I'm still waiting for this watched pot to boil....SteveK says it never will, but I'm gonna prove him wrong!
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
The whole Ralph Kiner induction taking 16 years is just beyond comprehension. Something went wrong... again and again and again and I think we get my point.
While I believe Hodges belongs in the HOF- I respect those that disagree with my view. Obviously, he is not there and neither is Frank Howard. Some may say these players like these water down the HOF and that is where I can say that MLB is not just about numbers, but events, players and stories that really constitutes folklore and oral history which clearly documents a side of baseball that numbers are just not able to do.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
You made the comment about folklore and oral history as being subjective and inherently desperate- I do not see the concept behind interviewing players that were there- experienced the game and played with and against those with real talent and those that were lucky to be part of the game. This is not desperate, but an effort to perserve history by those that made it and they are the best source to provide an insight to what numbers leave out.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
There will always be a difference of opinion- even amoung those that played the game- however, their imput seems to have value. I have mentioned Hodges more than Howard and perhaps Howard is the better example to illustrate my point- Howard was traded from the Dodgers to the Senators for Claude Osteen before the start of the 1965 season- Howard went from a pennant contender to a cellar dweller. And it is the folklore and stories surrounding a player like this that makes baseball what it is and the stories about him exist in every American and to a point, National League City in MLB. It is not about LA or Washington- what he did was seen in Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland and New York. Numbers are not the only mesurement- but the unmeasurable home runs he hit are what fans remember- not to mention other players.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I loved Hondo when he managed the Mets...put him in the Hall!
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Your answers to the clutch argument fail the logic test. NO need for me to point out why...it already has been. Those guys you believe to be clutch or chokers are either stupid or psychic...as pointed out before.
You may not be biased by using Schmidt...you are biased because the heart of your 'beliefs' are being shown to be wrong...and it hurts.
You, like 99% of sports fans, are brainwashed by 'clutch' thinking because of the media using the hero/goat aspect to create an exciting story to report....because that sells more papers and commercials than what the truth does
Don't be ashamed that they hooked you...you have a lot of company.
Your answers to the clutch argument fail the logic test. NO need for me to point out why...it already has been. Those guys you believe to be clutch or chokers are either stupid or psychic...as pointed out before.
You may not be biased by using Schmidt...you are biased because the heart of your 'beliefs' are being shown to be wrong...and it hurts.
You, like 99% of sports fans, are brainwashed by 'clutch' thinking because of the media using the hero/goat aspect to create an exciting story to report....because that sells more papers and commercials than what the truth does
Don't be ashamed that they hooked you...you have a lot of company. >>
No, I'm like most fans who don't give a chit what the media thinks - we form our own opinions and viewpoints based on what we already know about the game and the new games we watch. And if you ever listen to 610 WIP sportstalk, you'll know that fans do sometimes disagree with members of the media on certain issues. I enjoy the media for info I'm not privy to which they are, but I don't need some media member to inform me whether or not ARod or Schmidt chokes because I've seen it.
By the way, your idol Bill James who has written a number of books and therefore would be considered part of the media, I think has you brainwashed. I'm not saying Bill James isn't interesting, I happen to respect those who create original ideas and opinions...but I am saying that Bill James was emphatically stating that Pete Rose didn't bet on baseball, despite the fact that almost everyone else figured Rose did, because logically Rose did, and of course Rose later admitted that he did. Your idol really blew that call, and there are many who disagree with some of the ideas of Bill James. Last time I checked, he's not some old guy with a long white beard standing on a cloud talking down to the people on earth.
Whether it is the media brain washing you on it, or just the need to place a personal hero/goat label on people...it doesn't matter.
What matter is that this was discussed in another post, and the people who believe in the existence of the 'clutch' players must think those players are either stupid or psychic. I need not elaborate on what that means, as I already did.
If 610 sportstalk is like all the other sports talk...and they are like you on...no thanks. It would just be mindless unfounded and poorly researched cliches...like your theories.
Whether it is the media brain washing you on it, or just the need to place a personal hero/goat label on people...it doesn't matter.
What matter is that this was discussed in another post, and the people who believe in the existence of the 'clutch' players must think those players are either stupid or psychic. I need not elaborate on what that means, as I already did.
