How about Freddy Sanchez

[Brian the Automator]

Clutch exists in life and in baseball. Some people thrive under pressure, some people fold, and some people aren't affected. The problem is that sample-sizes for these things are generally small, so it's very hard to PROVE what players are clutch and what aren't, rendering it somewhat useless from a predictive point of view.

[jason21nl]

clutch is someone that has Gatorade running through their veins.

[aracko]

I dont mean to do this but I think its very clear that we have alot of guys on this board that struck out or were pulled in favor of a pinch hitter in little league or high school, or even minor league ball and have told themselves thru the years that the coach was wrong. Clutch exists - I have seen it with my own eyes in sports and in the workplace. Statistics do not always tell the whole story. Anyhow I think tihs argument could go on and on forever. It would not surprise me if the majority of people who think Clutch does not exist have a track record of failing with the pressure is on and those who say it does have a record of suceeding.

[TooLiveBrew]

I dont mean to do this but I think its very clear that we have alot of guys on this board that struck out or were pulled in favor of a pinch hitter in little league or high school, or even minor league ball and have told themselves thru the years that the coach was wrong.

 

Wow, presume much? Sheesh. Right, we disagree with you because we were once pathetic, and are now moreso since we weigh our decision based on a little-league at-bat or three. Ugh.

 

Clutch exists - I have seen it with my own eyes in sports and in the workplace.

Well, glad that's settled.

If you can answer my question to you on Jeter with such definitive & concrete authority, then I guess all us whiffing losers will have to accept your truth. But since it's literally impossible to do that, I guess you might have to accept that 'clutch' isn't something you can look at a guy and definitively say he is or isn't. Once that guy doesn't come up 'clutch', the theory of absolutism looks pretty bleak.

 

The problem is that sample-sizes for these things are generally small, so it's very hard to PROVE what players are clutch and what aren't, rendering it somewhat useless from a predictive point of view.

 

Precisely. You can say with definitive authority, 'Wow - that hit was so clutch!' What you can't say with the same authority/accuracy is, 'Wow - that hitter is so clutch!'

[pogokat]

see to me, "clutch" players are lazy...

 

if Derek Jeter can turn it on when he's under pressure, why does he keep it turned off when he's not?

 

so when people perform well under pressure, and not the rest of the time, i assume they are just lazy people who smell opportunity

 

(i'm only half kidding here...)

[Ennder]

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.

 

You want Jordan to have the ball because he is good and you want Jeter in to get a single because he has one of the highest AVG's in baseball over his career. Seems to me that most of the clutch arguments are really just about good baseball players doing what they normally do.

 

I believe in anti clutch but I don't believe in clutch unless you want to define it as playing the same way regardless of the pressure you are under. I don't think baseball is the type of game where you turn it up a notch in big situations because it isn't as physical a game as the NFL or NBA where most players don't give 100% every play.

[NievesNoNO]

I really have no idea if Freddy Sanchez is "clutch" or not. How about consistently good.

It is an interesting conversation though. My two cents is it depends how you define clutch. My definition is, clutch is not losing your level of performance when under pressure or in a stressfull situation. So by that definition, yes I believe clutch does exist. Some players/people just perform better than others under pressure. Jeter, Brady, Jordan all all fine examples of player who were/are able to stay consistent in their performance when the stakes are highest.

[Gopher74]

I think this board at times can be a little too "intellectual" if that makes sense. Just because you can't see something on paper, and quantify it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and I really think that applies here in several different cases. Clearly some of the people I'm disagreeing with on here are very well educated, and knowledgeable about baseball, it just so happens they're clueless and not as smart as me about this topic!!...*cough*ender*cough...

 

No, seriously, I'm just kidding. I have a lot of respect for Ender and his ideas, even if I disagree with a couple of them. I just think that maybe some of the observational, or common sense things get lost in the mix a little bit. For instance Ender, you said that you believe that there are "non-clutch" players. Would that then mean that by definition there would have to be "clutch" players as well? Wouldn't there have to be the other if you're acknowledging the existence of one? You're essentially saying there are "bad" players. Well then wouldn't that then suggest that there are "good" players as well?

 

Anyway, that's one of those arguments that I doubt the other side will every fully agree on. I do agree it's a bit overblown, but I also think that there are some players who come through in big situations far more than regular situations. A Joe Montana, a Tom Brady, Jordan. Yea, you want them up because they're great players, but because they're great players who've done it before. I don't want Dan Marino up there, I don't want Chris Weber, KG up there.

 

 

As for Freddy Sanchez, pick him up. He's a prototypical number 2 hitter. He makes contact, and he can hit behind a runner. And he usually has at least respectable OBP's. Those things combined are what makes a number 2 hitter to me. Some think that a guy who can bunt and just make contact makes for a good 2nd hitter. If that's the case, bring back Estrada and teach him how to bunt. Still, those are very important qualities, just not nearly as important as getting on base, and Sanchez does this well.

