Nyjunc, you say you don't have a bias, and then your entire post shows it. You cherry-pick your stats (taking away Brosius's "one bad postseason", while blasting A-Rod for two), you exaggerate to make your point (A-Rod hitting home runs up 9-1, Brosius having "a billion" big hits), you miss the point of my argument (to use ALL the information at your hands), and you think that the reason the Yanks have lost with A-Rod has more to do with hitting than pitching. AliotheFool was right. I am spinning my wheels. This isn't even a debate. This is you doing whatever you need to do to justify your bias.
Trying this again... In 1996 the Yankees ERA in each postseason series was 3.46, 3.64, and 3.93. In 1998 the Yankees ERA in each postseason series was 0.33, 3.21, and 2.75. In 1999 the Yankees ERA in each postseason series was 0.33, 3.80, and 2.19. In 2000 the Yankees ERA in each postseason series was 4.70, 3.06, and 2.68. In 2001 the Yankees ERA in each postseason series was 2.20, 3.80, and 4.26. In 2003 the Yankees ERA in each postseason series was 1.50, 3.94, and 2.13. Other than the '00 ALDS and '01 WS, that's some pretty dominant pitching. And of the two series with ERAs over 4, they lost one, meaning the offense didn't carry them. In 2002 the ERA for the ALDS was 8.21. In 2004, when "the bats failed" they had an ERA of 5.17 in the ALCS. In 2005, when "the bats failed" they had an ERA of 4.40 in the ALDS. In 2006, when "the bats failed" they had an ERA of 5.56 in the ALDS. It should be clear to any rational human being that the reason behind the Yankees' recent postseason struggles is the pitching.
In comparsion: Brosius w/ RISP in postseason: 7-13, 12 RBI 1-7, RBI 1-12, 2 RBI 4-15, 6 RBI 13-47, .277, 21 RBI
Even w/ Brosius' 2001 he's been a better postseason player, Scott was at the end of the line and his #s suffered, ARod has been at his peak. I guess I cherry picked that ARod has been a .240 hitter for us in postseason and .118 hitter w/ RISP in postseason for us? You are right, this isn't a debate no much how much you try to spin. The #s do not lie and anyone who has been around to see both of them play in october could tell you who the better postseason player has been. ARod has a chance to make up for it and pass him but he's got work to do and so far Brosius was a MUCH better postseason player than ARod has been. In 2000 we had an ERA of .4.70 in the ALDS, in '05 a 4.40 ERA- seems to me we pitched better in '05 yet we lost- why is that? B/c the bats didn't come through when we needed them to. In '04 we needed 1 clutch hit, in '05 if ARod would have showed up at all we would have won, in '06 we had a chance to bury det in Game 2 and couldn't get a clutch hit. it's as simple as that- our bats didn't come through, didn't give us leads like the lineups of the dynasty years. We had better players 1-9 in our lineups '04-'06 yet our O's weren't close to the dynasty years O's. So says the guy who is trying to fool us w/ his 7th inning and beyond #s. These #s don't lie: .240 in postseason for us, .118 w/ RISP. Spin away all you want but outside of the Twins series he's done nothing for us.
I said that in the '00 ALDS the Yankees had a bad series pitching wise. So in 21 postseason series I mentioned, you take the ONLY ONE the offense carried the team in, which I already acknowledged, and claim that that proves your point? Fine, I guess the 5% that agrees with you must be right, but the 95% that agrees with me is wrong. Because 95% of the series that I mentioned were either well pitched by the Yankees and won, or poorly pitched and lost. Only 5% of them (read ONE) was saved by the offense. EDIT: Actually, looking at it again, that series wasn't even saved by the offense. The Yankees gave up 11 runs in game 4, and no more than 5 in any other game. So that series wasn't pitched that poorly either.
Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Do you know what it means to cherry-pick evidence? I'm using the ENTIRE pool of data to make a judgment. You are using only the data that fits the belief you already want to hold. Oh, just forget it. Believe what you want to believe. I'll just sit back and thank heaven that you aren't the GM.
