No, he's been putrid in postseason for the Yankees. in his last 16 postseason games he has ONE RBI- that's 1 less than Matsuzaka in 3 postseason ABs.
I assume you were looking in the mirror when you typed that? I get sick of ARod apologists when the man is our most talenetd player yet has played like our worst player in postseason.
Lather, rinse, repeat. Please understand this: I am not an A-Rod apologist. I think we're all aware that he's sucked in the postseason since 2004. I am a scientist, though, and a realist. It is likely because of this that I have to comment when people butcher data analysis to serve their own petty biases. Just say you don't like A-Rod. Leave it at that. You're welcome to your opinion and I'd never begrudge anyone that. Just stop trying to validate it with god awful analysis.
You are a waste of time. I will say it for the millionth time, I WANT ARod to do well. I get frustrated when he fails time after time after time when we need him most. You can skew your meaningless fantasy #s all you want but the man is a choker.
I was just thinking. Remember the days way back when Mantle played baseball and Kennedy was the president and the press wouldn't say a word about either no matter what they knew. Look where we have come. Were we better off not knowing back then or are we better off being the cynics that we all are now? I wonder.
I've pondered the same line of thinking myself. Basically, am I better off today knowing that Bonds, McGwire, and ARod juiced? Or was it better years ago when I was blind to it all? Part of me wishes I could close Pandora's Box, but at the same time, it just goes to show you what kind of legends played the game in the past.
They were all guilty of something. We just didn't know and even if we did, today it would be laughed at anyway. We only have ourselves to blame anyway. When somebody is willing to pay $1000 per seat per game to watch a game that 6 year olds can play and then pay these people 25-30 million dollars a year to play it then everybody will do whatever they possibly can to get in on that gravy train. I know this isn't a new revelation but sometimes it needs to be brought back up.
Yes, I get it. You want A-Rod to do well. You root for him. Blah blah blah. I get it. I get it. I get it. We all do. That has nothing to do with what I said, which is that your analysis is typically god awful. You want him to do well, but you think he's a choker. Okay, fine. Great. Just leave it at that. When you start comparing his RBI (awful stat choice) or lack thereof using a ridiculously small sample size, and then start applying that to some inherent characteristic of A-Rod, it makes you look silly. It makes it appear as though you have no clue how to analyze data. And I'd say this regarding any player's stats, liked or disliked. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
4 postseasons is not a small smaple size. it's ok to have a bad series here and there maybe even back to back but back to back to back to back to back? That's not a small sample size anymore. Ted Willaims having 1 bad series in his only WS is a small smaple size.
Look, dude. It's pretty simple. Sixteen games is only sixteen games. Despite the playoff games being separated by years and being more noticeable, it's not a large sample size. When Jeter had that horrible streak to start off 2004, was that enough for you to call him done, or a shitty ballplayer? Of course not. You called it a slump. And that was a really, really bad slump. But that's okay... slumps happen. Variation happens. Jeter's line was below his career averages that year because of how bad that slump was, but the point is that the fewer games you look at, the greater chances you have of seeing variation. You don't take sixteen or twenty or even fifty games and automatically pin that on some inherent "chokeyness" of a ballplayer... unless you like shitty analysis, of course. You have already had this explained to you. So I have to assume you're either being willfully obtuse here, or you are incapable of understanding the concept. Whatever you do, please please please don't think I'm ripping on Jeter here. I'm not... I'm just pointing out what should be obvious: you're going to see variation - even in the best of players - when you are looking at small sample sizes.
I'm ok w/ Jeter struggling for a few months or even a year. I'm ok w/ Jeter having a bad postseason series or 2 and the same goes for ARod but when he has consistently failed on the big stage that is unacceptable. ARod doens't have the good will built up, he had an amazing reg season in '07 then postseason begins and he's awful again. he needs to come through for us, my hope is w/ the weight of his lies off his shoulders maybe he can relax an dperform when it matters? I hope so.
When it comes to analysis, do you know what "good will" is called? Bias. Like I said, you can feel however you want about A-Rod. Just stop using shitty analysis to "support" your arguments. Please.
I knew you couldn't resist...let's here the Matsusaka drivel again too...you are on a roll. Where is the .079 BA that you must have posted at least 2000 times? Did you forget that one?
Take a good look, kids. This is what happens when a programmer forget the exit routine. It's an infinite loop. Yes, junc, it is shitty analysis, for the reasons we've already covered. Do you need to have them repeated? 1. RBI is a horrible stat to use for performance. 2. Sixteen games is a small sample size. 3. You've already admitted that "good will" factors into your analysis. Again, if you want to poop on A-Rod's postseason performance, go right ahead. No one is saying it was good. But when you start labeling his failures as some inherent quality of the player, you show your bias (whether you are rooting for him or not).
AHOLE has played alright in the postseason. I wouldn't say he has been awful, but he sure hasn't gotten many hits when they were most needed. Barry Bonds is a nice example of a classic post season choke artist who came thru eventually. Had Dusty Baker not given away the 2002 World Series, Barry would have been the Series MVP, no contest.
So, thinking out loud again. Yes, Arod averaged 10 more HRs a year in Texas than he has for his career but he did it in the park that is synonymous with HRs. Maybe the easiest in all of baseball. When he came to NY people said he would never hit more that 35. No Yankee RH hitter ever did so he sets the record in his second year and then breaks it 2 years later all while being tested 10 times a season. The other thing is he will have had 14 years of playing time after he juiced to get it straight. It will then be another 5 years before he is even eligible so we are talking about 20 years. How many of the people with a vote will even be alive by then and what will the mindset of the people casting votes then really be. This isn't like Bonds at all where all of the records came at the end of his career when there is no doubt he was dirty.