If 610 sportstalk is like all the other sports talk...and they are like you on...no thanks. It would just be mindless unfounded and poorly researched cliches...like your theories. >>
Well then, you just continue to do what you like to do, and that is being obsessed with stats and Bill James. I'd rather enjoy sports for fun and entertainment, an escape from the "real world" for awhile, and I've got no interest in analyzing sports as though I'm trying to calculate the proper mathematics involved in lauching a spacecraft to Mars.
I think many of your stats and calculations would have that Mars spacecraft going to Uranus. LOL
You do realize that randomness/luck in a small sample size is the biggest reason why you see players perform above/below their established level of ability in the clutch situations, don't you?
No, you don't...you already stated that. Ok, so YOU have established that those factors aren't what cause players to rise or falter in the key situations. Ok, great.
If a guy is a clutch, you have stated that he should come through in the pressure moments, otherwise, he is a choker. You seem to already disregard if a player HAS come through in clutch moments(like with AROD), and just focus on his failings instead, and then ignore the moments where he doesn't fit your perception.
Now that the ground rules are laid out per YOUR definition, lets examine a true CHOKER in baseball....Ryan Howard.
The ultimate clutch test is in the World Series, hitting with Runners in Scoring position, and in a late/close ballgame. Here is what Ryan Howard has done in his World Series play...
IN THE WS WITH RUNNERS IN SCORING POSITION: BA .125,,,, OB% .222,,,,, SLG% .375. TEN strikeouts in 16 at bats!!
IN THE WS IN LATE/CLOSE AT BATS BA .000,,,,OB% .000,,,,SLG% .000. SIX strikeouts in 8 at bats!!
Not only was he bad, he was flat out putrid. He was so scared, and such a choker that he couldn't even hit the ball...and struck out nearly every time when the pressure was REALLY on!
So it seems Howard was THE reason why they lost the World Series last year, and with Phillies winning easily in the Rays World Series so easily, they would have won it without him anyway, after all, somebody else won the WS MVP. He is a choker.
You do realize that randomness/luck in a small sample size is the biggest reason why you see players perform above/below their established level of ability in the clutch situations, don't you?
No, you don't...you already stated that. Ok, so YOU have established that those factors aren't what cause players to rise or falter in the key situations. Ok, great.
If a guy is a clutch, you have stated that he should come through in the pressure moments, otherwise, he is a choker. You seem to already disregard if a player HAS come through in clutch moments(like with AROD), and just focus on his failings instead, and then ignore the moments where he doesn't fit your perception.
Now that the ground rules are laid out per YOUR definition, lets examine a true CHOKER in baseball....Ryan Howard.
The ultimate clutch test is in the World Series, hitting with Runners in Scoring position, and in a late/close ballgame. Here is what Ryan Howard has done in his World Series play...
IN THE WS WITH RUNNERS IN SCORING POSITION: BA .125,,,, OB% .222,,,,, SLG% .375. TEN strikeouts in 16 at bats!!
IN THE WS IN LATE/CLOSE AT BATS BA .000,,,,OB% .000,,,,SLG% .000. SIX strikeouts in 8 at bats!!
Not only was he bad, he was flat out putrid. He was so scared, and such a choker that he couldn't even hit the ball...and struck out nearly every time when the pressure was REALLY on!
So it seems Howard was THE reason why they lost the World Series last year, and with Phillies winning easily in the Rays World Series so easily, they would have won it without him anyway, after all, somebody else won the WS MVP. He is a choker.
You do realize that randomness/luck in a small sample size is the biggest reason why you see players perform above/below their established level of ability in the clutch situations, don't you?
No, you don't...you already stated that. Ok, so YOU have established that those factors aren't what cause players to rise or falter in the key situations. Ok, great.
If a guy is a clutch, you have stated that he should come through in the pressure moments, otherwise, he is a choker. You seem to already disregard if a player HAS come through in clutch moments(like with AROD), and just focus on his failings instead, and then ignore the moments where he doesn't fit your perception.
Now that the ground rules are laid out per YOUR definition, lets examine a true CHOKER in baseball....Ryan Howard.
The ultimate clutch test is in the World Series, hitting with Runners in Scoring position, and in a late/close ballgame. Here is what Ryan Howard has done in his World Series play...
