notin

And the Robby Scott dream continues. Of course, when it comes to building bullpens, Dombrowski's nightmares are also continuing...

Well, demeaning or not, it's true. In order to be a player in MLB you need to be one of or close to the best 750 players in the world. This is not meant to insult anyone as much as it is to get some perspective. I have no idea what your job is, But let's say you're an accountant. Are you one of the best 750 accountaNts in the world? If there were only 750 accounting jobs in the U.S., would you have one? Would you even be considered? Like Rutledge of not, he has had one of the available 750 jobs as an mlb player. He's in the running for one again. That alone takes an amazing level of talent, which is the point in t trying to make here. So yes, Rutledge is better at baseball than you our I are at our jobs and that's not an insult regardless of your opinion of Rutledge.

Appearances? Sure. But they won't all be opportunities. Not that many. ..

I'm hoping...

He's a great player whose successes will outnumber and outlive his failures. I would argue that makes him great. Isn't that enough?

I will argue Holt does a horrible job as a second baseman and isn't any better as a shortstop.

Possible with Price it's a stamina issue. He was solid against the Sox in 2009 when he didn't have 200+ IP under his belt. Or - crazy thought - maybe looking at half a dozen games spread out over 7 years really isn't representative. Remember when Cole Hamels was rumored to the Sox? Several fans did research and concluded, based on a handful of gamed spread out over six seasons, that Hamels couldn't pitch in the American League. How accurate was that conclusion?

And have to randomness. Remember Tom Bruanansky's pennant clinching catch in 1991? Was that near game-winning hit by Ozzie Guillen an out because Ozzie didn't come through in a key at bat? Or is it simply because sometimes a hitter can do everything right and things still don't work out?

Gibson did have a better ERA in the regular season than the world series in two of those seasons. ...

Somewhere I heard or read the Sox want a utility infielder capable of playing shortstop. Holt is pretty weak there. Hernandez can play the position but is nothing more than a placeholder. Ditto Rutledge, who has an options advantage over Hernandez. Selsky has no shot at short. The long shot here might br Deven Marrero, although he can't hit. ..

Like Reggie Smith in 1967?

Right, so now you're saying players DON'T try their hardest in every at-bat?* That players go up to the plate thinking "Gee, this isn't the post season or anything, so I can just go through the motions this time." Newdflash - these are the best players in the world.* Most of them are better at baseball than most of us are at ANYTHING.* They didn't get where they are by not trying their hardest at EVERY opportunity.* Even players we think of as bad - even guys like Josh Rutledge, who some feel shouldn't even be on the team - are better at baseball than most of us can fathom.* Most people will go through their whole lives and never meet a baseball player as good as Josh Rutledge, and most people will never be as good at their jobs as Rutledge is at baseball, where he is arguably among the 750 best in the world. So we look for clutch in players like David Ortiz.* Certainly, Ortiz has come up big in a lot of big situations.* He has also come up big in a lot of less important ones. Know why?* Because David Ortiz is a TERRIFIC HITTER OVERALL and comes up big a lot!! The man possesses a superhuman ability to hit a baseball traveling in excess of 90mph and drive it a long way, one possessed by very few living human beings.* Very few.* He has also failed in a lot of clutch siituations, but when it comes to hitting, one success can erase a lot of failures.* That's the nature of glorifying a 30% success rate.***But no one talks about his 1 for 12 in the 2009 ALCS loss to the Angels.* Know why?* Because 2004 and 2013 were far more memorable. Or, if you're right, he simply wasn't trying in 2009. So I guess clutch does exist, but in reputation only.* We as fans love to remember the big moments, and we only remember the bad ones for players we didn't like much.* At one point in one of these threads, I asked about the biggest clutch hit JD Drew had.* The answer, as expected, was the grand slam off Fausto Carmona, which was a big hit.* But really, his 2008 ALCS against Tampa was turning into a stream of clutch JD Drew hits in the comeback that fell short.* But what is he remembered for in that series?* Striking out in the biggest at bat of the series against David Price (remember him?* The guy you insisted was the very definition of a choker?* Are we full circle yet?)* So when you don't have Ortiz' history, I guess you can't afford to make big outs and still be "clutch", huh?* Ask Yaz about that.* I remember seeing posters criticizing him for ending Game 163 in 1978 with a weak pop up, and how "unclutch" he was.* All of this was done by people who didn't see 1967, I guess.* (I didn't either, not being born yet, but I did know about it and didn't think his reputation as a player should be defined by one at bat at age 39.* Ah, but the reputation of "clutch."* How it pervades.) To go non-baseball, there was some Tom Brady mention at one point, and how he was just amazingly "clutch" in the Super Bowl.* When I asked would he still be clutch if Edelman didn't catch that ball, the answer was "It wasn't fourth down, so he would have made the next play."* THAT is reputation, not clutch play.* And we know this because you gave him success on a PLAY THAT NEVER HAPPENED.* Brady has absolutely had failures in the same situation - twice the year before in the AFC Chmpaionship game in Denver, and even in the first Super Bowl against the Giants, but when you have a clutch reputation, success is expected and apparently assumed. Really, we could go on about this, but great players have their great moments.* But they have them because they are great players, and are talented enough to take advantage of the opportunities.* The players make the moments, not the other way around as you want it to be.* But we remember - and sometimes misremember - them for it.* And sometimes, they do get lucky.* Take Luis Gonzalez, who had inarguably the biggest hit in Diamondbacks history.* Was he "focused" then more so than in his other at bats?* Or was there some randomness involved?* He did hit a routine shallow pop up to shortstop that would have been an easy out under any defensive alignemt. Except one.* But what alignment were the Yankees in on that very pitch? Or maybe Jeter wasn't trying...

