How about Freddy Sanchez

[NievesNoNO]

I'm kind of spinning off my post in the Brewer Boredom thread, but what would it take to get Freddy Sanchez? He didn't play 3rd last year, however he has in the past and at least by his fielding % looks to be solid defensively. He can hit for a good avg. and doesn't strike out much. I'm thinking he'd be the answer to the 2 hole in our order. I'm not sure what it would take to get him. Something along the lines of Gamel, Escobar, and Bush? Not sure if that would be enough; I don't have a good feel for how Pittsburge or other teams for that matter value him.

[sbrylski]

I like him, but he's one of those RHB who's barely passable vRHP and awsome vLHP that we already have in a couple players, namely Hardy and Hall. He might cost too much for it to be worth it.

[bsglorydays]

Obviously, getting a batting champ would help any team. But, I'm not sure Pittsburgh would be motivated to move a batting champ within its own division unless they were blown away by a deal. He's a decent defender and has played his share of 3B, although he played only 2B in 2007. Still, I'm not sure Pitt/Milw is a match due to both playing in the NL Central.

[jordanmuehl]

I'd be all for it, but it would surely cost too much to get him, especially since, as bsglorydays put it, we play in the same division and they're probably not willing to give up one of their best position players for tiddlywinks.

[Ennder]

I'm fnie with Sanchez but he is not a great defensive 3B and I can only imagine their asking price is higher than his value for a division rival.

[Crazyk1294]

Still, I'm not sure Pitt/Milw is a match due to both playing in the NL Central.

Though Pittsburgh did trade for Matt Morris in the middle of the season for no apparent reason. Maybe there is a chance, but I don't think he'd going anywhere.

[TooLiveBrew]

But Morris came over from SF, not StL.

[Crazyk1294]

But Morris came over from SF, not StL.

 

Right. I'm just saying that PIT is know for stupid moves....

[TooLiveBrew]

Ahhh - gotcha. To be fair to the Buccos, they have a new GM. I recall in an article on his hire, he sounded very 'new-school' and not about to get down with horrible deals like the one that brought Morris and his awful contract to Pittsburgh.

[aracko]

Id have to think that Sanchez could be had for Capuano.

 

He has a .342 career BA with RISP. He is a very clutch player. I dont think we can say he doesnt hit RHP good - he is still a .287 hitter over his career - thats not BAD to me.

 

Id love to add Sanchez, even if it was Cappy and something.

 

The Bucs would look at Cappy as a potential top of the rotation starter I would imagine.

[dadofandrew]

Repeat after me, there is no such thing as "clutch". Sanchez does have good RISP numbers, but he has average "late and close" numbers, as with all his other clutch stats. As with all small samples, they rarely make sense, and have no future merit.

[Gopher74]

Repeat after me, there is no such thing as "clutch". Sanchez does have good RISP numbers, but he has average "late and close" numbers, as with all his other clutch stats. As with all small samples, they rarely make sense, and have no future merit.

That, in my opinion, is silly. Now I'm not saying that Sanchez's numbers mean anything. I haven't even spent the time to look at them, but to suggest that there's "no such thing as clutch" is just ridiculous to me. You can't quantify everything using stats and numbers, and you can't tell me for a second that there aren't players who perform better on the big stage, or when the pressure if on, I don't care what anyone says. It's about as basic a athletic principle as there is.

 

[TooLiveBrew]

Jason Bay said it best when asked about 'clutch.' I'm paraphrasing, but his point was, "'Clutch' is performing to your normal level(s) in high-leverage situations." The problem with the perception of 'clutch' is that David Ortiz's two 'clutchiest' hits were little fist-jobs that bled up the middle only due to a massive overshift employed by the D.

 

There's much more preception than reality involved in 'clutch,' which is its biggest problem imho. I don't fully agree that 'there's no such thing as...', but at the same time, it doesn't appear to be a quantifiable thing/skill, either.

[Gopher74]

Jason Bay said it best when asked about 'clutch.' I'm paraphrasing, but his point was, "'Clutch' is performing to your normal level(s) in high-leverage situations." The problem with the perception of 'clutch' is that David Ortiz's two 'clutchiest' hits were little fist-jobs that bled up the middle only due to a massive overshift employed by the D.

 

There's much more preception than reality involved in 'clutch,' which is its biggest problem imho. I don't fully agree that 'there's no such thing as...', but at the same time, it doesn't appear to be a quantifiable thing/skill, either.

No, but that's just it. I actually started to write this before, but I stopped. People want to quantify everything. You just can't do that when it comes to human nature. Yes, there's far more perception than reality when it comes to being "clutch", but that doesn't mean(like you said) that clutch doesn't exist.

 

I can say with absolutely certainty that Derek Jeter is a "clutch" player. And it's not just performing at his normal level, he seems to come up big in big spots more often than not. And it's not just about offense either. That play to get Jeremy Giambi was the greatest baseball player I've ever seen live. It was absolutely a thing of beauty. I guess that's my only pet peeve. Well, that a Cubs fans. Is this incessant need to try and quantify every last aspect of baseball. The fact that baseball is such a numbers game is what makes it great, but there are also things that you just can't break down using numbers.

[dadofandrew]

Jeter has been shown many times he hits less than his career average in the playoffs and such. He is the definition of why there is no such thing as clutch.

[Gopher74]

Jeter has been shown many times he hits less than his career average in the playoffs and such. He is the definition of why there is no such thing as clutch.

He's a career .309 hitter in the playoffs. And I was pretty clear in pointing out that I wasn't just speaking of his offensive exploits, but also including his defensive plays.

 

He's also had WS BA's of .353, .353, .409 and .346. He has also had a couple average of below average ones with the AZ series, and his first series, but by in large, he's been very good in the post-season.

 

But this is exactly my point. You can't just take the bottom line, subtract .317(career avg) from .309(playoff average), and try and argue that he's the proof that clutch doesn't exist.

 

[Ennder]

Clutch has shown no year to year correlation so on a macro level it pretty clearly doesn't exist. That doesn't mean that a few players or a micro level might not reveal some oddballs. But if you just take one year of a player and look how he did in clutch situations it says almost nothing about what he'll do the next year when you look at baseball as a whole.

 

The idea that Jeter is clutch probably stems from the fact that he is a very good 2 strike hitter. He is a hard out in general which is why he hits for such a strong average. For his career he has been slightly below average with RISP but just about where you would expect the numbers to be.

 

The more interesting subject would be to look at really big situations but then you are getting into sample size issues, in order to prove or disprove something you need a big enough sample to show it isn't just luck.

[TooLiveBrew]

You can't just take the bottom line, subtract .317(career avg) from .309(playoff average), and try and argue that he's the proof that clutch doesn't exist.

 

No, but what you can do is point out that he was horrible in the postseason is 2007. Or rephrase it by saying, 'This year's small sample was not kind to Jeter.' If 'clutch' is something real, and Jeter is 'clutch', why would he have struggled this year?

 

I realize that's oversimplification, but it speaks to the problems I see in saying one guy is clutch.

[aracko]

I respect the opposite opinion but I just think that is nonsense. How can you possibly tell me that Francisco Cordero was not Clutch? Clutch is someone who steps up in a time of need. Paul Oneal was clutch.

 

Saying that Clutch doesnt exist then you have to believe that there are people who are not clutch or who perform worse when the game is on the line.

 

You may not be able to quantify clutch, but I know for a fact that some people have it and some people dont. It isnt a skill, it isnt a talent, but I think it is a frame of mind, or a concentration level.

[DrWood]

Sanchez won a batting title in 2006 which was a fluke year. He might hit around .300 and have .340 OBP and very modest power. He can probably field the position fine, at least as far as not making errors goes.

[sbrylski]

Maybe I'm a robot, but if you can't quantify clutch within a game of numbers, how can it exist?

 

I think the best argument against the existence of "clutch ability" is to question why the player doesn't hit with that level of concentration all of the time? Doesn't that mean he's not trying his hardest in other situations?

[DrWood]

I have read studies that show that just about no one performs better in high-stress situations, but plenty of folks perform much worse in high-stress situations. If you are relatively unaffected, and are playing against guys that choke (relatively), your numbers are going to be better.

[logan82]

I respect the opposite opinion but I just think that is nonsense. How can you possibly tell me that Francisco Cordero was not Clutch? Clutch is someone who steps up in a time of need.

Wouldn't you say that pitching to close out games on the road was a high pressure situation? Much higher pressure than when if you screw up your team still has an at bat? In that case Cordero was not clutch at all.

[jason21nl]

gopher I agree with you but you might as well just let this one go. the clutch topic has been brought up and you're just going to get frustrated by arguing your point. I believe there are clutch players and there aren't clutch players. I define a clutch player as a guy who I would want up if the game was on the line. Jordan missed a ton of game ending shots, but is still one of the most clutch shooters ever. If you needed one basket to win a game, you'd put the ball in his hands. I know most hate Jeter on this board, but If I needed a hit to win a game, he would be at the top of my list of guys I would want up to bat.

[TooLiveBrew]

You may not be able to quantify clutch, but I know for a fact that some people have it and some people dont. It isnt a skill, it isnt a talent, but I think it is a frame of mind, or a concentration level.

I'd like to echo sbryl's thought. By this notion, Jeter not being good/'clutch' in the 2007 postseason should make the head of the beast explode. What do you think it means, aracko, since you "know for a fact that some people have it & some people don't", that Jeter was crap this past postseason? Did he arrange a temporary transfer of his clutch powers to A-Rod?

 

Imo it's more likely that there's nothing more than those guys who can focus & perform the same way in low & high-leverage situations... not some ingrained superpower. By the logic that 'some have it & others don't, and that's that', Jeter will never struggle in the postseason, or crunch time... and A-Rod always will. It appears obvious to me that it fluctuates enough that you can't make that kind of statement.

 

I know most hate Jeter on this board, but If I needed a hit to win a game, he would be at the top of my list of guys I would want up to bat.

 

I certainly don't hate Jeter, I think he's vastly overvalued as a defender, and that he has this mythical 'clutch' thing going on. I don't disagree with you wanting him at the plate, but the reason I'd want him up is what Ennder provided about him as a hitter, not some factor that may or may not be real. On the whole, Jeter is a fine hitter, and that's why I'd be ok with him up & the season on the line... but I'd say the same for Prince, or Rickie, or Braun, or A-Rod, etc.