My bias is I want my team to win and he is helping to prevent it. When he actually does something for us when it matters I'll be thrilled. I still root for him to play well every single game, that's not a bias. A bias would be rooting against him, I just tell the facts about how terrible he is for us when it matters.
Ummm... no. You really should go look it up. Rooting for him doesn't have anything to do with it. The bias lies in your interpretation of the "facts."
My interpretation is factual as he has done nothing for us in October and frequently has failed in big regular season moments. I am not impressed w/ fantasy #s. The same folks who love ARod are the same folks who think Manning is better than Brady or Steve Young is better than Joe Montana.
I know what it is and in this case it's an excuse you are making for ARod. How am I perceiving that ARod has been awful since Game 5 of the 2004 ALCS?
I'm not making excuses for anybody... but it amuses me that's what you think I'm doing. You're not wrong that he's been awful. What you are wrong about is the weight you give it, and the conclusions you draw from it. You do this because it fits your opinion of him that he's a choker (or whatever). This is evidenced by your statement that, sure, he did okay in 2007, but then returned to "his normal self" in the playoffs. That which fits your opinion, sticks. That which doesn't is more easily forgotten. A good example is your choice of Game 5 of the 2004 playoffs. Yes, A-Rod has been pretty consistently atrocious since that game. Those are the games that support your opinion, so those are the games you choose. What about the games prior to that? Those don't count as much in your mind, right? In fact, I'm sure you even have half a dozen rationalizations for why those games don't count as much. (That's okay, we don't need to hear them.) That's your confirmation bias in action (with a dash of the Fundamental Attribution Error thrown in for good measure). If it makes you feel any better, the fact that you're wrong isn't a defense of A-Rod, and it's human nature to fall prey to it. You have a choice, though. You can try to overcome the bias when making an analysis... or you can continue to
Again, a player can have a bad game or bad series or even bad playoff year but when it's 16 games, 4 playoff years, 4 series' then it becomes a trend and a problem. He was great in the regular season in 2007 but once the bright lights were on for real in october he wilted again. He's not a money player, he's a great fantasy player. I hope that changes this year and for the rest of his career. I hate knocking players from my teams but I am forced to w/ this guys track record. He is an embarrassment to great players, he may be the most talented guy to ever play the sport but when it matters he brings the talent of a career minor leaguer. You can make all the excuses you want, you can knock my opinions of him all you want but the facts support me here.
Which brings up back to small sample size... hooray! Let's look at the confirmation bias (and the FAE) again, shall we? Typically, you wouldn't use 16 games to judge much one way or the other about a player, except perhaps to say he was in a slump. But you believe A-Rod will fail... that he is a choker, an embarrassment. So what do you do? You take a sample size that would normally be discarded, and you apply it to all of A-Rod's character. You ignore games that came before where he performed well, choosing to begin at Game 5, where he started to suck. So now that it's a part of his character (in your opinion), a K in the sixth inning of a game where the Yanks are down by two is A-Rod failing to get it done when it counts. A home run by A-Rod in the same situation isn't considered clutch... it's too early in the game. He never would've done it in the ninth. When A-Rod fails in the clutch, it's what is expected. When he does well, it's a fluke that is more easily forgotten. This is less about A-Rod's performance, and more about how (some) people cling to their opinions. The fact that you're still here arguing that you're "right," while ignoring two well-known psychological biases to do so makes it all the more hilarious.
My O's fan friend told me today the Yankees are not that good, Prolly finish 3rd in the AL East, says the O's are good and then I said the Jets have more promise than the O's. His response was World Series 2011. Nice goal right? Haha I feel bad for him and his team, but jealousy is terrible.
Cashman doesn't subscribe to your theories. That should be obvious by now and to the best of my recollection Jeter hasn't done shit for the Yankees in the last 8 years.
Manning is the best QB in the league, surrounded by a lackluster cast. Absolutely Manning wins more SB if he has Beli building his team.
If we were down 2 in the 6th and ARod hit a HR I'd consider it a clutch hit. I am fair, I praised him all 2007 regular season. When he does his job I'll praise, when he chokes I'll criticize. Again, I HATE criticizing players on teams I root for but I have to be honest. Put Brady on the Colts and Manning on the Pats and NE wins maybe 1 SB while Indy wins 3-4. The difference in those teams has been at QB. NE has the best QB of this generation while Indy has an overrated choker. A lackluster cast?:rofl: Brady has only had offensive wepaons comparable to what peyton had for ONE season and he led his team to a 16-0 record and set records along the way. Give Manning Brady's weapons from erlier this decade and he may not make the playoffs let alone win in the playoffs and the only SB Manning won his D carried him. Manning had 1 good half of football in that 2006 postseason.
Seems the Yankees and Braves are talking about Nady or Swisher. What I don't like is that the Yankees are only looking for prospects in return. http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/9150010/Abreu-too-good-to-last-this-long-on-free-agent-market "The Yankees' goal in moving Swisher or Xavier Nady is to recoup some of the prospects they lost in their respective trades for both players, according to rival executives. Nady and left-hander Damaso Marte cost the Yankees four prospects in their deal with the Pirates. Swisher arrived from the White Sox with a minor-league pitcher in exchange for infielder Wilson Betemit and two minor-league pitchers ..."
Wrong. The difference has been on defense and coaching. If you don't think Peyton Manning could have thrown a bunch of dink and dunks and screens like Brady did the first two Super Bowls you're crazy.
Junc your previous statement was rediculous. NE wins the Giant game with Peyton at Qb. Brady folded in the face of that rush.
:lol::lol: yeah, Manning can't beat "ferocious" D's like San Diego had but he'd have been able to beat that Giant pass rush. A fun little # for you, in 8 playoff losses the great Peyon Manning has led his offenses to 13.6 PPG. Yeah b/c Belichick has been so incredibly successful w/o Tom Bradyhmy: 13.6 PPg in 8 playoff losses- that's the PPG Peyton has led his O's to in those games. Do you want the Indy D to shut opponents out? Indy's D has had some bad games in postseason but not as many as Indy's O and he had more than enough help from his D's to win in postseason.
The difference isn't the PPG, it's the turnovers and big plays. NE has had a very opportunistic D that has made HUGE plays at crucial times, either stopping scores, creating great field position, or scoring themselves.
