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
-
-
There is no case for clutch without performance results. It is the very definition of the word.
-
But some seem to think it is an attribute not linked to actual performance. That is not a definition at all.
-
Without tying it to performance, how can you call a hitter clutch?
-
It is not an inherent attribute without linking it to actual performance. Being cool under pressure is an emotional attribute. Clutch is tied to performance. You can't call someone clutch who has never actually come through in the clutch. Otherwise you could claim that about any player, regardless of actual performance.
-
You are the one defining clutch to fit what you want, not me. If results don't matter, how can you call someone clutch?
-
I am not arguing that clutch doesn't exist in isolated circumstances. I'm just arguing that no player possesses a quality called clutch. I would be interested to see if there are any examples of mediocre hitters who were considered clutch and the evidence that demonstrates it.
-
You can't say something exists without defining exactly what it is. If the clutch guy has failed more than succeeded he is not clutch no matter how you feel about him.
-
So if clutch isn't measured by results, what is the meaning of the word? Cool under pressure has a different meaning than clutch. Clutch means you come through more than you don't in a statistically significant way. Clutch is more narrowly defined as performance results in certain situations.
-
There is no clutch without the results to demonstrate it. You have added so many exceptions that it renders your use of clutch meaningless. Being clutch in isolated instances is not the same as having clutch as an attribute.
-
Williams certainly appears to be clutch. Maybe being an excellent hitter is the most important thing, and not some fuzzy attribute we call clutch.
-
Clutch is not just an attribute, it is a performance measure. You have to demonstrate clutch in action. Calmness under pressure can help performance. Clutch is specific, repeated results. Any hitter can be clutch in the short term. The discussion is about if clutch is a permanent attribute that produces results often enough to call a hitter clutch. Or is it just that good hitters are good hitters and appear to have this attribute we call clutch.
-
No, I'm am confident of my position and would not be intimidated into changing it.
-
You worry too much about figures of speech.
-
My view is that they just didn't perform to our expectations. But we really don't know what to expect from this young core of hitters. It is way too early in their careers. They all have talent. But they still have a lot to learn. It takes study, practice, and experience to develop hitting smarts. Papi had that in spades, but he knew there was always more to learn.
-
It still wouldn't make them right nor change my position.
-
This is not about belief. It is about facts. What facts demonstrate that a particular hitter is clutch? Any hitter can come through in the clutch. But all those who do are not called clutch hitters. What is the evidence of a hitter being defined as a clutch hitter? Yaz was clutch in 1967 over multiple games at the end of the season. Did he repeat that type of performance over the entirety of his career? Did having Yaz at the plate in key moments work so much more than it didn't that Yaz is defined as clutch? Joe DiMaggio would purposely expand his strike zone when the chance came to drive in big runs. Is this a demonstration of clutch skill? I guess it depends on how often it worked vs. how often it failed. Ted Williams was insistent on his personal strike zone and would never expand it based on game situation. Is this a clutch skill? Or did Williams strict approach create the appearance of clutch because it increased his chances of getting a hit regardless of the game situation?
-
It isn't a skill at all.
-
Stepped it up is meaningless figure of speech after the fact subjective description of something that exceeded expectations. Saying it doesn't prove a player willed himself to a better performance or that clutch exists. There is no ability to step it up. There is fluctuation on how well a player can utilize their talents in each individual, discrete performance.
-
That's how I feel too.
-
The reality? By what measure? More of a tossup if you ask me.
-
Exactly.
-
No, one move never is responsible for winning a game. It only can increase the probability of winning a game.
-
Countdown to the Playoffs - 2017 Edition
devildavid replied to Slasher9's topic in Boston Red Sox Talk
You are right of course. All that other stuff is soap opera material. The game is played on the field and Farrell and the Sox competed and won the division. I still don't like his aggressive base running philosophy but even that did not seem to have any significant negative impact. They played winning ball for Farrell and that's the bottom line. And they really seemed to have fun doing it. -
The quick hook is only a desperation move to limit damage and really can only be applied in a short series but cannot be a permanent, effective strategy.