Using that theory, In '04 game's 4 ,5 % 6 we gave up 6, 5 and 4 runs. In game 1 we gave up runs late to make it look closer, the only awful pitched game was Game 7. In '05 we gave up 5 in 2 of the losses, we had one poorly pitched game and that was game 3 where we gave up 11. In '06 we gave up 4 the first 2 games and 6 in game 3. The bottom line is 1 big hit and we win in '04, if ARod shows up win in '05 and if we got 1 big hit in game 2 and take that 2-0 lead in '06 then that series is likely over. YOU are the one cherry picking basically using that 7th and beyond sta over and over again. What is cherry picking about showing you his postseason production? If I was the GM we wouldn't be on 7 years w/o a title. I never would have brought in all these expensive position players trying to put an All Star at every position. In a fantasy league i'd take ARod every day but fantasy doesn't always translate to reality and I'd rather have a solid roe player in brosius at 3rd and upgrade other areas than have ARod at 3rd and be weakened in other areas.
Do you know what it means to cherry-pick evidence? Seriously. You say, "minus this one series" or "if you don't pay attention to this play," instead of looking at the entire pool of data. That is the very definition of cherry-picking. Using the close and late stat, or the seventh inning and after stat, or the relative score stat looks at EVERYTHING that A-Rod has done within those parameters and compares it to EVERYTHING that any other player has done. I didn't say, "If you look at A-Rod's home run rate in the seventh inning and later (EXCEPT for that bad stretch from April-June in 2006), you'll see he was the best ever!" THAT would be cherry-picking. But the point of using those parameters started with the A-Rod/Ortiz choker/clutch comparison. It wasn't even just the seventh inning and later stats (you'll have to point out to me where I've used them "over and over"... I get the feeling you're just exaggerating), since - as I mentioned - I also used the relative score, the close and late stat, and the game-tying/lead taking HR stat. Hell, we can use whatever other complete statistic you care to choose. If you use the same parameters to compare two players, that's not cherry-picking. Statisical analysis 101, dude. But you have never responded directly to what I posted. You just say I'm trying to "fool" you. You never say why. You don't even indicate that you understand what those statistics measure... because you said (regarding the seventh inning and later home runs), "Oh, but they don't show what the score was when he hit those home runs." (I assume this means that you believe that A-Rod only hits home runs up 9-1.) When I told you about the relative score HR stat (which I had already provided), or his rate of game-tying/lead-taking home runs compared to Ortiz, you don't let that influence your opinion, do you? Nope... better just discard that information and ignore it in your next post. After all, it doesn't fit with the idea you want to believe. You hold up one series or one or two big hits as conclusive evidence of something positive about Brosius's ability and hold 40+ at-bats as conclusive evidence of something negative about A-Rod's ability. Not performance. Ability. We should throw out Brosius's one bad series to show that he's a pretty good postseason player. But you wouldn't dream of doing anything like that for A-Rod. With A-Rod, you say, "He hasn't done anything good (except for that one series)," as though that one series doesn't count. And in your cherry-picking mind, it doesn't count because it doesn't support the idea you want to believe. You point to A-Rod's lack of RBI in the past two postseasons as some horrific event that should NEVER happen. And yet, when I show you that Tino Martinez had zero RBI in over one-third of his postseason series, you say, "Oh, well we loved him for his defense, and he DID produce in that one series." So it's his defense and the one good postseason that you knew Tino would eventually have in 2000 that protected him from your wrath in the preceding four years when he was about as consistently awful as a player could be. Really? Face it, the argument you use for A-Rod is ONLY good for A-Rod. If I apply the exact same argument you use to condemn A-Rod to any other player, you WILL make excuses for that other player. Or you will shift the parameters of the argument so it fits what you want (i.e. cherry-picking). You are using a very basic statistical analysis to say, "A-Rod sucks in the postseason." The thing is, we KNOW he has sucked in the postseason recently. But that's where it stops. It's not that he has some all-pervading unclutchness to him and will obviously continue to suck in the postseason. People who know baseball and statistics know that 40 at-bats, regardless of when they occur, is NOT how you judge someone's worth as a baseball player (unless you want to be labeled as the kind of pompously ignorant Yankee fan who the rest of the country snickers at). EDIT TO ADD: I realize that sounded a little harsh... I didn't mean that to sound like I was calling you pompously ignorant. I'm just talking about the generic and stereotypical Yankee fan that people love to hate. The fan that would would watch Dave Winfield go 3-for-3 and then strike out in his fourth at-bat, and say, "He's a bum." The Yankees are NOT weakened in other areas because of A-Rod's contract. A-Rod is a steal when you consider that Texas is subsidizing it. And of all teams, the Yankees have the resources to not let A-Rod's contract (and his contract alone) weaken the team's options in other positions.
you keep going back to that, I brought it up one time and w/ or w/o his '01 he is STILL a BETTER postseason player than ARod BUT Borsis was old andat the end of the line in 2001, Alex has been in his prime. Even w the '01 # al Alex has is a better BA and OP You aren't using close an late, you are sing 7th inning on- thre's a majr difference. Theresnot a defense for ARod, the #s below do not lie: ARod w/RISP in Postseason: 4-28(.142), 6 RBI As a Mariner: 2-9(.222), 4 RBI As a Yankee: 2-17(.118), 2 RBI Brosius w/ RISP in postseason: 13-47, .277, 21 RBI Stop trying to insult our intelligence, anyone who thinks ARod a been anywhere near ortiz when it come to clutch hits is either a big homer or is just completely clueless. I dont need to respond, I have seen it for 3+ years. Sure he has a big hit once in a while but most of his late inning hits(until this year) have been in blowout games. By the way, i don't car about his meaningless reg season #s. We all know how great he's been against teams like KC, that doesn't impress me. Do it in october and I'll be impressed. Look up brosius' postseaon #s and ARods and the fact that Brosius has BETTER #s is damning towards ARod since Brosius was an or 9 hitter wile ARod a 3-4 hitter. Brosius' ##s shouldn't anywhere near ARods and yet they are better, ARod is supposedly the best player in the game yet when it counted Brosius destroyed ARod by getting big hit after big hit. this is not ARod vs. Tino. this is how pathetic your argument is, you are comparing a guy who is a lock HOFer, supposed to be the best player in the game to a good player in Tino(and a wore player in Brosius). I just noted how Tino t least gave us Defense and ARod hs not even givn us that. My "wrath" doesn't include all players who struggle, my expectations for Tino were not half as high a they are for ARod. I expect ARod to be great in postseason(heck at least decent, at least mediocre, at least average) and hen he's not it hurts our team more than if a Tino or Brosius struggle. I was frustrated w/ tino up his first few postseasons BUT the few times he did hit he had some clutch hits for us unlike ARod who has done NOTHING during his struggles the last 12 games, he has ZERO RBI, he's bee picked off on the basepaths, he's grounded into a milion DPs, he's committed costly errors. Can you see why I give Tino a little mroe of a break? you do realize ARod is probably the ost talented player in th game and one of the most talented players of all time, right? Why should I hold him to the same standard as players not half as talented as him? of course I am tougher on ARod, it's b/c I expect MORE out of him than I do of average players. OK, what's your point? Are you going to tell me he's been great in the postseason? This was not 41 consecutive ABs, this was over THREE postseasons. This was not just a slmp this was aguy who cracked under pressure. Examle #1; in 2005 he had 3 HRs off bartolo Colon in the reg season , we all know he has owned Colon in the reg season. he faces him in otober and what happens? K swinging K swining w/ Jeter in 2nd GB DP Oh but he did get 1 hit... a Hit by pitch. Also in 2005, in the season's final 10 games he went 14-36(.389) w/ 3 HRs and 9 RBI so he was hitting well heading into postseason then postseason begins and he goes 2 for 15(.133) w/ ZERO RBI. In 2006 in his final 5 games he went 9-15(.600) w/ 1 HR and 5 RBi then postseason starts and he goes 1-14(.071) w/ ZERO RBI. Can you see why it gets frustrating? I don't take anything personal, I am not the typical Yankee fan. I don't boo at all but I do get frustrated when our should be best player is our worst playerwhen it counts the most. it's easy to look at ARod' #s andsay how great he is but watching him everyday for almost 4 years has shown me #s do lie. THIS YEAR he's been the player we expected but for 3 years he was not(not even in his MVP season) ad he needs to validate this great season w/ at least a good postseason. he doesn't have to carry us to a Championship but if he plays like he can I'l be satisfied w/ him and ready to bury the past forever BUT if he picks up where he left off last october then it's time to move on. They passed on Beltran 2 years ago, if they didn't have so much money tied to him maybe they make that move and the they don't pay for Damon? Move melky to LF and make matsui full time DH- we'd be alot stronger these past 3 years if that happened. ARod is not a steal when you see what he's done in postseason for us.
It's obvious that you have (again) missed the points of the comparisons and statistics used in my posts. I don't know whether you are doing it willfully or not, but either way, the conclusion is the same... this "conversation" is pointless. ETA: What irks me about this more than else is that you seemingly ignore what I say and the numbers I post to just continue ranting on about your beliefs. Just as a quick example, you keep saying that "all his hits were in blowouts" (until this year), but you back it up with nothing except "I've watched the games." You do this despite the fact that the statistical evidence shows otherwise... but that's because people are trying to "fool" you with stats. Because that's what stats do. Except the stats that support that which you want to believe. Those stats are okay. It's mildly frustrating, and not at all enlightening.
