Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Sox Therapy > Discussion
Sox Therapy
— Where Thinking Red Sox Fans Obsess about the Sox

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2
   101. Cowboy Popup Posted: August 01, 2006 at 05:54 PM (#2121611)
"ugh, another perfectly good baseball discussion (/ortiz amazement-fest) derailed and made boring by discussion about the mvp award."

Probably my fault, my only point was that Ortiz is doing something amazing to watch this year, but so is Jeter (which I wouldn't have done if Darren hadn't started it ;)). Two very good players doing things this year that you see don't very often, but won't come out in your typical stat line. Watching those two hit over the past month has been a joy, even though I don't like Ortiz.
   102. Zac Schmitt Posted: August 01, 2006 at 05:54 PM (#2121612)

You notice it the same way you notice brick walls in the fog. You keep running into it and getting hurt.


what's that brick wall made of, then? how do you know it's brick? why's it there? i'm not just going to accept, "well, he seems so clutch, and since i can't prove he's not he must be!" as an argument. and i'm not even suggesting ignoring clutchness, just playing on the safe side (i.e. not running into what i presume is a wall).

Would you like to play a nice game of chess?

ever read the defense by nabokov? the last few paragraphs are an eye popping meditation on just that.

/the movie sucks
   103. Zac Schmitt Posted: August 01, 2006 at 05:58 PM (#2121617)
er, and eye popping meditation on "not playing the game" as it relates to chess, life, et ceter all that good stuff, i should add.

on a very simple and silly level i'd take jeter 10 days out of 10, if only because jeter has a much more physically alluring style of play to me. watching ortiz swing is cringe inducing to me, sometimes. and no snarky comments about jeter's defense, please, as ortiz doesn't even get the chance to make himself look like a fool.
   104. dave h Posted: August 01, 2006 at 05:58 PM (#2121620)
It's not luck every time a player performs differently than his median skill level. Luck and performance may both be normally distributed but don't conflate the two. If a player performs better than he usually does, we should give him credit for that. We shouldn't necessarily expect him to do it again, which is what matters when projecting future performance for trades and contracts and such. But when it comes to postseason awards, what's important is how well he actually played, and if someone plays over their head for a year, good for them.
   105. Hungry Hungry Hipolito Pichardo Posted: August 01, 2006 at 06:01 PM (#2121624)
er, and eye popping meditation on "not playing the game" as it relates to chess, life, et ceter all that good stuff, i should add.

Well, that's a WOPR.
   106. dave h Posted: August 01, 2006 at 06:01 PM (#2121625)
To be relevant to this discussion, I'd just point out that Ortiz deserves credit for his actual performance in these situations. WPA is opportunity-based (correct?) so it might be an unfair statistic in that regard, but it highlights that whatever he may do next year, this year he's performed when it mattered the most.
   107. Zac Schmitt Posted: August 01, 2006 at 06:07 PM (#2121641)
but it highlights that whatever he may do next year, this year he's performed when it mattered the most.

i don't mean to suggest that i'm assigning no value to this or ignoring it completely, and if that's how i'm coming off i apologize. i would just rather assign less value to it. perhaps i'll take a closer look at wpa and change my mind, but i'd rather err on the side of caution, meaning it would take someone even more "clutch" than ortiz to be chosen (by me, personally) over a hitter who's simply better.
   108. Srul Itza Posted: August 01, 2006 at 06:08 PM (#2121643)
If I could bet money he goes to the HoF I'd do it.


How much? What odds? Because of his Twins years, he effectively got a very late start. Can he remain effective at this level for another 6-8-10 years? How much of that does he need?

Writers love good stories, but they also have short memories, and they tend to favor a combination of good career and great peak for the Hall-- as they should.

A week ago, I would have said he stood no chance. Now, I will say he has an outside chance. But only that.
   109. Ozzie's gay friend Posted: August 01, 2006 at 06:17 PM (#2121649)
Clutch isn't "close and late" stats, or RIP w/2out, it's hiting walkoff homeruns and making gamesaving plays.
   110. Daryn Posted: August 01, 2006 at 06:25 PM (#2121662)
How much? What odds? Because of his Twins years, he effectively got a very late start. Can he remain effective at this level for another 6-8-10 years? How much of that does he need?

I think 7 or 8 more years would do it. 400+ homeruns and the reputation he has so rightly earned over the past three years (which will likely be his peak three years) would make he a feel good stats-light inductee.

To anyone under the age of 35, he is the best clutch hitter they have ever seen. That is pretty significant. What he has done over the last three years (Count the Walkofffzzzz!!) is a once a generation phenomena.

I agree with Srul -- three months ago I would have put his HoF chances at zero. Now, I'd say they are in the 15% range.
   111. Zac Schmitt Posted: August 01, 2006 at 06:33 PM (#2121675)
Clutch isn't "close and late" stats, or RIP w/2out, it's hiting walkoff homeruns and making gamesaving plays.
i just can't get past this argument seeming odd to me. it insinuates that a player could could never get a hit in situations that weren't game winning and he'd be just as good. i know this isn't what anyone's arguing, but i can't separate them.

i'm also reticent to say he can sustain a level necessary for another 8 years or so in order to get what he needs. without them, people might remember his late game theatrics and such but realize he just doesn't quite have enough.
   112. Biscuit_pants Posted: August 01, 2006 at 06:41 PM (#2121694)
er, and eye popping meditation on "not playing the game" as it relates to chess, life, et ceter all that good stuff, i should add.

Well, that's a WOPR.

Not if you go through the back door
   113. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: August 01, 2006 at 06:43 PM (#2121699)
Only tangetially related to this thread, but IIRC, Don Mattingly hit six grand slams in 1985, and also had a three-run double and a sac fly in two other bases-loaded ABs. I think it's fair to say that those 28 RBI had a bit to do with his MVP award, and I've always wondered if any other player even had 8 PAs with the bags juiced.

A long-winded way of saying that I'm just as amazed by the fact that Ortiz seems to come to the plate in these situations every other game as I am by what he does with those opportunities.
   114. Srul Itza Posted: August 01, 2006 at 08:13 PM (#2121801)
Daryn: That sounds about right to me.

I also agree with kevin -- there is nothing random about this. Players get opportunities throughout the year to make a big difference. When Cookie Monster gets his, he comes through in a huge, splashy way.

Also, how random is it when everybody and his brother calls it? I was following the game yesterday at work on CBS, and I counted the outs. I said, if they get 6 in a row, they win. If they let Papi come up with one on, tie game. If they let Papi come up with two on, walk off.

When he walked Youkilis, it was game over.

I also think kevin is right about the effect he has on the pitchers. I was thinking about that myself. Especiaaly if you let a couple of guys get on base so he can do maximal damage, what must be going through your head when he digs in at the plate? Something like, Jeez, what have I gotten myself into? Why did I walk that guy? Oh hell.

I also agree with Sam. As Crazy as it sounds, you have to pitch to Manny in that situation. Oy. What a choice. Pitch to the Clutch God, or a guy who has been one fo the best RBI machines for the last 8+ years?

Does any team right now have a 3-4 that scares you like that?
   115. Dizzypaco Posted: August 01, 2006 at 08:41 PM (#2121846)
Only tangetially related to this thread, but IIRC, Don Mattingly hit six grand slams in 1985, and also had a three-run double and a sac fly in two other bases-loaded ABs. I think it's fair to say that those 28 RBI had a bit to do with his MVP award, and I've always wondered if any other player even had 8 PAs with the bags juiced.

This might be nit-picking, but Mattingly hit six grand slams in 1987, not 1985, so I don't think it had much to do with his MVP award. In 1985, his MVP year, with the bases loaded, he went four for 15, with one double and no home runs. He hit better with no one on base than he did than when there were players on base, and he did even worse with runners in scoring position.

