notin

Better than in a non-clutch situation? Statistics don't agree with you there...

So your argument is that Cabrera amped up his focus enough for Jay Bruce to hit a home run? Got it. So now focus is contagious. Or telepathic. Therefore, by your logic, clutch is, too, since you have clearly intertwined them inseparably. This means there are NO clutch hitters, only clutch teams. And since Price (your favorite choking example) was a teammate of David Ortiz last year in the post-season, why wasn’t “clutch” contagious then? Or – crazy thought – maybe Cabrera went 4 for 6 the next night because the Phillies’ pitchers were awful. You know, Occam’s Razor. Cabrera (6 for 14 with 1 HR) was clearly familiar with Clay Buchholz before that game started, and it probably didn’t hurt his chances than Buchholz was either pitching with a torn ligament or in the process of tearing one. Nope. Had to be increased focus. Or was the 24-hour period where Cabrera was stewing over the headhunting episode channeled through Yoenis Cespedes and his three home runs? Is this more of that “contagious focus” stuff? I cited an example of former MLB players who said they tried their hardest EVERY game EVERY at-bat and EVERY pitch and never gave anything away. Ever heard one who said the opposite? The real problem with your arguments is they contradict themselves. You scoff at the idea that players try their hardest all the time, even if they say they do, and think they take it easy when the game is decided. But you also repeatedly use post-season and only post-season stats to determine “clutch.” But then by your logic, shouldn’t these same players be not trying their hardest if a post-season game is already decided? Those games do happen. Are they clutch? Since you refuse to bother trying to define clutch hitting and cannot separate clutch moments from clutch hitters (or from the postseason), why not try using the Leverage Index at B-R.com, that weighs the importance of every at-bat in every game with its potential impact on the outcome, and see how your favorite clutch hitters and chokers do in high leverage vs low leverage situations? Shouldn’t the essence of “clutch hitting” be there? You’ll probably notice there is rarely any significant difference between hitters in high leverage situations as opposed to low leverage ones...

I'm not so sure. Granted wr don't have the same lengthy history with Cherington that we had with Epstein, but it looked alot like he wanted to build the team internally from the farm with his guys. Even when he made an offer for Hamels, it was reportedly all MLB guys with no intriguing top name prospects. I do wonder what it was he offered, but I have always been confident Allen Craig was involved. (To be fair, this was before Craig was worthless.) I like Cherington too. But when did he ever give us the indication he would deal to flight prospects in a blockbuster? The closest he came was dealing Jose Iglesias. .

I wouldn't feel bad about being wrong there. Cherington and Farrell were also wrong about it. ..

As a fellow Pomeranz critic, if he pans out, save me a drumstick. ..

This past off-season, it seemed like the MO for Dombrowski was to simply not spend any money via free agency. The only player they signed to anything more than a minor league contract was Mitch Moreland, hardly an earth-shattering move. I bet they probably unsuccessfully tried to move a contract or two as well, like maybe Sandoval or Abad. Ziegler was a good pitcher who was acquired for basically nothing, but undoubtedly went into negotiations with a few saves under his belt and wanted to be paid as some sort of cheap version of a closer, which would make him a pricey reliever. He did get $8mill per season.

Oh that absolutely didn't help that they blew the 3-0 lead. Maybe it was around that time Yankee fans were learning you can't just spend your way to a title? They had a crazy run in 1996 to 2000, with 4 titles in 5 seasons. Then they started the process of adding superstar after superstar , and they just never won again. I mean, they just had a GREAT run of success, added Mike Mussina, and it didn't work. Then it was Jason Giambi. Nope. Got even worse. And eventually A-Rod and a post-peak Randy Johnson. And it never worked again. Not that they were ever a bad team in that stretch, just not a champion. Well, until they went all-in and signed Teixeira and Sabathia in one crazy off-season where they spent more on free agents than all of northern Africa spends on food. But even that only got them one title...

OK, it can be a "general you" to describe his reputation. For example, you look at a 16 game stretch that spans 4 years. That's a really small amount of games per year to make any conclusion. In fact, he was having a good 2004 post-season like many Yankees, but that bad stretch started in two games against Schilling and Pedro (which is a good start for an explanation). It's not like the rest of the Yankees were hitting in those three games, either. The post-2010 stuff we were looking at a 35 year old player with a lot of miles and nagging injuries that, by the time October rolled around, had to be a real detriment.

