moonslav59

I doubt a package of Downs, Mata, Jimenez and R Hernandez gets it done, and I'm not sure I give that up for 1.3 years of Berrios.

Why would a guy like him last 11 rounds?

There are years and windows of opportunity where focusing a little more on the present than the long term makes some sense. The key is not taking that to an extreme, like I believe DD did. Thank God it worked, and we had 3 years of very exciting baseball to watch and including a fantastic 2018 year. I don't think now is that time. Our window has just opened, and if we do this right, this window can stay open for 2-3 years or even longer, if Bloom is who I think he is.

Remember all the Kike bashing over the first two months? So many people think that all players will follow the trend they have been in over their most recent 2 weeks, 2 months and for some even 2 days.

And it's harder for pitchers, because they are facing better hitters and managers pulling out all the stops.

No. You are circling. If it's a skill that Betts does not have, he shouldn't hit well in the clutch going forward. Not many ball players develop new skills taht late in their career, and how will we know it wasn't just random luck or just Betts regressing to his career norm?

Yes, indeed. I really trust his plan.

I don't think Bloom trades anything really promising. I'm expecting we stay under the tax line and don't trade top prospects. We may not even trade anyone Bloom thinks is odds on to make the 40 man roster, next year, so that may only leave guys like Chavis, Potts, Rosaro and Ward to deal, but look what we got for Beeks and Espinal in 2018. Since I don't see us doing anything major, I think going pitching makes more sense. We have 4 replaceable 26 man roster slots and 3 are pitchers. (Santana/Chavis, Rios, Workman & Andriese) Sale & Houck might take 2 (emphasis on MIGHT), but that still leaves one pitching slot open.

Berrios would be a great addition, and the extra year of control makes it nicer, but it's still only 1.3 seasons. He will cost a lot to get in terms of return players going to MN. His Lux tax hit is only about $2.1M, so that's a big plus for the Sox. BTV has his value at 40.8. A somewhat equal return might be... A. Casas 47.7 B. Duran 44.5 C. Downs 20.0+ Jimenez 10.8 + Mata 9.9 D. Downs 20.0+ Mata 9.9, R Hernandez 6.8 & Groome 4.3

If it's at the expense of not getting good pitching, I'll complain.

Nobody bats over .500 in "the clutch," so what does "most of the time" mean?

So if an .900 hitter hits worse in late and close situations than not, but still hits a decent .800, he's "clutch" to you?

LOL. Like I looked away when Papi came up? What will you say, if Betts has a great playoff record going forward? What did you say when Papi's thunder declined immensely after 2007? People get big hits and we call those hits "clutch." It's great when they are Sox players. Not thinking it's a sustainable skill does not cheapen of lessen the fun or amazement of this great game. BTW, the flipping of a coin example was meant to show the randomness of sample sizes. Papi and Reggie's sample sizes were about 300 PAs. If 1,000 people flipped a coin 300 times trying to get heads and a couple guys flipped heads 200 out of 300 times, would you say that's a skill? Would you bet they would do it again? I know the 50-50 chance of getting a heads does not equate to one batter with a career .850 OPS vs one with a career .650 OPS. Each has different odds of getting a hit, which is not the same as flipping a coin, but my point is, if you compare 500 batters who bat .850 over any random 300 PA sample size, you will find the range of OPS would not all be very close to .850. Some might be .1.000 and some might be .600. We have no way of proving it wasn't luck or that it was some special skill the 1.000 hitter had, and Papi didn't even hit higher than his career OPS in late & close situations over his career, so I just can't see absolute proof. The "I'll know it when I see it" argument actually carries some weight, in this debate. No doubt, Papi had more than "his fair share" of huge clutch hits, but proving it was some skill just because he did it 20-25 times in his career does not cut the mustard with me.

The point being, it is unsustainable, yes. Not repeatable. A bit random. When you flip a coin, you may get heads 7 times in a row. It doesn't mean you are an expert at flipping a coin heads.

