notin

baseball-reference.com Under "Splits"

See. That type of split is typically he evidence I want to see, but in reverse. Abad looks like a good argument for choke...

Well, first of all, it's narrow-minded to assume sports and athletes are the only people who deal with high pressure situations. But even then, success in high pressure once doesn't prove the ability to excel in high pressure repeatedly...

Which is why I've never liked post-season stats as evidence of clutch or choke. They're too small and often spread out over too many years. I prefer in- season stuff like high leverage and late and close...

Curses! There was still another way!

Homerism much? The Guardians are equally capable of sweeping the Yankees as they are the Twins.

First of all, I don't think anyone needs to have played the game (or been a decent athlete) to understand the concept of high pressure moments. In fact, I could argue those who play the game have their opinion swayed by their own experiences. "Pressure" itself becomes a subjective concept. No one ever denied certain hit and moments are "clutch." But what we frequently forget is, especially in baseball, there is always more than one person involved. Back to Mueller, was his hit really "clutch" or was that a choke moment for Mariano Rivera? And while no one likes to think of Rivera as anything but a post-season fountain of ice water (despite his being the only pitcher in MLB history to lose the lead and game in the ninth inning of game 7 of the World Series), so he couldn't have choked? Right? But what about Dave Henderson? Again, a massive clutch moment. But was Henderson clutch or did Donnie Moore choke? How do you draw that line? If you believe Moore choked, it certainly has to somewhat refute the argument that Henderson was able to "step up his game" in a high pressure moment...

Every time someone has one of those "there's only one way to win," reality frequently proves there was another. The only axiom that holds true all the time would be - the only way the Sox win is if they score more runs than the Astros three times...

I get it, but slumps, unlike injuries, can also end without reason. I like his chances better if it's just a slump. Everyone has them..

But is every at-bat? Fans loved Jacoby Ellsbury for the 2007 WS MVP due to his team leading batting average. But the reality is, he as a non-factor for the first two games. And with the Sox up 2-0, he put up a 4-hit game that carried his series stats in a game the Sox won 10-5. Was he really a clutch performer?

He certainly had one of the best post-seasons back in 1986, along with Spike Owen. Barrett also had one of the worst for the Sox in 1988. Of course, this all operates on the theory that every at-bat and IP in the post-season is a clutch situation. Barrett had a career OPS of .684. His OPS in Late and Close situations was .681. His OPS in High Leverage was .694. Shouldn't high leverage and late and close be clutch opportunities as well? He hit almost exactly the same, and the same size is significantly greater than looking at one two week stretch from a 10 year career...

I don't think anyone doubts that, But from my observations and every bit of data I have gone over, those players are equally better in "non-clutch" situations as well, and their performance is typically about the same. With the game on the line, I would prefer to have David Ortiz up over, say, Brock Holt. But to be honest, I'd rather see Ortiz hit than Holt even if the game wasn't on the line...

That's not a catch-22; that's just an unsupported belief. It doesn't make you're wrong. But it does mean actually trying to use data to justify your opinion is difficult and potentially impossible...

I'd rather it was a slump. Slumps end. Injuries can linger on forever...

I played high school ball with a couple of pitchers who played minor league ball (one in the Sox org, one for the Braves) but never made the majors. I had no delusions about hitting them even back then...

Hodgson went to LSU. and your point is spot on. Even the worst professional athletes are light years talent-wise when compared to nearly everyone else...

Makes sense. He could also hit a baseball longer than most pros

Which was hardly unreasonable in March, given how hittable Kimbrel was last year and that Smith and Thornburg were AWOL..

A huge factor there is bullpen. Look at the Sox crazy record in extra innings games. And how many extra innings road wins this team has....

That is hopefully how Farrell is thinking. Maybe not the home-road splits per se, but some logic where his pitchers have had or should have an advantage...

And expectations rear their ugly head. Porcello pitched worse than expected. Fister pitched better than expected. Therefore Fister must be better than Porcello. But the reality is Porcello has still pitched better than Fister.

No 8 man pen? I prefer that to the 5 man bench..

And Farrell saves his job.

Another big difference has been Porcello. Last year, we'd win his starts, and in all those 3-1 and 4-2 games, the offense scored enough. This year, alot of those have turned around into 5-3 and 6-4 losses, so suddenly we need more offense. The addition of Sale was supposed to offset the loss of offense, but what happened was Sale basically replaced absentee David Price, making him essentially ballast. So we wound up losing our best hitter and a lot from our Cy Young pitcher from last year, and hoped to be just as good...

I think the Yankees take the division based on head-to-head record and thw Sox take the WC. I believe those one game playoffs are only used if both teams have not clinched and the loser's season is over. But with both teams in, don't they use the tie breakers like in 2005?