IN THE WS WITH RUNNERS IN SCORING POSITION: BA .125,,,, OB% .222,,,,, SLG% .375. TEN strikeouts in 16 at bats!!
IN THE WS IN LATE/CLOSE AT BATS BA .000,,,,OB% .000,,,,SLG% .000. SIX strikeouts in 8 at bats!!
Not only was he bad, he was flat out putrid. He was so scared, and such a choker that he couldn't even hit the ball...and struck out nearly every time when the pressure was REALLY on!
So it seems Howard was THE reason why they lost the World Series last year, and with Phillies winning easily in the Rays World Series so easily, they would have won it without him anyway, after all, somebody else won the WS MVP. He is a choker. >>
<<< You do realize that randomness/luck in a small sample size is the biggest reason why you see players perform above/below their established level of ability in the clutch situations, don't you? >>>
Geez, while graduating from Penn State with a degree in Finance, a very tough degree to get from Penn State as they have a highly respected school of Finance, I must have slept through those classes and cheated on the exam regarding randomness and sample sizes. LOL
I'm gonna root for Ryan Howard the exact same way I rooted for Mike Schmidt, and after the book is written, if Howard turned out to be a choker, then so be it. ARod is in his 17th season...Howard has played for much less time...I'm gonna give Howard more time yet before reaching a definitive conclusion. He had a terrific series against the Dodgers but a disappointing series against the Yankees, but a lot of Phillies had a disappointing series against the Yankees.
Your answers to the clutch argument fail the logic test. NO need for me to point out why...it already has been. Those guys you believe to be clutch or chokers are either stupid or psychic...as pointed out before.
You may not be biased by using Schmidt...you are biased because the heart of your 'beliefs' are being shown to be wrong...and it hurts.
You, like 99% of sports fans, are brainwashed by 'clutch' thinking because of the media using the hero/goat aspect to create an exciting story to report....because that sells more papers and commercials than what the truth does
Don't be ashamed that they hooked you...you have a lot of company. >>
No, I'm like most fans who don't give a chit what the media thinks - we form our own opinions and viewpoints based on what we already know about the game and the new games we watch. And if you ever listen to 610 WIP sportstalk, you'll know that fans do sometimes disagree with members of the media on certain issues. I enjoy the media for info I'm not privy to which they are, but I don't need some media member to inform me whether or not ARod or Schmidt chokes because I've seen it.
By the way, your idol Bill James who has written a number of books and therefore would be considered part of the media, I think has you brainwashed. I'm not saying Bill James isn't interesting, I happen to respect those who create original ideas and opinions...but I am saying that Bill James was emphatically stating that Pete Rose didn't bet on baseball, despite the fact that almost everyone else figured Rose did, because logically Rose did, and of course Rose later admitted that he did. Your idol really blew that call, and there are many who disagree with some of the ideas of Bill James. Last time I checked, he's not some old guy with a long white beard standing on a cloud talking down to the people on earth. >>
You don't have to wait 17 years to see if Howard is a choker. Per YOUR criteria, he already is a choker since he has failed MISERABLY in the most pressure cooked situations.
Bottom line, the post season player is a myth, and it isn't a surprise that you believe in them like kids do in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.
Also, sports talk radio is just cliche ridden numb skulling entertainment. You claim you don't use the results of the players performance(stats) to determine how good they are/were, yet you do...only you choose the ones that poorly represent how good a player is...like RBI.
You don't have to wait 17 years to see if Howard is a choker. Per YOUR criteria, he already is a choker since he has failed MISERABLY in the most pressure cooked situations.
Bottom line, the post season player is a myth, and it isn't a surprise that you believe in them like kids do in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.
Also, sports talk radio is just cliche ridden numb skulling entertainment. You claim you don't use the results of the players performance(stats) to determine how good they are/were, yet you do...only you choose the ones that poorly represent how good a player is...like RBI. >>
<<< Also, sports talk radio is just cliche ridden numb skulling entertainment >>>
What then is analyzing mountains of sports stats under an electron microscope?
I'm glad when the HOF votes people in they only look at the numbers and never are swayed by folklore...
These are the saddest of possible words, "Tinker to Evers to Chance." Trio of bear cubs, and fleeter than birds, Tinker and Evers and Chance. Ruthlessly pr***ing our gonfalon bubble, Making a Giant hit into a double – Words that are heavy with nothing but trouble: "Tinker to Evers to Chance."