"Mr. October" Reggie Jackson. Mr. Clutch before we even knew what clutch meant. Repeatable skill? The guy was in 17 playoff series. Strange thing is, he never hit between .698 and .932 in any series. He was hot or cold. 9 times at .933 or more 8 times at .697 or lower, including 5 below .520. (Hardly sustainable, right?) He was a career .846 batter who hit .885 in the playoffs. While that's very good, it doesn't prove it was a skill he was better at than others. His playoff sample size was 77 games. career .856 RISP (.851 with 2 outs) .804 Late & Close (well below his career OPS) .855 High Leverage (about even)

So, it's kinda random, no?

So, if a .800 hitter hits .750 in the clutch, he's more clutch than a .600 hitter hitting .749 in the clucth? I'm not making it complicated. I'm pointing out we can't even agree on what clutch is. One would expect an .800 hitter to hit better than a .600 hitter, in the clutch and in the non clutch. It's not clutch if you hit what you are expected to hit, IMO.

You said the RISP stat showed "clutch," and I pointed out a flaw. I like Late & Close or High Leverage better, but they are flawed, too. We can't even agree what the term clutch means, so how can anyone prove it's a sustainable or repeatable skillset. Countless examples exist of clutch players becoming unclutch and vice versa. How can anyone prove it was a skill or just randomness?

I think we may make 2 deals before the deadline, but maybe one is all we do. 3 is a stretch, but these are the 3 highest areas of need: Pitching Pitching Pitching or defense Okay, maybe SP, RP'er and a utility guy who can play 1B (LH'd batter). 2 of these pitchers are demoted, traded or DFA'd, and the other is when Sale is ready: Rios Workman Andriese Santana/Chavis is replaced by a LH'd hitting 1Bman/Utility player. The other consideration is the budget.

Beckett was on his way to being one of the most "clutch" pitchers of all time, then he wasn't. How does this support the claim that a player has such a skill or not?

I know what the topic is, and nobody can prove their position- like it or not. RISP is not "clutch" in a 14-2 game. To me, Late & Close and High Leverage measure important hitting more, and nobody can prove one guy is clutch and another is not. There are countless examples of players labelled chokes who suddenly became clutch as vice versa. Even Papi was vastly different up to 2007 and after 2007. It's unsustainable. You are a skilled hitter, you will be more likely to get more clutch hits. Maybe how a player reacts to high pressure plays a small role in the equation, but MLB players are used to that pressure. They all lived through it as the fought tp prove they belonged in MLB to begin with.

I guess they must think Arroyo needs replacing. It's too complex to move Kike to 1B, so Frazier can play OF.

I'm not doubting it's harder, but so what? It's harder for pitchers, too. They are usually facing better batters. One reason for better pitching numbers is the rare use of the 5th starter. I'd like to see the OPS differential and see if it is 60 points lower in the playoffs- the same difference between Papi's career OPS and his career OPS Late & Close.

5 top starters by GS'd # BOS TBR CWS HOU OAK 1 127 106 103 121 123 2 115 149 104 142 111 3 108 92 100 148 127 4- 95 98 215 129 92 5- 84 82 185 121 140 TBR Glasnow is on 60 day IL

Taking a look at our batting slot OPS, I notice our slots filled by batters named Bogey, Devers and JD look a lot better than they did earlier in the year. Our 3-4-5 slots are unmatched in MLB: .921 3 slot .912 4 slot .875 5 slot Here's the other slots: .783 2 slot .763 8 slot .699 9 slot .668 6 slot .603 9 slot .600 7 slot Our 7-9 slots are at .661. Comps to other AL Leaders Batting Order Slots # BOS TBR CWS HOU OAK 1 .699 .768 .778 .811 .807 2 .783 .694 .661 .752 .769 3 .921 .599 .811 .779 .809 4 .912 .894 .766 .859 .721 5 .875 .677 .678 .922 .689 6 .668 .671 .857 .868 .772 7 .600 .785 .877 .789 .639 8 .763 .694 .688 .637 .630 9 .603 .603 .703 .602 .579 Houston has 2 players under .650 and none between .650 and .695. Boston has 2 and 1. The CWS 0 and 3. OAK 3 and 1. TBR 2 and 4.