*** Official Chicago White Sox @ Kansas City Royals Game Thread (9/15) ***

[alnorth]

Final	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	R	H	E
CWS (68-82)	1	0	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	3	13	1
KC (82-67)	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	2	4	9	0

That's what speed do.



John Danks 6IP 0R 0ER 4BB 6K
Hold, (7) Javy Guerra 1IP 1R 1ER 1BB 0K
Hold, (16) Zach Putnam ⅔IP 1R 0ER 1BB 1K
Blown Save, (4); Loss, (1-5) Jake Petricka 1IP 2R 2ER 0BB 0K

VS.



"Big Game" James Shields 7IP 3R 3ER 0BB 6K
Kelvin Herrera 1IP 0R 0ER 0BB 1K
Win, (9-2) Wade Davis 1IP 0R 0ER 0BB 0K

Home Runs

none

Other Relevant Games

Final: DET 8, MIN 6
Final: SEA 1, LAA 8

Starting Lineups

CWS

1. Adam Eaton, CF
2. Alexei Ramirez, SS
3. Jose Abreu, 1B
4. Conor Gillaspie, 3B
5. Avisail Garcia, RF
6. Jordan Danks, LF
7. Dayan Viciedo, DH
8. Tyler Flowers, C
9. Marcus Semien, 2B

KC

1. Alcides Escobar, SS
2. Norichika Aoki, RF
2. Terrance Gore, pr
3. Lorenzo Cain, CF
4. Alex Gordon, LF
5. Salvador Perez, C
6. Eric Hosmer, 1B
7. Billy Butler, DH
8. Omar Infante, 2B
9. Jayson Nix, 3B
9. Raul Ibanez, ph
9. Lane Adams, pr
9. Mike Moustakas, 3B
9. Jarrod Dyson, pr

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by suzzer99

Well when you consider the generally much better pitchers you're going to face in the playoffs – I'd say just maintaining your career numbers is pretty impressive.

But Brett was 337/397/627 in the playoffs vs. 305/369/487 lifetime.

Sure, but there are a few things you have to consider to avoid getting a skewed view there:

1) Sample size. You're talking about incredibly small sample sizes where you start looking at playoff series. I think you have to look at how that player performed in clutch spots over the course of his career to get a big enough sample to really be able to get a real picture of how "clutch" (or "choke") that player is.

2) Years. If you compare Brett's career numbers to his playoff performances, you're looking at him in his prime vs. numbers that include the end/decline portion of his career.

You should at least compare performance year to year.

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by BWillie

I think it matters even less in the NBA, actually. There have been studies that have showed that Kobe (who is for some reason known as clutch) and many other stars are actually WORSE in the last two minutes of games as far as their shooting percentage and efficiency are concerned. They are just known as being clutch because they get to play hero ball, run no offense, and chuck up a shot routinely to win the game, more so than any other player on the team. But guys like Lebron gets mocked because they take what the defense gives them, and have no problems kicking it to an open guy to nail a corner 3 pointer (one of the most successful and efficient shots in the game of basketball)

Fair enough.

I don't pay much attention to the NBA, so it doesn't surprise me to hear the idea of "clutch" in that league might be oversold as well.

[suzzer99]

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

Sure, but there are a few things you have to consider to avoid getting a skewed view there:

1) Sample size. You're talking about incredibly small sample sizes where you start looking at playoff series. I think you have to look at how that player performed in clutch spots over the course of his career to get a big enough sample to really be able to get a real picture of how "clutch" (or "choke") that player is.

2) Years. If you compare Brett's career numbers to his playoff performances, you're looking at him in his prime vs. numbers that include the end/decline portion of his career.

You should at least compare performance year to year.

If a small sample size is all you've got you have to look at that. Slugging % helps mitigate sample size somewhat because it shows when you're hitting the ball hard. Also from watching Brett at the time I know he obviously rose to the moment - unlike say most of our pants-shitting hitters right now.

#2 makes a lot of sense. But again, Brett's playoff slugging % is still at least 40 points higher than any year except 1980.

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by suzzer99

If a small sample size is all you've got you have to look at that. Slugging % helps mitigate sample size somewhat because it shows when you're hitting the ball hard. Also from watching Brett at the time I know he obviously rose to the moment - unlike say most of our pants-shitting players right now.

#2 makes a lot of sense. But again, Brett's playoff slugging % is still at least 40 points higher than any year except 1980.

Let me say this first: George Brett is my favorite baseball player of all time. I'm sad I didn't get a chance to see him in his prime (he was on the tail end when I saw him, and I never saw him in a playoff series). Just felt like I should say that. I'm not coming "at" George - I'm coming "at" the idea of players truly being clutch.

The point about sample size is that it's easy to get a false picture based on it, when it's small. His overall clutch stats - for his entire career - just don't track as much above his normal stats (if at all) as you'd expect if someone was truly "clutch." This is the case for just about every player you can look at. You might see a 15-20 point bump in OPS, but that's pretty minimal.

He has 180 career postseason at-bats. That's not enough to say anything definitive compared to a career with 10,000 ABs.

It's not like Derek Jeter, who has a full season's worth of post-season at-bats.

[MahiMike]

Great comeback last night.

[Don Corlemahomes]

What is up with Willingham? Hurt?

No more Billy. He's been worthless as a DH this year.

[Great Expectations]

Originally Posted by BWillie

I think it matters even less in the NBA, actually. There have been studies that have showed that Kobe (who is for some reason known as clutch) and many other stars are actually WORSE in the last two minutes of games as far as their shooting percentage and efficiency are concerned. They are just known as being clutch because they get to play hero ball, run no offense, and chuck up a shot routinely to win the game, more so than any other player on the team. But guys like Lebron gets mocked because they take what the defense gives them, and have no problems kicking it to an open guy to nail a corner 3 pointer (one of the most successful and efficient shots in the game of basketball)

Calling players clutch who actually choke doesn't mean that clutch doesn't exist.

[Chromatic]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA28GHMT06w

I don't know to embed youtube links in this place but this is cool as shit. Someone embed this into the next game thread.

[BWillie]

Originally Posted by Great Expectations

Calling players clutch who actually choke doesn't mean that clutch doesn't exist.

I guess I'd have to agree to disagree. If you don't play better, until you absolutely have to at the end of the game, if anything, that means you are lazy IMO.

I'm with the others, I think choking exists (although to not the degree ppl think), not sure that clutch, exists though.

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by Chromatic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA28GHMT06w

I don't know to embed youtube links in this place but this is cool as shit. Someone embed this into the next game thread.

Go to the "Share" link in YouTube. It will give you an embed file link (has "iframe" in it). Just copy and paste.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

For as much grief as people have given Glass and Yost, I'm damned impressed at how the Royals have been incrementally building their franchise up. Yes, it's been a slow grind, but just imagine if the Chiefs had taken this approach?
Whatever KCR did, and I don't EVEN claim to know the ins and outs of running a MLB franchise, they CLEARLY didn't sit around shooting themselves in the ass, and making the same mistakes over and over again.

To go from being considered a "farm team" to where they are now( and will probably stay )is impressive and should be celebrated.