I didn't say ALL the hits were meaningless but overall he has not come through in bog spots enough for us and regardless of that I look more at his postseason failures for which you have no defense. You keep ignoring that info and going back to the same point you've had all along ignoring why he has been so awful in october. You are right it is frustrating b/c yu keep ignoring the IMPORTANT points about his struggles in big spots. I don't care about the man's fanasy #s, I care what he does when it matters most and prior to this year he's been horrible overall and BY FAR our worst postseason player in our last 12 postseason games but no biog deal, right? it's just a slump, a slump that connects every October. it doesn't matter he's hit well heading into october the last couple of years then fallen off immediately when the postseason starts, what we should really care about is that big HR he had in May against KC.
I'm not "ignoring" the information. I'm questioning its importance in the context of the larger point you are trying to make. You're not telling anyone anything new by saying A-Rod has sucked in the past twelve games. Everyone knows that. No one is denying that. And no one is saying it's not a big deal in terms of the success of the Yankees and the happiness of their fans. The question is whether you are justified in using those twelve games as evidence of some larger pattern inherent in Alex Rodriguez, the baseball player. I contend that you are not justified, and have given my reasons why, along with plenty of statistical evidence taken from larger pools of data. You just continue to give the same reasons, which - incidentally - are just occasionally very slightly re-worded formations of the initial argument. There's nothing to them in terms of evidence. Yes, you keep pointing to his postseason stats for the Yanks and how bad they are. Yes, we get that. I am not ignoring the "IMPORTANT" points. What I am doing, in fact, is questioning the idea that they are important. The very claim that is being debated cannot be used as evidence in favor of your argument. What I have been trying to explain (to absolutely no avail, unfortunately) are two simple concepts (or rather, I thought they were fairly simple): 1. "The postseason" is an almost arbitrary designation in terms of player production. You can make the games as important or unimportant as you want... and obviously games in the postseason "mean" more to players and fans... but with small sample sizes, it is very very difficult to obtain any conclusive evidence. The chance for variance is too great. Twelve postseason games is a small sample size, connected only by the rather arbitrary fact that they are in October and "mean" more. With nearly every player who has had a large enough sample size in the postseason, they play to their career norms. In other words, I am not saying that A-Rod has done well recently in the postseason. Do you understand that? It is crucial that you get that through your head. I am not happy with his recent performance. What I am suggesting, however, is that you stop using this small sample size of past performance (which you have every right to be disappointed in) as conclusive evidence of future failures. Just because you, the fan, care more about how well or poorly a player does in the postseason doesn't change the potential error inherent in making conclusions from such a small sample size. 2. When it comes to A-Rod's "clutchness," the perception that he is a choker and a stat-padder who only hits home runs in blowouts is exaggerated beyond reason, if not outright false. You keep repeating this misinformation as though it's true, and you use "your eyes" as evidence. But if you look at the actual numbers you will see that this label is rather inaccurate. You don't look at that, though. You just keep making exaggerated claims about what he has or has not done and re-state how you don't care about home runs in May against KC... despite the fact that that is the very claim that is in question. See... what I have been trying (and failing) to show you is that every time you imply that A-Rod is somehow extraordinary in his failures because he hits home runs when the team is up 9-1, you are restating a myth. Say it one more time. Go on... you know you want to. But guess what? It's no more true than it was the first time. That's the claim I was contesting. Please, tell me now. Am I wasting my time? Do you get this? Do you understand how you can't use a contested point as evidence in favor of another contested point?
That's bigger to me than any reg season #s. He was brought here to help us win in october, he hasn't done that. We all know he's a great player, he's just not as great as I thought beore I began watching him every day. It's not just 1 postseason, if it was just 1 ba posteason I could ignore it but it's the last 3 postseasons. it's not really a small sample size, he tenses up in big spots. Look athim going for #500, he went into a funk. When the pressure is ohis history is coming up small- I wish it wasn't true but it is. So we should ignore batting under .100 anddriing in ZERO runs in 12 straight postseason games and focus on his ig HRs up 7-1 in the 9th? to me the postseason #s are more important. 2004: Close and Late: .275 RISP w/ 2 out: .206 RISP: .248 2005: Close and Late: .293 RISP w/ 2 out: .302 RISP: .290 2006: Close and Late: .237 RISP w/ 2 out: .313 RISP: .302 Out of his 3 years here he has ONE year close to .300 close and late. In '05 and '06 his RISP was good, he was awful in '04 but close and late only 1 of his 3 full years(taking away this season b/c that isn't part of the argument. Obviously he's been great this year) has he been good(not great, good). By the ay, 3 yar total '04-'06: close and late: .268 RISP: .282 RISP w/ 2 out: .278 Am I cherry picking #s again? I think the point has been proven.
Batting average is a shitty stat, junc. Doesn't take into account how he's not going to get a pitch to hit in close and late situations, seeing as he's the best goddamned hitter in baseball.
I know it's bigger TO YOU. What it means TO YOU has very little to do with accuracy and precision in terms of statistical analysis. A small sample size isn't less significant just because you really really really want the Yankees to win a certain game. Well, to be accurate it's the past two postseasons and the most recent part of the third, but not the entire thing. And YES it's a small sample size. Twelve games is a very, very, very small sample size in terms of what you can expect for error in a game such as baseball. Ask just about anyone. AND NO ONE IS ASKING YOU TO IGNORE IT. You don't have to like his performance. NO ONE DOES. But you should at least be rational enough to give it its proper weight when evaluating ability. Yes, we should ignore it. That's exactly what I said. Just totally ignore it. *rolls eyes* Jesus, dude. Where did I say that? You ARE being willfully ignorant here, aren't you? Again, that's peachy that it's more important TO YOU. It doesn't mean shit in terms of the analysis, though. The sooner you get that, the better. And you even repeat the myth again. :lol: Guess what? It's still not true. Are you even reading my posts? No, that's not cherry-picking (although there might be an exception for leaving out this year, as it is part of the total pool). Hallelujah! A decently large sample set. Well, for the cumulative 2004-2006 set, anyway. The single years are a little light to be very informative. The total cumulative stats show an adequate batting average, although one that's depressed from his career norms. And you might also want to include OBP and SLG (or just OPS) in a batter's line, since a .250 hitter with an OPS of north of .900 is still a great hitter. For this comparions of 04-06 "clutch" stats you've thrown together, I'm going to give you the OPS of two players. You tell me which one is more "clutch." Close and late: Player A: .810 Player B: .817 RISP: Player A: .871 Player B: .878 RISP w/ 2 outs: Player A: .875 Player B: .904 If the point is that you have difficulty making a consistent argument, then, yes, it has. By the way, in those comparisons, those two players are A-Rod and Jeter. Two players who probably couldn't have more different reputations on the Yankees in terms of clutch or unclutch. Jeter's a bit better close and late. A-Rod's a bit better with RISP. And A-Rod's a decent amount better with RISP and two out.
So in '04 and '06 he wasn't getting pitches to hit but in '05 and this year he was? how about we just admit how awful he was 2 of his first 3 years here and how embarrssing he's been in postseason in all but the minny series? I don't dislike the guy, I want him to succeed, I want him to carry this over to october(assuming we make it) but let's please be honest w/ what this guy has done as a Yankee.
I'd rather win games in october than April but hey that's just me. it's 2 1/2 postseasons and it's not 12 consecutive games, it's 12 ames ver THREE seasons! his poor play started in '04 against Boston where he went 0-7 w/ RISP for the series where he grounded into DP w/ 0 out, K'd looking w/ 1st and 3rd, flied out w/ bases loaded, groundout w/runner on 2nd, lined out w/ runner on 2nd, K'd looking w/runner on 3rd ad flied out w/ a runner on 2nd. Then from game 5 on he hasn't had a single RBI, it's over 3 years. he's gone into the '05 and '06 postseasons hitting well thn has frozen in the spotlight of october. I give his performances their proper weight, it should weigh heavier than his great peformances in April. You are ignoring it. You are not making a big deal out of it whe it should be. you complain about cherry picking stats yet that is all you do. Jeter has enough credibility built up that if he never gets another big hit it won't matter b/c he has a million in the past that helped us win. You always come up w/ these ridiculous comparions- Brosius, Tino, Jeter. Jeter has a million big hits and has helped us win 4 Championships, ARod has doe nothing but fail outsideof the Minny series and he's never even helped us get to a WS. Aarn Boone had an ARod like series in the '03 ALCS yet he made his mark, ARod has not been able to do that.
I'm done with this. For real, this time. You just don't get it. Or won't get it. What a waste of my day.
