Lammycat Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 The Sox are out of the race (as much as it pains me to admit).Well, there are a few games left to play. Roster expansion starts today, too. Ortiz is slated to be back in the line up as early as tomorrow. Varitek soon. Wakefield soon. Manny soon.Although the team has obviously struggled mightily the past month (injuries and bullpen woes) I see no reason the Sox can't make up some lost ground from their worst slump in the last 2 years. They certainly don't look like post-season contenders at this point, but I'm a believer that things can turn around rather quickly in baseball. I'd like to see the Sox at least make up enough ground to get the Wildcard spot. It's possible. Slim odds, but possible. Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 At this point, Boston would need to get white-hot AND get help from Chicago and Minnesota. Stranger things have happened; ask the '64 Phillies. Link to post Share on other sites
darkstar Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 Well, there are a few games left to play. Roster expansion starts today, too. Ortiz is slated to be back in the line up as early as tomorrow. Varitek soon. Wakefield soon. Manny soon.Although the team has obviously struggled mightily the past month (injuries and bullpen woes) I see no reason the Sox can't make up some lost ground from their worst slump in the last 2 years. They certainly don't look like post-season contenders at this point, but I'm a believer that things can turn around rather quickly in baseball. I'd like to see the Sox at least make up enough ground to get the Wildcard spot. It's possible. Slim odds, but possible. Yeah, anything can happen I guess but I just don't think the pitching is there. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a big win streak and NY loose say 10 in a row but..... Hey I'm a die-hard but you have to accept the reality that the Sox are all but mathmatically eliminated. I'll keep hoping though. Link to post Share on other sites
parisisstale Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 After 2004, I won't count em out til it's mathematically impossible for them to make it. Link to post Share on other sites
darkstar Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 After 2004, I won't count em out til it's mathematically impossible for them to make it. Link to post Share on other sites
kimalmostpossible Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 After 2004, I won't count em out til it's mathematically impossible for them to make it.i think that's the nicest thing you've ever said! Link to post Share on other sites
parisisstale Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 i think that's the nicest thing you've ever said! My mom says that I'm the nicest guy ever . Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 Minnesota just aquired Phil Nevin. So you know what that means as far as the wild card race goes... ...absolutely nothing. Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 Jon Lester has lymphoma. Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 Hmmm...I wonder if that's David Wells's fault too. I'll ask my co-worker on Tuesday. Not to be insensitive to that story. That sucks. Hopefully things turn out well for Lester and his family (and the Sox of course). Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 White Sox knuckleballer Charlie Haeger looks nasty. I love september call ups. Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 Your White Sox are making quite a game of this. They should have been done 3 innings ago. Wow. Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 Crap. I thought Crede might come through, but alas. Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 Right on. Nice to see Crede be the goat twice in this game. He's fried the Tigers too many times for me to have any sympathy for him. How's A2 right about now, Cryptique? It's move-in week at the dorms, eh? I so completely miss that place and don't miss it all at the same time... Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 I heard that Tigers fans call Crede Satan. Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 (edited) Well, I don't live in Detroit anymore, and I haven't been privy to Tiger-talk much this year (since there really wasn't much there before this year)...but if that's so, I'm totally on board. Although I think Jermaine Dye is probably more deserving of the title. He screws the Tigers more than Crede does. Of course it usually hurts more when Crede does it. Dye is a great player, so it's easier to accept. Edited September 2, 2006 by MrRain422 Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 Yeah, I guess you're right. Dye vs. Tiggers:.417 .470 .817 1.287Crede vs. Tiggers: .352 .400 .685 1.085They're both generally good in the clutch, too. Dye w/ RISP.364 .432 .760 1.192Crede w/ RISP.373 .415 .555 .970 Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 I would imagine that both those sets of numbers are way higher than their numbers against the rest of the league, though. And that is why I hate them. Although I have a very begrudging respect for Jermaine Dye. I'm not sure why, although it might be because he is awesome. I don't like that he is awesome, but I have no choice but to accept it. Crede is a good ballplayer, but he's definately not as good on average as he is against the Tigers. It seems like Dye is pretty much awesome all the time. I really want to dislike Jermaine Dye, but I just can't. I wish he'd cool the fuck down when they play the Tigers though. Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 Yeah, I guess my point is that, given that they are better with RISP (against everyone), it doesn't surprise me that they are also better against the division leader. Then again, I'm one of those strange people who still think that such a thing as a clutch hitter exists. Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 (edited) I don't know that there are a lot of people who say clutch hitting does not exist. Those who trust traditional baseball stats/ideas say, yes, clutch hitting absolutely exists. Sabermatricians in general say, "maybe". I think personally I split the difference. Most players play roughly the same regardless of the situation, but there seem to be some players who do play significantly better/worse in clutch situations. I think clutch hitting exists for some guys, but not for everyone. And I feel pretty good about that opinion. I think everyone can agree that not all players perform the same in the same situation. The main problem in determining the truth to clutch hitting is that there isn't really an agreed upon defination of what clutch hitting is. Obviously it's more important to get a hit in a close game with a runner on third in the 9th than it is with the bases empty in the first, but everything that happens in between is sort of up to interpretetion. That's the bulk of what I love about baseball though. It has more folklore than any other sport, but it also has more hard data than any other sport. The debate could go on forever. Edited September 2, 2006 by MrRain422 Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 I do feel like the vast majority of the great clutch hitters in the game were great in non-cluth situations too. A great hitter is a great hitter. Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 (edited) For the record, I think that the rift among baseball fans is stupid. A lot of fans who value more traditional stats think that sabermatricians don't love the the game in the same way that they do. I think that this is stupid. Following the game in a different way has no berring on how much a fan loves the game. Likewise, a lot of sabermatricians think that fans who still value more traditional fans are stupid. And I hate that too. I generally favor a lot of the newer stats as I feel like they do a better job of really encompassing everything players can do to contribute to their team. But the whole idea is to have fun, and so long as people love the game, I'm okay with that. The stats exist to enhance certain fans enjoyment of the game, but it's certainly not the be-all and end-all of baseball. Baseball has been slaughtered by football and basketball recently, and I'm all for people supporting the game even if its for different reasons and in a different way than I do. Edited September 2, 2006 by MrRain422 Link to post Share on other sites
Nobody Girl Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 Oakland Athletics' Frank Thomas releases his bat after hitting a two-run home run off Baltimore Orioles' Todd Williams in the seventh inning of a baseball game Friday, Sept. 1, 2006, in Oakland, Calif. So this Frank Thomas guy... he's a pretty good ballplayer. (And I love how the caption specifies this took place at baseball game.) Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted September 2, 2006 Author Share Posted September 2, 2006 Thats kind of how I feel about it. I don't know if there is some extra skill set we are overlooking that can tell us whether a player will be great in the clutch. If there was, scouting would be so much easier. It's hard to ignore evidence for players like Ortiz, but I still don't think he's guaranteed to come up in the clutch, and personally, I'll take the better hitter (such as Arod or Manny) over Ortiz in the clutch, although really with those three, they are so good that you can't go wrong with any. If you have 1 guy who is an above average hitter but has shown he's ridiculous in the clutch, or a great hitter in every situation, who do you take? The guy who is consistently great, or the guy who seems to have a knack for big hits. And Frank Thomas is a beast. His swing doesn't look very pretty anymore (probably because he's the size of the freaking Hulk), but god damn it still gets it done. Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted September 2, 2006 Share Posted September 2, 2006 His swing never really looked pretty. It changed when he stopped getting the calls on inside pitches and eventually he became a dead-pull hitter. I think one could make a case for him as the MVP. Simply because I think he's more important to the A's success than any other player on any other AL team in contention. How many of his homers have given the A's the lead or tied a game? Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts