equivalent average and value over replacement player. I surprise myself sometimes. I pay more attention to DVOA than VORP, however.
Is 3 years a small sample size? Hi close and late #s from '04-'06 are poor, add in his 3 DIFFERENT postseasons and it doesn't equal greatness. Your major point is Alex hasn't been as bad in the clutch as most think, you actually think he's been good but w/ the close and late #s I posted and his october performances it's pretty easy to see that isn't the case. I must be living in a bizarro world, how can someone have won an argument about whether a player is clutch or not when all the #s support my argument? Don't get the brosius and Tino arguments confused w/ what the argument was actually about(even inluding those I posted better points). It was about the clutchness of ARod and f a man doesnt' comethrough in the reg seasonclsoe and late and hasn't had an RBI in his last 12 postseason games how exactly can he be clutch? You are trying to make this too complicated in an effort to deflect. I appreciate the effort but we all know what clutch and ARod has nopt been that overall. he has come through at times but not consistently enough. ARod falls on his face every october, how is it illogical to think he can perform better under pressure than ARod? If it was one postseason, maybe even 2 I can buy that but 3 seperate seris in 3 seperate postseasons and in ach of those awful series he was hot going into them so it's quite obvious he tenses up under pressure and is not the same player. Players go into slumps all the time but what Alex hasdone is alot more than a slump, he's been awful in all phases and completely lost at the plate. Not a single RBI in 12 sraight posteason games! BUbba Crosby has moroe RBi in that span! Poor close and late stats in reg seeason + zero RBI in 12 postseason games for yanks + poor avg. w/ RISP w/ yanks= a player who has not performed in the clutch. It doesnt' mean he'll never come through it just means the past few years he has shrunk in big spots and to say he hasn't looked lost and scared in those spots would be untrue b/c as I have noted he has been hot going into each series he stunk in and then like a light switch he was all of a sudden awful.
:lol: After a while I thought that he was missing your point as well. Your point isn't as radical as it is being portrayed.
Well, before I left to watch this abominable series in person, I did get your point. And, to say that I disagree doesn't go far enough. Your argument, twelve pages ago, was that a player's reputation shouldn't be what it is - at least, not as a matter of forever. In the universe of absurd discussions, where you and I disagree, there's a more fundamental point at issue. Reputations certainly do change; just not fast enough for your tastes. That David Ortiz was ever a free agent is proof enough. So, if a certain player has a certain reputation with which you disagree, then it's YOU that's wrong; particularly if you agree that the reputation exists. It is what it is when everyone says that it is. All very democratic stuff. Now, I'll let you all get back to talking stats; which, of course, matter nothing to the point of reputations.
Actually, you didn't get my point, either. My point was not that reputations "should not be" what they are. It was that they should not be what they are if they are to be accurate labels. This is twice I have had to explicitly emphasize that point to you. I really don't care much as to what they can/should be in the grand scheme of things. I wasn't saying that the reputation can/should change lest all we fight for is lost. I wasn't saying that the existence of inaccurate reputations is a scourge on the face of this earth. I was merely saying that reputations are not always accurate reflections of reality. You seem to think I am making some kind of value judgment when I state this. I don't know why you seem to think this, and all I can do is tell you that I am not. My only point was that the continued existence of a reputation at any given time can actually be fed and bolstered by the very existence of that reputation, rather than the actual performance behind it, due to how humans perceive and associate these occurrences. This is indisputable. Go reference any psychological study about subjective validation or the Barnum Effect, if you don't believe me. In some (not all) cases, to some (not all) people - the reputation winds up taking precedence in the perception of performance in place of the actual performance. Reputations can and do change over time, yes. But the lag time of which you speak has absolutely nothing to do with it not being fast enough "for my tastes." It has everything to do with whether or not it should be used as evidence in judging a player's performance. As an example, should a play that occurs for two players under exactly the same circumstances (let's use a game-winning home run as an example) be given different weight in analyzing those players' performances, based on their respective reputations? No... the reputations of the players at the time of the play have nothing to do with an objective analysis of player performance. And yet, the exact same play will - for many people - be perceived differently if one player is known as a "choker" while the other is viewed as a "clutch" player. This difference of perception is fine, and understandable... but it DOES distort how accurate people are when they look back and try to make a larger judgment about a player's performance. I can't tell if you're just trying to play some semantical word game here or what... but I'm not interested (and never was) in what the reputation "should" be in any picture larger than an accurate account of what that player is done. ETA: Just to pre-emptively soothe your nerves, too, since I remember you getting pissy about it before... my point was NEVER that A-Rod is "more clutch" than Ortiz or to try to take anything away from Ortiz's accomplishments.
You're splitting such a semantic hair that you've altered meaning to common terms. Arguing "reputation" versus "label" is nonsense. Utter nonsense. I will revisit this in a little bit, because I didn't read past this first brief point, and I have an appointment now. But, even with my leaving and returning, it will still make no sense.
To everyone else: Is this guy always so pleasant? To Sunday Jack: You are reading the emphasis everywhere except where it is supposed to be. The difference is not between "reputation" and "label." The difference is between label and accurate label.
Meh. As far as appeals go, you'll find some that like me and many that hate me. Good luck with it, in any event. Doesn't matter where the emphasis is. It's a point that tries to say a lot, but means nothing. A reputation IS what it IS. Doesn't matter whether you use a nice adjective, or not. You're trying to make a distinction between a "reputation" and a "label" (or a dynamic reputation and a static label), and there simply isn't any. Semantics, all around. I'll offer truce, if only because, although I enjoy sparring, making enemies wasn't my intention here. You can take the last word - and be as harsh as you want - and we'll save the rest of the fun for the ALCS (which, if it means anything to Yankee fans, as I suspect it does, concerns me).
Yes, a reputation is what it is. You keep talking about this like I disagree. But this point has nothing to do with what I was originally saying. I'm really not trying to make a distinction between the two. That is what I've been trying to tell you. Three times now. How can I phrase it so you get it that I am not making a distinction between label or reputation? I thought it was rather clear. The only distinction that I ever tried to make regarding reputation is the one that deals with the subjective validation that can (and often does) occur among fans when results are filtered through the reputation. How the exact same play for two different players can be (and often is) mentally filed in a different manner based on the players' reputations. If you would like to attempt to refute this point, be my guest. But let me be as clear as possible: anything else you think you are attempting to refute is something that I am not meaning to infer. I enjoy debating, too. I just don't understand the attempts to put words in my mouth, and then be snarky about it on top of it. I try to be very precise with what I mean and what I say. Sometimes my intention might not be clear. But if I explicitly tell you that, no, I am not saying, "X," it's a little confusing for me to have "X" continuously held up as something attributed to me. If a mod would like to siphon off the last several pages of this thread into a new (or existing) thread about the existence of clutch or how subjective perception affects fan analysis of player talent, I would be all for it.
OK, if that's your point you are still wrong w/ the ARod situation. His reputation has been one of a player who does not come through in big situations as a Yankee and I proved over and over again that it is true. Once again, I never said that he can't change that reputation but that's how he has performed up until this year. In this rehular season he has changed his reputation, all that is needed is for him to do it in october and and to put this nonsense behind him. .240 in the postseason, .118 w/ RISP in postseason, .268 close and late '04-'06 reg season. Does he deserve the reputation he has built? of course he does. It absolutely can change and one big october ARod will never have to hear it again but the october questions about him are valid. he has not been bad he has ben brutal in October- BY FAR our worst player, he needs to repair his october reputation and obviously we are all rooting for him b/c it gives the Yanks a much better chnce to win when he plays the way he is capable of. In 4 series he has had 1 big series, we won that series and lost the 3 he stunk in- coincidence? If it seems like I am harder on him than anyone else it's b/c I am. He's our most talented player and my expectations are higest for him.
After AROD opts out of his contract this fall, are the Yankees actually going to sit on the sidelines while Anaheim, Boston and other teams start bidding for his services OR are they just bluffing (as I am sure AROD and Boras are willing to bet)?
If ARod opts out he's gone, they'l have a window right after the season to renegotiate and that's where I think he'll get his new deal but if he doesn't agree and opts out he's gone b/c then we lose the money from texas and ARod's deal will more than double.
Again... you just do not or WILL not get it. So I'm not going to waste my time. I'm just going to say that you are very adept at proving my point for me.
I guess i don't get it, it seemed we were posting about ARod being poor in clutch situations and you kept insuting me about it then I posted all the #s and now the debate has changed so you can try and save face. You can't change the argument midway through.
