For me the answer is yes and no. Yes, the Sox had the division within their grasp with a 3 game lead, with what....less than 2 weeks left? To lose 10 of 12 when the pressure was on and the results of each game so important...thats choking. However, if you look at the performances of the starting pitchers you would most rely on over their final 9 starts, you will see they (sale and peavy) were on a slide that had each one pitching in very pedestrian fashion. They had ERA's of over 4-closer to 4.5. Thats not the performance level you need to get from your top starters. but in reality, both were over-used. It was predictable that their performance level would deteriorate and it did. So those guys didn't choke, they just continued to pitch at a level not good enough to win at. But Youkilis, Dunn, Konerko, A.J., Viciedo Beckham and Ramirez....they choked down the stretch far too often. Konerko gets a pass, because his wrist was injured. I can see an argument made for both sides. I go with yes they choked, because I like that version of the truth better. In the end, the Tigers were the better team, they just didn't play up to their own potential most of the season.

_________________
Go Cubs!!!!

Yes they will

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.

Tell the Yankees to not be worried about the Tigers.

_________________
RFDC thinks I'm retarded.

The Tigers won't win it, the Yankees will lose it. BIG difference.

_________________

Jeter lost an ankle.

He should check on his shoulder, that's where he usually has them.

_________________
Proud member of the white guy grievance committee

It aint the six minutes. Its what happens in those six minutes.

I've read a lot of recent statements very similar to this with regard to various games or series and I can't really get my head around what it's supposed to mean. Is it somehow related to the mythical concept of "choking"?

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

They are attempting to flip around what I said about the Sox all season. I said the Sox worst enemy was themselves and that if the Tigers won the division it would be because the Sox lost it themselves, not because they Tigers got hot and beat up on everybody.

4 wins in 15 games at the end of the season for the Sox proved me right, but Gloop thinks he is some clever sonavabitch posting that line all over the board.

_________________

Come on Frank, it would be the same thing you were doing if it were the Cubs.

_________________
"He is a loathsome, offensive brute
--yet I can't look away."

No. I would argue the Cubs lost the 2008 NLDS more than the Dodgers won it.

_________________

That just seems like a weird thing to say. It seems to me it's based upon your perception of what "should have been." You think the Sox should have pounded Guthrie and Chen. They didn't. That doesn't mean that the Sox "lost more than the Royals won." And the 2008 Cubs got their asses kicked.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

If a Cub fan made a remark like "I am not worried about the Cardinals" in the division race, and the Cubs lost the division race to the Cardinals in the end, you would be saying that line in every playoff thread you could find Come on man, you are not fooling any of us.

_________________
"He is a loathsome, offensive brute
--yet I can't look away."

The Sox going 4-11 in their last 15 games is them sucking. If they played even .500 ball they win the division over the Tigers. I don't understand why its so weird to say 'the Sox lost more than the Tigers won' when that is exactly what happened.

_________________

I guess if you mean it literally, but obviously that isn't the case since you used the Cubs/Dodgers series as an example and the Cubs lost exactly the same amount as the Dodgers won.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

Sox lost it, Tigers didn't win it.

The logic is crystal clear

_________________

I'm glad somebody was able to explain it to you.

_________________

After this latest series sweep, there is no question.

Tigers 2012 WS Champs

_________________
RFDC thinks I'm retarded.

Sox who barely choked it away to them: Second best team!

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

On the topic of clutch, let's not overlook something. While I do think there has to be *some* degree of natural human emotion that might make a particular player focus better than others in "clutch" situations, there's also the fact that the opposition is tougher in these clutch situations. Meaning, if you are batting in the bottom of the 9th with the tying run at second, you are likely facing the other team's closer, or at least a pitcher who throws from your side of the plate and is paid to get you out. As opposed to when you batted in the 6th inning with nobody on and two outs in a 3-run game, and a tiring starting pitcher was trying to economize his pitches more than anything else.

So if I see a batter is hitting .300 in clutch situations, while another is hitting .180, I think it's very relevant - not that the .180 guy is a choker, but rather that the .300 guy can legitimately hit tough pitching, and the other guy probably can't.

In relation to that, one of the angles used to dispel the concept of "clutch" is to point out, for example, that Derek Jeter's numbers in the postseason are very similar to his overall numbers, which ignores the fact that we would believe the postseason is loaded with the best players at the peak of their games.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

I say, to quote Hawk Harrellson. Don't tell me what you hit but when you hit it,unquote. Sox rarely hit when it counted and yheir pitching was too inexpierenced to best Detroit's lousey fielding and poor relief pitching.

The Sox were a decidedly Mediocre team that pissed down their pant leg when crunch time rolled around. They would have been a 4th place team in both the A.L. East and A.L. West with their 85-77 record. They were only able to remain in contention as a result of being in the worst division in Baseball. Detroit has had the good fortune of having played their best Baseball at the end of the season and now into the playoffs. Are their weaknesses erased...no, but when their starters are pitching lights-out as they have been, the fielding weaknesses are minimized. If Detroit wins the World series, it will be similar to when the Cardinals won the series after winning just 83 regular season games. The best team will not have won, the team that got hot at the right time will have won. But make no mistake ( I realize your remark was meant in gest) the Sox are not amongst 2012's top dozen teams, much less 2nd best.

_________________
Go Cubs!!!!

Maybe they would have had a better record if they had been in the West against whom they played .700 baseball. What ifs are for losers. And Cubs fans.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

Who was the best team? The Yankees won the most games but not even stoneroses would tell you they were the best team. The Rangers had a great five months, but they similarly pissed down their legs even more epically than the Sox. Was it the A's? They were much more of a team that got hot than the Tigers.

Tigers are a good team that is built for the playoffs...and Victor Martinez returns next year.

_________________
O judgment! Thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason.