys.

You mean pretty much all of them. LOL

It must stink for Yankees fans to have to cheer for a guy like ARod.

The good news is, most of his adventures on defense can be attributed to lack of experience. Hopefully, anyway. He should get better as he gains that experience.

Hanley is an adventure in LF. He reminds me of Manny in so many ways.

Nice Hanley.

Chip away. There's a long way to go in this game.

Well, so much for all the feel good feelings from Friday and Saturday.

I hate Arod.

The Red Sox are giving the Yankees a gift inning.

Bostopz, and anyone else interested in this topic, I started a separate thread in the MLB Baseball section.

I started this thread so that those of you who are tired of this debate or think it's a waste of time can just ignore it. Of course, that opens the very real possibility that I might be talking to myself here. LOL I think that we are all in agreement that both are important. I haven't heard a single stat geek say that scouting (aka eyes) isn't important. Likewise, I haven't heard a single traditionalist (not on this site anyway) say that stats are not important. I think the debate arises when the stats and the eyes disagree. Which one is correct in those situations? Well, I think you know what my answer to that question is, at least the majority of the time. While I will defend my stats 'til I'm blue in the face, I understand that stats can't tell the whole story. I also am a strong believer in the human element side of the game, things like heart, grit, confidence, etc. That said, when claims like "a speedy baserunner really disrupts the defense and helps the batter" are made, despite evidence to the contrary, I have to go with the evidence. FTR, until I read the research on this particular topic, I would have sworn up and down that this claim was true.

Exactly Spud, and thank you.

I'm down with this too, and I don't even like beer.

That's the beauty of baseball. On any given day, any team can beat any other, much more so than in other sports. There is just so much random variation in the game.

You are freaking hilarious Spud.

No, I'm not caught up in whether a player can play better in big spots. We already know that does not happen. I have agreed with others that there are those that choke, or can't handle the pressure as well as others. I just think that they've been weeded out before reaching the major league level. I have also acknowledged that golf may be a different animal than baseball, when it comes to clutch and choking.

You make perfect sense Spud. And I agree.

We think of playing in the majors as being the most pressure filled level, and maybe it is. But the amount of pressure the players must face trying to get to the show must be intense. Think of all the scouts that they play in front of, knowing that how they play is the possible difference between being a career minor leaguer (or worse), or being a major league star. If they've made it to the show, they have shown that they can handle the pressure.

But do they choke more often than they do in "normal" situations?

This is a very valid point.

Contrary to popular belief, I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. As I've said before, I love the debate. As far as I know, I have not thrown an insult at anyone during a baseball debate. I can debate topics without hurling insults, and I think my posts here show that.