S5Dewey

If you believe that choking happens then you believe that a person can be negatively affected by pressure. If one believes that they they should also believe that a player can be positively affected by pressure, a/k/a being clutch. To believe anything else one would have to believe that negative performances is the result of pressure and positive performance is simply randomness. That's kinda like blaming the manager for a loss but not giving him credit for a win.

Seeing something happen is pretty good evidence that it's true.

No. If a player is clutch it means he knows enough to not let the situation get into his head... not at all that he cannot think.

This. Unfortunately there are those who believe that if something can't be explained it can't be true.

I'm giving my head a good hard shake here. It sounds like you're saying that you can buy into the mental aspect of a game affecting a player's performance in a negative way but not in a positive way. Why would that be? If he didn't raise his game to a whole new level, was his making two in a row the product of randomness?

Yes. I should have been clearer. I would NEVER bring in my closer for a clean 7th or 8th inning. And even then it would be situational. If, for example, the starter is obviously weakening and has allowed men on base near the top of the order I'd bring in the closer to pitch to #'s 4, 5, 6. OTOH if the #8 & 9 guys are coming up I'd be bringing in my short man. My objection to how managers handle the pen now is that they virtually never will bring in the the big truck to put out a fire. They instead send a small pumper and hope for the best. Unless.... of course, you believe that hitters can 'turn it up a notch' in the 9th. THEN you save your closer to pitch to the hitters who are "clutch".

I agree with your assessment of not being able to compare basketball with baseball in that basketball is much more of a reaction sport. However, in the context of someone being clutch IMO there are very few sports where "clutch" comes into play any more than the instance I mentioned - a player on the foul line with the game in the balance with no defense to contend with. It's you, the ball, and the rim. Pass or fail. That's pressure and people who can respond to it are "clutch". So IMO "clutch" does exist. As to the players who are clutch being the better hitters, is he a better hitter because he makes solid contact more often, or is it because his performance in clutch situations boosts his statistics? Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

I almost agree with you. My prediction is that the season will start as Leon being our #1 behind the dish and Vaz as our #2. It will become evident sometime before June 1 that Leon is what he was offensively - a ~.200 hitter - and then be crowded out of the #1 spot by Vaz. Then by July 4th we'll be in a tizzy about who our backup catcher is - Leon or Swihart.

I would maintain that it makes sense to put your stingiest run-allower in the game when the chance of giving up the most runs is the greatest. What's going on now is CYA mode for the managers. This enables them to say, "Ya, we fell behind by two runs in the 7th but I wanted to hold off my closer to the 9th in case we came back". Wouldn't it make at least as much sense to keep the team from falling behind in the 7th? Tito had done things in the past that defied past baseball logic and made them work. It's going to be interesting to see if other FO's and managers follow up on what the Guardians did during the 2016 playoffs.

I've probably posted this before, but what you're saying goes back to what Bill James has said - that teams should use their best relief pitcher situationally. Games are often lost in the 6th, 7th, or 8th innings off the middle relievers while the closer sits on the bench. James says that teams shouldn't hesitate to use their best reliever in their highest pressure situations regardless of the inning. The Cubs had the luxury of having both Miller and a "real closer" so they could use Miller in tight situations but Miller being as effective as he was may have lessened the need for that "real closer".

This whole discussion kinda-sorta goes to something I've wondered about and even asked at one point. Aren't we tacitly acknowledging that "clutch" exists when we insist on having a lights-out closer for the 9th inning? Doesn't that imply that there's a real possibility that the hitters in the 9th inning can "turn it up a notch" when necessary?

First the disclaimer... I have ZERO first-hand information as to what has happened in any ML clubhouse. This is just the way I see things based on my observation and experience. Most players aren't a problem in the clubhouse as long as things are going well for them. It's when things go south that the problems start. Josh Beckett is a good example of that. He was a leader. As long as he and the team weree winning he was the guy you wanted on the mound. He would lead the team to wins on the days when he pitched. When things went sour for him was when he became the problem in the clubhouse. IMHO the dust-up with LaRouche and his son was what made Sale unhappy with the White Sox management. After that nothing the ChiSox could do would be right in Sale's eyes and that manifested itself in the throwback uniform incident. After that Sale was sick of the White Sox and they were sick of him. The 2016 season may be an indication that Sale is a bit of a prima donna. Being very good will do that to some players. I don't see any doubt that there's a gamble involved in signing him but he could also very well be someone who just needs a change in scenery. Moncada aside, for the money he's making that's a risk I'd be willing to take. If he turns out to be a problem in Boston he'll be very tradeable. At that point we have to hope that Moncada doesn't become the next Mike Trout (or Mookie Betts!)