So how did he get so many RBI's, which led to his MVP? Rickey Henderson.
   116. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: August 01, 2006 at 08:48 PM (#2121857)
So how did he get so many RBI's, which led to his MVP? Rickey Henderson.

I knew that. Everybody knows that, right? Sorry about mixing up the years.
   117. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: August 01, 2006 at 08:57 PM (#2121871)
As Crazy as it sounds, you have to pitch to Manny in that situation.

Like I said, you walk 'em both and take your chances up by one with the bases loaded and Lowell and Mirabelli due up.
   118. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 01, 2006 at 09:12 PM (#2121889)
To anyone under the age of <strike>35</strike>, he is the best clutch hitter they have ever seen.

Make that 63, at least. And I saw Teddy Bgame play more than a few times. The closest to Ortiz I've ever seen is Brett. And the only one I can even imagine matching him was Mays.
   119. Raskolnikov Posted: August 01, 2006 at 09:20 PM (#2121900)
How much? What odds? Because of his Twins years, he effectively got a very late start. Can he remain effective at this level for another 6-8-10 years? How much of that does he need?

A week ago, I would have said he stood no chance. Now, I will say he has an outside chance. But only that.


It's very early for him, but I think he has a very good chance. He'll need 5 more years of peak performance like this, then another 5 years of reasonably mild decline. I think he can do it, but we should check back in 5 years.
   120. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: August 01, 2006 at 09:24 PM (#2121907)
Assuming the pitcher couldn't have prevented the baserunners from getting on

I'm not sure what you mean. Letting those guys get on was the whole probelm in the first place, wasn't it? More to the point, they were already on when the decision about pitching to Ortiz had to be made, so there's no need to assume anything other than the actual facts at the time.

And sure, Wedge almost had to make the call he made, but this is a case where the insane decision to walk the winning run on and the tying run into scoring position wouldn't have been quite so crazy, even without the benefit of hindsight.
   121. Srul Itza Posted: August 01, 2006 at 09:35 PM (#2121922)
As distasteful as it may have seemed for Wedge, I think he was correct in thinking you have to pitch to him and take whatever comes.

Anyone else at the plate, I agree. Conventional baseball thinking. You don't put the winning run on base. You don't move the tying run into scoring position.

But let's change the analysis a little. Let's say it is David Ortiz at the plate. Let's say you just know, like everybody in the park, like everybody at home, like everybody on line, that he is going to hit it out of the park if you pitch to him. By this point, when he does it, you have seen it so many times before, you are asking yourself, Is it live or is it Memorex?

There comes a time when you just have to throw away the book and go on gut. The moment Dave walked to the plate with two on, my gut said, Game Over -- and not because he was going to DP.

I guess Wedge's gut wasn't talking to him that day.
   122. Hungry Hungry Hipolito Pichardo Posted: August 01, 2006 at 09:35 PM (#2121923)
More fun stuff on Papi's otherworldly performance:

According to Sox historian Allan Wood, webmaster of the Joy of Sox, Ortiz has come to the plate 19 times in potential walkoff situations since the end of the 2004 regular season (postseasons included) and reached base 16 times. He is 11-for-14 (.786), with 7 HR and 20 RBI.

In 2005 and 2006, he is 8-for-9, with 5 HR and 15 RBI.


Papi really does do it all the time
   123. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: August 01, 2006 at 09:43 PM (#2121933)
He will not swing at a non-strike and has enough power to take it out himself.

Sure, but my point is that when you talk about "not letting that guy beat you" it sometimes means taking your chances with the guys up ahead of him, rather than just chossing between the big guy and the guy behind him. I know that Youkilis doesn't swing at bad pitches. That's why I think that trying to get him to chase bad pitches in that situation is unforgiveable. You have to go after him in the hopes of avoiding the impossible situation that wound up coming to pass.
   124. Darren Posted: August 01, 2006 at 09:47 PM (#2121941)
Cowboy,

You're misreading my Jeter comparison. I'm not putting Jeter down. I'm saying that it's inconsistent that people bring up Manny as a reason for Ortiz's success but NEVER mention that when it comes to Jeter. The IBBs were meant to illustrate my point that Jeter has excellent protection behind him, not that managers don't fear him. Quite the opposite, I think they do fear him, but would not IBB him, even in a case where a single would win the game. Why? Because he often has 2-3 Manny-types hitting behind him.

I can't believe people are seriously debating walking Ortiz and pitching to Manny. Ortiz is superclutch and all that, but you're choosing to make Manny hit a single rather than making Ortiz hit a double or better. That's crazy.

(Sam, I hope my tenure comment didn't sound snide. It was meant to be funny. :)
   125. Hungry Hungry Hipolito Pichardo Posted: August 01, 2006 at 09:59 PM (#2121959)
This stuff just sold me.

If we assumed he was a .350 hitter in these situations, that would still only give him a 1-in-900 chance of getting 11 of more hits in 14 official at bats.

I won't even try calculating the odds of 7 HR in this situation.
   126. Srul Itza Posted: August 01, 2006 at 10:17 PM (#2121976)
Ortiz is superclutch and all that, but you're choosing to make Manny hit a single rather than making Ortiz hit a double or better. That's crazy.

Yes. Absolutely. No question.

Crazy. Stark staring mad. Dog nuts. Bonkers.

And you still do it.
   127. Zac Schmitt Posted: August 01, 2006 at 10:18 PM (#2121980)
Also, how random is it when everybody and his brother calls it?

so it's not random if you guess right?

and <sigh>, but i don't think i'm making myself clear. i'd rather undervalue than overvalue what i'm just not sure of. with ortiz, jeter, a-rod, or whomever. that's it.

christ.
   128. b Posted: August 01, 2006 at 10:24 PM (#2121986)
Yet doesn't the fact that we are talking about a grand total of 19 plate appearences from the 2004 playoffs until now help make the point that, while splashy and fun for sportscenter, there are just so many other at bats during that time period that the relative value of these 19 plate appearences in almost 3 years is necessarily limited.

Oh, and how can Ortiz be the clutchest guy ever when Pujols is blowing him away in WPA? I thought WPA was the argument earlier in this thread for measuring how clutch Ortiz is?
   129. DCA Posted: August 01, 2006 at 10:29 PM (#2121992)
If we assumed he was a .350 hitter in these situations, that would still only give him a 1-in-900 chance of getting 11 of more hits in 14 official at bats.

That's actually not very impressive, when you consider how many players there are who are good enough that they could be the one we are talking about, not Ortiz, if the performance is actually random (null hypothesis true).

I won't even try calculating the odds of 7 HR in this situation.

That's going to be a bit more rare, particularly impressive is that he hits HR when they are needed, and 1B when they are needed and as good as a HR.

I think I'm sold, but I'm not sure how much is Ortiz's special ability. Otherwise he's the biggest slacker in the world, he should learn to hit like that all the time. Which is why I think it's mostly mental. Ortiz gets some benefit because he knows he can; but mostly I think the pitchers beat themselves because they are afraid. I don't know if you can raise your ability in the clutch, but you can definitely lower it. Ortiz certainly earned his aura, because he's an excellent hitter who came through a few times. But once he had it, I think the aura is doing the driving, and he's mostly just along for the ride.
   130. Srul Itza Posted: August 01, 2006 at 10:30 PM (#2121994)
so it's not random if you guess right?

No, it's not random when Baseball Jesus is at the plate.

BTW zac, I think you are taking this a wee bit too serously. This is just your standard, fanboy, over-the-top gushing at a remarkable series of performances.

If you can look at the numbers in Post 129 -- which simply validates what those of us who have been paying attention have been watching -- and not feel the "Oh Wow" factor, then why are you watching baseball in the first place. This is Baseball for the "Thinking Fan" -- sometimes the accent is on the Thinking, and sometimes the accent is on the Fan.

When a guy goes 8-for-9, with 5 HR and 15 RBI, in walk-off situations -- I don't give a rat's arse if it is a statisctical anomaly or within 2 standard deviations of a Ted Williams' Halo, I am going to Gush.
   131. b Posted: August 01, 2006 at 10:31 PM (#2121995)
Players get opportunities throughout the year to make a big difference. When Cookie Monster gets his, he comes through in a huge, splashy way.

Sure, but obviously, the sheer number of those opportunities is likely to be random. I mean, Jermaine Dye is outhitting Ortiz with runners in scoring position, for example, he just has had about half as many runners on 2nd and 3rd as Ortiz.
   132. Joel W Posted: August 01, 2006 at 10:35 PM (#2122002)
Pujols has a 40 point advantage in OBP and a 70 point advantage in slugging. His advantage in wins is about 1.3. Does anybody know what it should be given the 110 OPS advantage?
   133. DCW3 Posted: August 01, 2006 at 11:42 PM (#2122166)
Pujols has a 40 point advantage in OBP and a 70 point advantage in slugging. His advantage in wins is about 1.3. Does anybody know what it should be given the 110 OPS advantage?

BPro lists Pujols with an MLV (meaning the number of runs he'd contribute to an average offensive team) of 51.1, while Ortiz is at 36.2. Using the average run environment for the majors (which probably underrates Pujols because he plays in the lower run environment of the NL), this translates into 4.51 wins for Pujols and 3.24 for Ortiz, for a difference of roughly...1.3.
   134. 1k5v3L Posted: August 01, 2006 at 11:52 PM (#2122215)
Papi is clutch... but can he catch? Maybe Papi can be Wake's personal catcher. Ding dong.
   135. 1k5v3L Posted: August 01, 2006 at 11:59 PM (#2122242)
Red Sox designated first baseman Hee-Seop Choi for assignment.
Choi has missed a month at Triple-A Pawtucket with a knee injury and wasn't hitting before he got hurt, so there's little doubt that he'll get through waivers.

Hee ya later, alligator.

Red Sox purchased the contract of catcher Ken Huckaby from Triple-A Pawtucket.
Huckaby, truly a defensive specialist, won't have any fantasy value at all while playing behind Doug Mirabelli.

Derek Jeter is about to go on the DL with a dislocated shoulder. Driven this.
   136. Mattbert Posted: August 02, 2006 at 12:05 AM (#2122270)
Lopez was optioned to Pawtucket to make room for Johnson, too.
   137. Zac Schmitt Posted: August 02, 2006 at 12:54 AM (#2122455)
BTW zac, I think you are taking this a wee bit too serously. This is just your standard, fanboy, over-the-top gushing at a remarkable series of performances.

you're right. i just hope cantankerous behavior on this topic can be tolerated, at least, from yankee fans, especially ones who love a-rod.

do baseball jesus and basketball jesus get together to...i dunno, do whatever it is boston deities do?
   138. villageidiom Posted: August 02, 2006 at 02:58 AM (#2122809)
Sure, but obviously, the sheer number of those opportunities is likely to be random. I mean, Jermaine Dye is outhitting Ortiz with runners in scoring position, for example, he just has had about half as many runners on 2nd and 3rd as Ortiz.

It's random with respect to Dye and Ortiz, because they didn't assemble the roster/lineup ahead of them. But it's not random that Ortiz has a lot more RISP than Dye.

In short, it is an effect with a cause; but Ortiz isn't the cause.

OK, Srul. This stuff just sold me. You walk him.

Very impressive numbers indeed, but I'm not sold. I do believe Ortiz is clutch, but it seems like you're making the decision to walk Ortiz in that situation because the situation is so untenable. But by walking Ortiz, you now have bases loaded, one out, and Manny up. This is also an untenable situation. Either way, you're putting yourself into a situation that has an excellent chance of losing the game for you.

But if you're interested in winning the game, you need two outs before you give up two runs (if you want to win now, or three runs if you're OK with extra innings). Do you base your decision on godly numbers in a small sample, or superhuman numbers over a larger sample (Manny's 1154 OPS with RISP in 466 AB over the last 3 years)? I'm taking my chances with the small sample. You cannot play this game and fear the small sample.
   139. Darren Posted: August 02, 2006 at 03:00 AM (#2122811)
If it's not too late, I'd like to pose a question: what was it about last night's heroics that seem to have made it such a watershed moment for so many people? To wit:

--I posted stupid Matrix references to Papi being 'the one' on about a dozen threads and started this thread.
--Several people in this thread said something to the effect of "okay, I believe in his clutchness now."
--It also seems to have pushed people here into talking about Papi as HOF candidate.
--People are actually debating walking him to get to Manny F'ing Ramirez!

What gives? What was it about last night? Was it that the rest of the game, along with the trading deadline, had created such a negative mood up to that moment? Was it just the straw that broke the camel's back?
   140. NJ in DC (Now with temporary employment!) Posted: August 02, 2006 at 03:28 AM (#2122838)
Darren, for me, it was the straw that broke the camel's back.
   141. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: August 02, 2006 at 04:09 AM (#2122869)
Darren, I agree that last night's heroics seemed different, though I don't quite know why. When it happened, I couldn't wait to get here to see what folks were saying. And while I didn't go into every thread posting Matrix references, I totally understood the impulse.
   142. villageidiom Posted: August 02, 2006 at 03:06 PM (#2123161)
Darren, I think part of it, too, was the situation. Plenty of times Ortiz has come up with a tie score and broken it with a HR, or a single, or what have you, when even failure would have allowed the game to continue. One could look at his clutchiness against the Angels the other day as being due to a mindless adherence to the shift by Scioscia than Ortiz himself. You could also look at the flare to center in the 2004 ALCS as more of a "sometimes they fall in" moment than any clutch placement. So, sometimes in the past, you could look at his performance as more luck than clutch; likewise you could look at the lack of do-or-die about some of the situations and suggest it wasn't really a very clutch situation.

On Monday, though, they were down two, with two runners on, after having spent several innings doing nothing. If he were to end it himself, he'd need to hit a HR. Nothing else would do. And though he leads the league in HR, manufacturing one on the spot when nothing else would do, well, that would be clutch. And he delivered.

When he came to bat, you knew what he needed to do. When the pitch was on its way in - fastball with too much of the plate - even in that split second you knew he had his opportunity. And he delivered.

Before Monday, if you tried, you could still find reasons not to believe. You could dismiss some of the situations as not very clutch, or just lucky. I suppose you still can. But Monday was an obvious clutch situation, regardless of how you define "clutch", and he obviously delivered, regardless of how you define "delivered". Even if you dismiss the ones you find questionable, the remaining track record is substantial, and Monday's result is unquestionable. The window of success was very narrow, and he still made it through.
   143. Mister High Standards Posted: August 02, 2006 at 04:35 PM (#2123260)
All what Idiom said... plus it was a VERY bright spot of light on what could have been a dark day.
   144. Archie Posted: August 02, 2006 at 05:31 PM (#2123346)
I just finished reading a book on Wes Ferrell and he had at least six walk-off hits in 1934 and 1935 for the Red Sox and he was a pinch-hitter/pitcher with a heck of lot less plate appearances than Ortiz. As much as I like watching Papi I will hold off his place in "clutch" history until more (pre-retrosheet) data is available.
   145. Darren Posted: August 03, 2006 at 02:40 AM (#2124527)
Loretta never gets old either. And neither does dumb dumb Francona making stupid pitching decisions.
   146. rLr Is King Of The Romans And Above Grammar Posted: August 03, 2006 at 02:55 AM (#2124546)
Today's events make me wonder how much was Ortiz and how much was Carmona. I mean, of course Ortiz is a tremendous hitter with a great track record, but Good Lord is Carmona ever bad.
   147. rLr Is King Of The Romans And Above Grammar Posted: August 03, 2006 at 02:57 AM (#2124549)
Fausto Carmona's last three outings (July 30, July 31, August 2):