 

My only fear would be that given his reputation in Pitt, and the fact that he's still a very affordable player, he'd cost far more than he's likely worth. Keep in mind, he's a career .310 hitter, which at least in the eyes of fans and most people is absolutely huge, and they'll ignore his pedestrian OBP of .349 and SLG pct's. So for a fan favorite that's under their control for another 3 years, I'd think we'd have to talk about a Matt LaPorta type prospect, plus something. Or a Parra/Villanueva plus something.

I'd fear maybe Parra+Gamel+Gwynn Jr, and that's not a deal I'd want us to make.

[logan82]

So you are saying we should bring him in because he is a .310 hitter and most fans aren't smart enough to know OBP is more important so he will be popular?

[danzig6767]

I don't doubt that in extremely high leverage situations like a key at bat late in a playoff game that some players are more able to stay relaxed and focused than other players are. When it comes to just the countless generic at bats that all baseball players face each year with RISP or a runner on third with one out, i doubt the nerves factor plays much if any role.

 

As for acquiring Sanchez, i agree with most everyone in this thread, i'd like him on the Brewers but he'd likely cost more than his real value dictates.

[Gopher74]

So you are saying we should bring him in because he is a .310 hitter and most fans aren't smart enough to know OBP is more important so he will be popular?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. You hit the nail on the head there.

 

Actually, I'm dying to hear how you came to THAT conclusion in this post?

 

Let's try this again. I thought it was pretty clear, but my point was that he's a fan favorite in Pitt, in part because of his BA, and as such that'd be a harder trade for the Pirates FO to sell to their fans. Never said anything even close to suggesting that WE should bring him in because fans aren't smart enough to now OBP is more important.

 

In fact....

 

My only fear would be that given his reputation in Pitt, and the fact that he's still a very affordable player, he'd cost far more than he's likely worth. Keep in mind, he's a career .310 hitter, which at least in the eyes of fans and most people is absolutely huge, and they'll ignore his pedestrian OBP of .349 and SLG pct's. So for a fan favorite that's under their control for another 3 years, I'd think we'd have to talk about a Matt LaPorta type prospect, plus something. Or a Parra/Villanueva plus something.
I'd fear maybe Parra+Gamel+Gwynn Jr, and that's not a deal I'd want us to make.

 

See, the first part I'm saying that his value is inflated by the fact that he's one of the Pirates most popular players. I guess I'd have thought you could make the leap from "reputation in Pitt" to "popular". Then I go on to explain why he's popular, citing his BA, as well as the fact that he's still under their control for a couple years. THEN I make the point that he'd cost us a lot in return.

 

And finally I end the post saying that's NOT a deal I'd make.

 

So you were close...and by close I mean the exact opposite of what I said.

[Gopher74]

I don't doubt that in extremely high leverage situations like a key at bat late in a playoff game that some players are more able to stay relaxed and focused than other players are. When it comes to just the countless generic at bats that all baseball players face each year with RISP or a runner on third with one out, i doubt the nerves factor plays much if any role.

 

As for acquiring Sanchez, i agree with most everyone in this thread, i'd like him on the Brewers but he'd likely cost more than his real value dictates.

Yea, that's the point I tried to make....

 

 

And as for your first point, I'm not talking so much about men on 2nd and 3rd in the 1st inning of a game played in June. I'd agree that is just a statistical anomaly...for the most part. Some players are just better at finding a way to get that run in. Rather, as you said, I was thinking more about big games, playoff games, late season games....ect..ect..

 

[logan82]

I was just asking. There really wasn't a need to be so rude.

Any GM who worries about popular moves with the fans over good moves should be fired.

[Gopher74]

I was just asking. There really wasn't a need to be so rude.

Any GM who worries about popular moves with the fans over good moves should be fired.

You were just asking? There's really no need to be so condescending, and if you're going to do so, don't throw your hands up and use the "what me" response after the fact.

 

And yes, in a perfect world, GM's would never worry about such things. That's why the Stro's stopped playing Biggio when he was no longer as effective as his backup, right? However when you have a player who is a fan favorite, is cheap, and has a good BA, he's going to cost a lot to move, and as I said, likely more than his actual value would merit.

[logan82]

I could have phrased it better.

[flosses like fossas]

A) this thread is spiraling out of control. (see: f. sanchez-----> clutch? ------> jeter!!! ------> clutch is real, dude, seriously.)

 

B) i have to believe that since the pirates can't realistically believe that they'll be competing for the division this season, which ought to make sanchez a bit more available. why wouldn't capuano/bush and mcclung be enough? (villenueva is too much, right?) i agree that sanchez would be a good fit. he makes a lot of contact and his defense is no less than average.