But it does need to be differentiated from clutch hits. Those certainly do exist. Heck David Ortiz got two walk off hits in post season games ON THE SAME DAY! !! That's insanely clutch. But it was also because the dude was a crazy good hitter. A "clutch hitter" is supposedly a hitter who outperforms his normal ability in clutch situations. The existence of such a hitter to me is debatable and no amount of high school buzzer beaters will change this. And I've seen David Ortiz hit plenty of times. But been asking for a definition of clutch since the last thread broached the topic. I set no reason anyone is going to suddenly figure one out now. The closest I've seen is that now apparently "clutch" is equivalent to God and love

But he (or Rutledge) will be the 25th man to get on the field, and will rank 25th in terms of playing time (barring injuries). And this is unlikely to change unless Hernandez learns to pitch or catch. The irony of Hernandez ' situation is that most players like him learn to bat left handed in order to get on the field more often. Yet Hernandez is in a position where he is going to be kept of the field because he isn't handed. ..

Fair enough. They let him go via free agency, but the subsequent moves of Shaw and Moncada created a need, and he was a guy they were familiar with. That makes sense now. Thank you...

The problem is your clear inability to differentiate between a clutch hitter and a clutch hit (or shot). No one disputes clutch hits exist. Just clutch hitters who can purportedly elevate their skill set when the game is on the line. If we stick with your one non - baseball example, does this 18yo kid have a history of shooting better just before the buzzer than in the rest of the game?

As has been pointed out to him multiple times. Also using high school games as proof of the ability of the best baseball players in the world can elevate their talent as the situation warrants it...

More so than bigfoot, yes...

How often will Rutledge and Holt really be on the field together? I agree Hernandez is probably better than both, and is certainly better than Rutledge, But we're talking about the 25th man on the roster who, if no injuries set in, might be looking at 100-150 plate appearances and maybe 100 innings in the field. It's reallY not that criminal to have him play in Pawtucket and actually see regular playing time. When the Sox need an infielder to get some regular playing time, Hernandez đoes seem like the better choice of the three. But then we all know Holt is capable of getting hot and making Hernandez moot...

Actually I've been pushing for Hernandez over Holt for my past 3 websites. But I was also speaking more about how fans overreact top spring training performances, and that for the most part, 25 man roster decisions are made a lot earlier than you think. Also spring training is made of two types of players. Played under contract who know they have a spot and therefore only try top not get hurt, and players trying to make an impression. The problem with the latter group is they wind up either facing minor league pitching or major leaguers trying not to get hurt and nothing more. ..

Is Bigfoot clutch?

Actually both were traded prior, with both deals being announced within 48 hours of the Rule 5 draft. ...

That's because you think "making the team" means making the 25 man roster. It doesn't. It means making the 40 man roster. Hernandez is already on it. So is Holt. So is Rutledge. But the only way the Sox can keep all three is if Hernandez starts the season in AAA. Its exactly the same as the bullpen and catcher situations. And these things do come up every year. Some player has a great spring training and suddenly the team can't get by without him. Hence why I started using the phrase the Jeff Bailey Award, after a previous spring training hero...

I thought we learned a long time ago that spring training has no real significance with respect to who makes the team or not. Teams appear to value depth more than a guy who can hit minor league pitching in March...

I did get that one backwards. It does make me wonder why Dombrowski granted him free agency if only top select him in the Rule 5 draft.