2IP 9ER 6H 4BB 2HBP 3K 1HR.
   148. Darren Posted: August 03, 2006 at 03:03 AM (#2124556)
The pitch Ortiz hit for a HR was a 97-MPH sinking fastball, in the lower-outside part of the plate. It was really not a bad pitch at all, especially on 2-0.

Tonight, Carmona was just plain awful, though.
   149. Raskolnikov Posted: August 03, 2006 at 03:03 AM (#2124557)
We all know that this is coming down to Mariano against Papi in September, don't we?
   150. Darren Posted: August 03, 2006 at 03:07 AM (#2124562)
Nah, it'll be Papelbon against ARod.
   151. Chip Posted: August 03, 2006 at 03:07 AM (#2124563)
Eckersley's postgame comments were priceless.

"You fall in love with the kind of gas that somebody has, and the movement that he has. Hooray for movement! But if you're off a little bit with your release point, you're talking about you're going to kill someone! But I have a hard time watching this. As a Red Sox fan, you're loving it, but baseball wise, it's pathetic!"
   152. Darren Posted: August 03, 2006 at 03:16 AM (#2124570)
kevin,

that was Gagne-esque.
   153. Archie Posted: August 03, 2006 at 07:32 PM (#2125540)
Kevin,

Yes, that was the author. A quick study. I didn't have access to full stats so this is just at bats.

If what I looked at was the latest, Papi has five walk-off hits this year in 405 at bats. Pinch-hitter Wes Ferrell had six walk-off hits in 228 at bats over the 1934-35 seasons for the Red Sox.
   154. Archie Posted: August 03, 2006 at 07:34 PM (#2125546)
Kevin,

Yes, that was the author. Quick little study just based on at-bats.

Papi has 5 walk-off hits in 405 at bats this season.

Ferrell had six walk0off hits in 228 at bats for the Red Sox over the 1934-35 seasons.
   155. Archie Posted: August 03, 2006 at 07:37 PM (#2125555)
Sorry for the double post. Thought it was foulded up. Ferrell had two walk-off homers in games he pitched and four more as a pinch-hitter.
   156. bunyon Posted: August 03, 2006 at 07:40 PM (#2125562)
What gives? What was it about last night?

It's f'in hot.
   157. Dave Cyprian Posted: August 05, 2006 at 07:32 AM (#2128297)
Darren, good question (#147)- what about this paticular performance has people excited? I think probably because he delivered a walk off hit only two days before, thats why. When he needed a hit. Today, he needed a three run homer and he got it. When Ortiz bunches his clutchness, as he obviously has since June, it becomes that much more obvious.

Lets not forget Ortiz was not exactly a household name until he bunched all those fantastic clutch hits in the 2004 post-season.

As a sidenote, I myself was rather unmoved by his latest walk-off bomb. The expectations his past performance has created in my mind is off the charts, and I simply don't know what else to do except to believe he is going to come through.
   158. Dave Cyprian Posted: August 05, 2006 at 07:36 AM (#2128298)
Okay that last bit is totally untrue. What I meant to say at the end was that his home run was a stoic moment for me, but then the next morning I was pretty excited about it.
   159. Jorge Luis Bourjos (Walewander) Posted: August 05, 2006 at 07:58 AM (#2128301)
OK, come on everyone. The real Clutch God is Craig Monroe. He's shoplifted a bunch of games this year.

What are his HOF chances?
Page 2 of 2 pages  < 1 2

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
HowardMegdal
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.6417 seconds
43 querie(s) executed