Clay was a top level prospect who never materialized into a consistently high-perfoming pitcher and, while capable of great seasons, also had a few bad ones. And he got injured a lot. And many Sox fans hated him for it. Pomeranz was a top level prospect who only recently finally had a good season and has never been a consistently high-performing pitcher whose bad seasons far outnumber his good ones. And he gets injured a lot. And many Sox fans like him anyway...

Assuming the Sox would have made the post-season is a big leap, but they were absolutely headed that way. The biggest issue I had was the unprecedented run the Sox were having with an extremely high percentage of high profile prospects who simply didn't flop. Cherington was certainly far too stingy to deal any of them, but at some point it would have made sense. However, while pretty much every high profile prospect for the Sox to suit up in recent years has panned out, some of them, notably Bradley, did take a while. So the Sox might have had some mediocre seasons while waiting on a few others. Now the plus there is with Cherington, the Sox wouldn't have made the foolish Kimbrel and Pomeranz trades (anyone catch Margot the other night?). But he almost definitely would not have acquired Sale, either, which was move that did make sense. And for that matter, I'm not convinced going after Price was his style, as he tended to use free agency the way Bill James recommended and S5 pointed out, which is a method that I agree with. But it can also have some short term implications.

It can certainly work that way, yes..

So it was the pressure who got to A-Rod in the 2010 playoffs? He was 35 years old when that post-season began. As for Sandoval, his post-season sample size is a little small to make any conclusions. and he was all over the place when he played. He was barely involved in the 2010 post-season, his 3 series post-season OPS numbers in 2012 were .571, .576, 1.125. So did he feel the pressure in the NLDS and NLCS but not the World Series? Or did he just get hot in the World Series? In fact, in the 6 post-season series in 2012 and 2014, Sandoval has either been a non-factor with an OPS below .600 or he was a real factor with an OPS over 1.000. But never in between. That's just wht happens when people look at small sample sizes spread out over multiple years and decide to make conclusions from them...

Part of it is your only looking at 2 post-seasons and deciding "This is reality." The guy played in 12 post-seasons and had a post-season OPS of .822. And yes, he did struggle from 2010 through 2012, but this was not prime A-Rod, either. He was 35 years old at the beginning of that stretch...

Yes but most of his career he has struggled to find it..

No there is a difference between control and command. Control is the ability to find the strike zone. Command is the ability to throw the pitch where you want it within the strike zone...

... before the Sox score runs in two innings in the same game?

Well, it might be the length of this thread before anyone comes up with a definition...

Infinity is a tough concept to grasp. Try thinking about the true meaning of "Forever" some day. THAT is infinity and I still can't grasp it, except within the confines of my own lifetime, however long that ends up being. But anyway. From what I can tell and have seen, mosy greay clutch hitters are great clutch hitters because they are simply great hitters. But, like Papi, they can be great enough to produce enough memorable moments that we give them that label...

NOTHJING in baseball puts everyone on the edge of the seat like the ninth inning of a no-hitter or a perfect game. It might be the only time the home crowd fans will cheer the opposing team and boo their own players for getting a hit...

I believe Jamie Moyer has that tattooed on his left arm...

True but that was a little inflated by his horrific control in September, where he walked 9 hitters in 9 innings. Before that, his 21 walks in 44IP wasn't so bad. It was a bad year for him, but it meant at his worst Kimbrel was Daniel Bard...

Kimbrel might occasionally struggle with command, but Kelly struggles with control. There is a big difference...

B-R also has "Medium Leverage". They have definitions, too, depending on how important the moment is in the game using the WPa factor. which weighs the importance of each play on the outcome of the game. Really if you look at Ortiz, he's basically the same hitter in all situations. Ditto A-Rod, who is surprisingly equal to Ortiz in high leverage situations despite a reputation for being notoriously "unclutch"...

Even people who don't believe clutch is a skill use "clutch" to describe certain moments. I also don't believe winning the lottery is a repeatable skill, but I would still describe anyone claiming the prize as a winner...

So the other day, I was listening to the White Sox against the Tigers. In the 8th inning with the score 11-2, White Sox announcers Darrin Jackson and Ed Farmer, both former MLB players with long careers, started talking about how it was important to get those final outs because the Tigers were NOT going to give up. Then Darrin Jackson says, and I will do my best to quote him but it was radio, "I don't remember EVER having an at bat where I didn't care. I wanted my hits." Farmer comes back with "You have no idea how many times a guy cam up to me and said 'Why did you throw me that slider last night with the game out of hand?'. I always told them 'tell me when you give up. I'm not giving you anything.' " Got any quotes from players about times they quit focusing?