I couldn't agree more, I've always thought that there were dozens or maybe hundreds of young men out there who were waiting on tables, working on construction or selling cars who had the skills to play MLB. They just never got the long look they needed, for one reason or another. And don't go patting yourself on the back too hard. IIRC you weren't the only one defending JBJ and saying that he was a viable ML player.

I think my position on 'clutch' has been pretty well established, so let me share something with you. Basketball season is now winding down in my state and the tournament to crown State Champions starts this week and I attend most games in my section of the state. Last season I saw a player on a team leading by one point foul a player on the opposing team as time expired. I saw a 16 year old kid go to the line to shoot one-and-one with the game and the season in the balance. If they win they advance. If they lose they go home. That kid made both ends of the one-and-on for the win, and the ball never even touched the rim. Swish. Twice. Random? With that kind of pressure. I think not. Please don't tell me that clutch doesn't exist.

I don't have any problem at all with your picking out Middlebrooks as evidence that we shouldn't get too high on anyone based on a "SSS". Now lets go to the other end of the spectrum and talk about JBJ for a bit. There was a lot of talk about whether JBJ was an asset to the team because of his defense if he only hit .200. They're both evidence of how we shouldn't get too high or low on a player based on Sample Size - but how many samples is enough? IMO 500 PA's is a good number to be called a full season, so how long should we stick with a guy who's hitting .200 with a full season's PA's? Another half season? 80 games is a lot of time and potential losses to be hoping that someone will hit better. However, that same 500 PA's is easier to take when they're hitting well and we want to find out if he's 'found it' - like Leon did last season and like Middlebrooks did in a ~500 consecutive PA's over two seasons. In the case of someone like Leon we tend to ride the horse until he drops and then drag him around the track for another half season just to be sure he's dead. We may have even done that with Middlebrooks. My point? IMHO there's more to it than just PA's. It's whether the player has the innate talent, is coachable and is willing to put in the work, all things we as fans have no way of knowing. Maybe merely trying to assign a certain number of PA's to determine whether a player is 'for real' may be a mistake.

And therein lies the crux. I have to admit that this trade is looking worse all the time but it has little to do with Espinoza. You're comparing what Pom is to what you expect Espi to be - which is "very very special". Maybe the problem isn't Pom, but rather your expectations for Espi. I'm grateful that we have a contender this year. As the guy says, "Every day that I keep my gratitude higher than my expectations is a pretty good day".

I know... I was wondering if ebola was going to be the culprit, and it may have been were it not for medical science. Thus far we've been able to stay one step ahead of Mother Nature but it can't last forever. I'm thinking that this may be a lot more interesting to talk about in the abstract than when it actually happens. I've read all of Brown's books too. I'm now pawing the ground expectantly waiting for his new one, "Origin" to be released in October. It's been a long wait!

That's cold. But true. Dan Brown's book "Inferno" which has now been made into a Tom Hanks movie deals with that. I won't spoil it for you by telling you how it ends.

You're preaching to the choir when you say that to me. If a person discovered an immediate cure for every type of cancer he wouldn't make as much money in his lifetime as many professional athletes (or actors or entertainers of any kind). And don't even get me started on the people whom we're trusting to educate our kids. IMHO there's something wrong with that.

Ugh. Good luck with that. Are you going to be able to get there? I've got 18" of new snow in my driveway (I just measured it) and it's supposed to snow for 5 more hours.

That's a point. JH may look at it like someone who buys a house and flips it. After all, the franchise is worth a lot more now than it was when he bought it so it's possible that he sees it as a long-term investment (as well as a hobby).

I'm not sure how that all works. I know that when I go to a ballpark it seems like they are a money printing machine with credit cards flying everywhere. IMHO John Henry runs the team as a hobby but it's not a hobby he wants to lose a lot of money at. He didn't get rich by throwing money away. It's got to cost a lot to maintain the stadiums, pay the minor league players, pay the FO, pay for travel & lodging for the team when on the road, pay for scouting, etc., etc., etc., etc. . I can't imagine a paltry $180M paying for everything other than player's salaries. So I have to ask, is that $380M the entire baseball revenue? I DID hear that the reason they're holding concerts at Fenway now is because the money made from the concerts isn't counted toward baseball revenue so maybe some of the concert money is going toward the team also.

Heck, I guess I don't even know how to read it! It looks to me like we have the highest Max and the highest Mean, but if our Stats Guru can't decipher it I sure can't!

I agree. I like those three guys too but they were like being on vacation. At the end of the day it's always nice to come home to Jerry. Get well soon.