devildavid
-
Posts
1,336 -
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
2026 Boston Red Sox Draft Pick Tracker
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by devildavid
-
The outfield is the strength of this team. I would not look to trade any of the young core. Look to the infield and aging/injured players. Cut Hanley loose. Keep the catcher combo we have. Pedroia is the toughest decision to face. He produces when relatively healthy, but he has trouble staying on the field.
-
What does that ranking mean in regard to scoring runs?
-
You never presented evidence for #2. I know we already went through this before. If there were massive amounts of boneheaded plays it doesn't mean it reflects only on management. It also means it should be easy to list at least 10 examples of this since the amount was massive. Without pinpointing what type of boneheaded plays there were and which players committed them it is impossible to say if was just a few bad apples or a team wide problem.
-
I was a Porcello skeptic from the start, but his Cy Young season won me over. Now I'm worried that I was right to be skeptical.
-
Massive amounts of boneheaded plays suggests it is more than just a few players. Farrell's base running philosophy makes bad base runners worse. Base running is one area where a new manager could make a significant difference by reigning in the aggression.
-
I think Farrell's base running philosophy hurts the scoring potential of this team.
-
It sounds like this is a bigger problem than any manager can change. Massive amounts of boneheaded plays suggests that the Sox have some of the stupidest players in the league. If they made it to that level as boneheads and won two division titles what is going to make them change now? That's like expecting Sandoval to change when being fat never prevented him from winning rings and having fun and making big bucks. Players respond to rewards more than discipline.
-
Will a new manager change how Sale fades at the end of the season or make Price happy with the Boston sports media? Who do you see as the everyday players who need an attitude adjustment?
-
Farrell may not be as good as Francona but I don't think any manager is going to change the key players performances enough to bring this team a championship.
-
Clutch is a very specific claim about specific performance results but some are treating it as if it isn't. Grit is a general claim and can be replaced by the word determination. There are a lot of very talented athletes who never make it to the top level of their sport. Sometimes they are outperformed by those with less talent but more grit. There is a mental aspect to being successful in sports that is needed in addition to a certain base level of physical talent. Not all the most talented make it if they lack the mental aspect. Grit doesn't mean you have to get your uniform dirty. It just means you have a determination in you that can help you succeed.
-
The problem of Sale fading at the end of each season is not going away. But if you hold him back early in the season you risk not making the playoffs. I don't see any easy answer to this. Porcello is an enigma. Is there even a "real" Porcello. Erod has the talent, but has not developed the smarts quite yet. And Pom is a good five inning starter. I hate to say but I may have to change my mind about Price. They need him more than ever. What a predicament!
-
Farrell is not to blame that Chris Freaking Sale fades out at the end of every season. He is not to blame that Porcello stunk it up this year. Fister is a good choice out of three choices that aren't so good. Farrell is not losing these games. The Red Sox overachieved and are the worst of all the remaining playoff teams, including the Yankees. That's reality, and it sucks.
-
No, I want you to tell me how you know someone is clutch and you have failed to do it. I am not arguing a case. I am debating a concept.
-
Some think they see failure in everything he does, despite evidence to the contrary like a first place finish.
-
I'm not asking you to give a s***. I'm asking you to tell me what clutch is, in your view. You have so far failed to do that. I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm trying to get you to define what we are debating, but you refuse to do that. Is clutch dependent on actual results, or is it merely something you believe that you see in someone?
-
Yet we all know Farrell would have been ripped if he started Fister and the results remained the same.
-
I can believe anything.
-
And you refuse to define in any way what I am supposedly invalidating. What does it mean to believe in clutch? What is the meaning of clutch? Is clutch dependent on results? Does clutch produce observable actions? How do you feel clutch? What tells you when you are looking at a clutch player?
-
People can believe anything they want. There is nothing to stop them. That does not mean all beliefs mean anything except to the individual. I didn't realize that clutch was merely a belief. I thought it was dependent on actual results in game situations. If it is only a belief then I can believe I am a clutch MLB hitter without even having to prove it on the field. We aren't discussing religion, are we?
-
That's how it works with beliefs. Give me your gut success rate that you base it on. Otherwise, you are just making it up based on your personal feelings. Others with more analytical skills have already analyzed clutch and found it lacks evidence. Give me your reasoning, even if it is in words. I didn't set an ironclad 51% rate, I am using this as a starting point. Negotiate whatever number you want it to be. Then give me examples of players who meet your standards. Or just give me players that you know are clutch and tell me how you know. As I said before, none of us are sitting on the bench next to any of these players. All we have are observations from a distance and statistics.
-
You've got it backwards. It's believers who need to justify their belief. If someone tells you they believe in unicorns do you just take their word and put it all down to a difference of opinions? You can't turn this back on me. I'm willing to compromise, but you are rigid in your belief. I'll let you set the standards and then we can see how many players qualify. If it is just a gut feeling then anyone can claim that any player they like is clutch.
-
In clutch situations. Clutch situations must exist if clutch performances exist. I thought you already knew all the situations that count in assessing clutch. It is very possible to attain in small sample sizes. What percentage would you use?
-
Two factors played against him. He was injured and the opposing team employed a defensive shift against him.
-
51% success rate.
-
Can you give me a percentage of success in the clutch that you feel is the minimum needed to be called clutch? But the real issue here is more about defining a player as clutch, which requires more more definitive evidence. I think Ted Williams is a good test subject because he was such a good hitter I would not argue much against calling him clutch. If he is the measuring stick, how many hitters would qualify? I think Williams was so good that he exercised the most control a hitter possibly could in trying to hit safely. But he would also take a walk if the pitch wasn't there and I think that could be part of clutch as well.
