moonslav59

With 3 days off before this series and 2 days off during the series, we can get 4+ innings from Kimbrel, Price and Reed every game. 1 to 1.1 IP Kimbrel 1 to 1.1 IP Reed 1.1 to 2 IP Price Anything can happen, but I have a lot of confidence in all three. The next group is certainly not a group I have extreme confidence in, but many have done a fine job this year, while others have looked very well at times. I'm feeling pretty good about these 3: Kelly Workman Barnes Maybe Maddox and/or Scott fill out the rest of the staff roster, and both have nice numbers in somewhat smaller sample sizes. I think we can yank a starter very early, as long as it's not 2 games in a row (1 & 2 or 3 & 4).

Well, that's just the way it has to be then. You don't change what is significant just because you want someone to be labeled clutch.

MN over NY CLE over MN 3-1 Sox over HOU 3-1 Sox over CLE 4-3 Sox over Cubs 4-2

Good point. I remember Fisk's HR, but we lost game 7, so I guess we throw that out. (Another reason to shun "clutch".)

I do believe there are clutch situations. I do know Papi came up big in many "clutch situations". No, I do not label him "clutch". 1) The sample size is too small and scattered. (I realize my idea of significant sample size is much larger than most.) 2) His OPS in late & close situations was below his normal OPS. 3) His OPS in high leverage situations was lower than his normal OPS. 4) He had many bad series, including the one against Detroit where he hit the grand slam. I will say, if ever you can call a guy clutch, Papi is the first guy I think of, but nobody is a "clutch" hitter... even Papi and Reggie.

Okay, but Papi didn't, so I guess you can't call him "clutch".

Well said, Max. I'm with you 100%!

What I believe is that some players are better at getting hits in clutch situations than other players are and those are the players I refer to as being "clutch". So, if a career .350 hitter bats .300 in the playoffs, he's "clutch", because he did well in the clutch, right? If a career .200 hitter bats .275, he's not clutch, because .275 is not that good, right? Just wondering.

Any time the Yanks lose, it's good news. The only "if" would be when we need them to win to knock out a team, so we can make the playoffs.

The "only way"? Any team can win any series. We just have to play our best or near best.\ No mental blunders. I'm psyched having Price, so I'm not messing with Kimbrel all of a sudden.

ERA is so old fashioned. Starters 79 CLE 79 AZ 82 LAD 83 WSH 89 BOS 90 NYY 10th HOU 95 WHIP 1.15 LAD 1.17 CLE 6th HOU 1.26 9th BOS 1.29 RP'ers ERA- 64 CLE 70 BOS 76 NYY 21st HOU 101 WHIP 1.14 CLE 1.15 LAD 1.16 NYY 1.17 NYY 10th HOU 1.28 xFIP- 78 CLE 84 HOU 84 LAD 86 BOS 87 NYY

Updated... Starters: ERA- Pitcher WHIP 64 Sale 0.97 69 Keuchel 1.12 73 Pomeranz 1.35 76 Verlander 1.17 76 Peacock 1.22 86 Morton 1.10 93 ERod 1.29 101 McCullers 1.30 102 Porcello 1.40 RP'ers WHIP Pitcher xFIP- 0.68 Kimbrel 34 0.86 Musgrove 73 0.96 Devenski 80 0.97 Harris 67 0.99 Scott 107 1.04 Giles 70 1.05 Reed 89 1.19 Kelly98 1.21 Workman 98 1.22 Barnes 74

Maybe by then, Smith will have shown he is worthy. I am never for paying closers huge money. (Papelbon, Chapman...)

Exactly. I don't believe it's a skill. It's not repeatable, either. Players get hot and cold, and there's no reason to think that does not happen during tight situations that count. Is it total randomness? Maybe not, but the numbers appear to mimic normal non clutch situation data. To me, if a hitter hits worse "in clutch" situations than he does overall, it's hard to think of him as being "clutch". Nobody I have seen does it all the time or even nearly all the time. Reggie Jackson & Big Papi have the appearance of being MLB's most or best "clutch hitters", but the numbers just don't back them up, both in terms of consistently being "clutch" and by hitting better than they normally do. It's a myth.

Well said, Nick. I do think signing Pom is a very high priority. We also have Kimbrel coming off the books after next season. Re-signing them or replacing them, in kind, will not be cheap. Assuming Sale and Betts remain healthy and looking good, they are my top priority signings going forward- maybe before or after 2019.

Starters: ERA- Pitcher WHIP 64 Sale 0.97 69 Keuchel 1.12 73 Pomeranz 1.35 76 Verlander 1.17 76 Peacock 1.22 86 Morton 1.10 93 ERod 1.29 101 McCullers 1.30 102 Porcello 1.40 RP'ers WHIP Pitcher xFIP- 0.68 Kimbrel 34 0.86 Musgrove 73 0.96 Devenski 80 0.97 Harris 67 0.99 Scott 107 1.05 Reed 89 1.19 Kelly98 1.21 Workman 98 1.22 Barnes 74

Huh? "Late & Close" Teddy 1.071 Papi .870 " High Leverage" Teddy 1.090 Papi .943 Overall: Teddy 1.116 Papi .931

I totally get how young players have much to learn. The "age curve" is rarely a perfect bell curve. The fact that all our young players sans Vaz all took serious dives this year is surprising enough, but for them to all do it at the same time all our vets did, too- none of whom are significantly past prime- is mind-boggling to me. I know the law of averages will come up with oh for 8 at some point when spinning the wheel, but still... I guess one could be equally amazed that a team with all 8 of its returning hitters going into steep decline, and their Cy Young starter turning to mush could still managing to win the division.

Nominate for "Post of the Year".

Yeah, lots of wings and prayers in the rotation, but we did have the following year's Cy Young winner, Buch with a 3.26 ERA and ERod coming in at 3.85 (which is better than this year). We did have 5 guys with 245+ PAs and over a .797 OPS. Man, that year sucked.

Does that mean you expect a return to "normalcy", whatever that is, next year? Will signing JD Martinez take away some of that excessive drive to do better and better? Would signing EE have done the trick this year (with or without Moreland)?

The highest sweetness would be for us to beat the Yanks in the ALCS and the Cubs in the WS. Bring it on!

Yes, indeed. I'm not really sure how much credit or blame a manager should be assigned when players exceed or fall short of expectation or normal age curve productivity. I do recall JF getting a lot of props for the high performances of so many players in 2013 (actually not a whole lot or returning players did better did better than 2012). I'm grateful we won the division and do not need to play-in and waste a Sale start.

That was pretty big as well. Holt had the 5th most PAs in 2014, but just over 70 in 2013, so I cans ee why he was not included. Carp only had 103 in 2014. Overall, that team was much older, so expectations were for many to decline, but it was pretty darn scary, too.

Yes, Vaz did improve, but he was not a top 8 PA player last year. Holt was a top 8 player in 2015, so I used him in that comp. I realize I selected the cutoff of PAs for maximum affect with my argument. One could claim 9 of our top 10 players declined, if I counted Vaz and Beni. Interesting how the only actual top 10 guy who improved this year was Travis Shaw, who was not managed by JF. Papi retired. Young was 10th and also declined by a lot. I'm okay with arguing about the reasons for the massive decline, or if JF is to blame for any part of it, but I cannot agree that it was anything less than massive. Listed in order of 2016 PAs Betts .897> .803 (-94) Bogey .802> .746 (-56) Pedey .825> .760 (-65) J B J .835> .726 (-109) Ortiz .1.021>>> retired HRam .866> .750 (-116) TShaw .726> Milwaukee (.862 up 136) Holt .705> . 548 (-157) Leon .845> .644 (-101) Young .850> .709 (-141) Vaz .585> .735 (+150) Again, the top 8 returning players- by 2016 PAs- declined by more than 55 points! 6 of 8 declined by over 94. Vaz, at #9 last year went up 150 points. Shaw at #7 went up with another team. These numbers are frightening. Yes, there are excuses for Holt, Leon, Pedey & HRam, but one still could have done slightly better or much closer to 2016 than they ended up doing. Oh for 4 was probably against the odds. Then, couple that with the fact that all the young guys declined as well, and to me, the word "massive" fits the bill. (BTW, the next guy, #11 Beni, declined too, but the 2016 sample size was very small.)