We look at the voting now and criticize. Look at these votes. Jimmie Foxx gets in on the 7TH time on the ballot. Guys like Paul Waner and Hank Greenberg were just going through another year of waiting and not getting voted in. And it wasn't that the HOF was new and they had so many legends to vote in. Nobody got selected in 1950. There are dozens of future HOFers that are in the lower 2/3's of the voting. In 1963, the Veterans Committee voted in Sam Rice. In his 13th year of eligibility (1962) Rice got 50.6% of the vote. In 1951, he got one vote for 0.4%. I wonder how he went from one vote to 50% of the vote, to enshrinement. I also saw that Joe Dimaggio and Yogi Berra didn't get in on the first try.
<< <i><<< Also, sports talk radio is just cliche ridden numb skulling entertainment >>>
What then is analyzing mountains of sports stats under an electron microscope? >>
To create 200+ post threads.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
The question was already answered, and it is accurate as Robin Hood.
It is good to see that you have judged your hero, Ryan Howard, as a choker who can't handle the big moments. >>
There you go again...I clearly implied that Howard shouldn't be judged until his career is over. Once again you distort what others mean, just like you distort the importance of your boatloads of stats.
Ryan Howard is not my hero. I've never "worshipped" sports stars or idolized them. I respect them for the athletic skills they have and the entertainment value they bring to the teams I root for, and that's good enough for me. Frankly, too many of them make poor role models.
I highly recommend the Bill James book "The Politics of Glory" to anyone who has an interest as to how the voting for the HOF has evolved. The book was re-released with another name (I do not know what it is). Both are readily available on Ebay.
You haven't judged players on their entire career, because you simply neglect the aspects that don't fit your view...like completely discounting Arod's post season last year by saying the Yankees would have won without him. So why start with Inflated RBI-Howard?
Arod's career Post Season OPS is higher than his regular season OPS. But instead, you only focus on the the 2005-2007 post season when he did his worst...or on your flawed and biased perceptions. Yeah, I know, Yankee fans felt that way too, and those perceptions are biased as well because they are irrational angry reactions from being fans.
So by YOUR criteria, Howard already is a choker, because by looking at what he has done in the toughest moments, he has failed miserably. One does not have to look at his successes, because by YOUR criteria you can just pick/choose the times you want and ignore the others.
ALso, Howard blew the world series for the Phils last year(and you blew something else), and they won easily and didn't need him when they did win it. So stop worshiping him and saying HE is a champion and such. By YOUR method he is not, just like you claim Arod is not.
But again, when you say a pro player is a big game player, you are also calling him STUPID or PSYCHIC.
The way you talk stupid about Howard certainly gives the impression he is your hero. Perhaps your boyfriend?
You haven't judged players on their entire career, because you simply neglect the aspects that don't fit your view...like completely discounting Arod's post season last year by saying the Yankees would have won without him. So why start with Inflated RBI-Howard?
Arod's career Post Season OPS is higher than his regular season OPS. But instead, you only focus on the the 2005-2007 post season when he did his worst...or on your flawed and biased perceptions. Yeah, I know, Yankee fans felt that way too, and those perceptions are biased as well because they are irrational angry reactions from being fans.
So by YOUR criteria, Howard already is a choker, because by looking at what he has done in the toughest moments, he has failed miserably. One does not have to look at his successes, because by YOUR criteria you can just pick/choose the times you want and ignore the others.
ALso, Howard blew the world series for the Phils last year(and you blew something else), and they won easily and didn't need him when they did win it. So stop worshiping him and saying HE is a champion and such. By YOUR method he is not, just like you claim Arod is not.
But again, when you say a pro player is a big game player, you are also calling him STUPID or PSYCHIC.
The way you talk stupid about Howard certainly gives the impression he is your hero. Perhaps your boyfriend? >>
I knew you'd start acting like a little punk again sooner or later. You just can't help yourself can you?
Regardless of the adjective, it is a myth that those guys cannot handle the post season pressure, or guys all of a sudden get better because it is the post season. Yes, it is irrational for one to say that Arod is a choker because from 2005-2007 he did terrible in the post season...and then neglect all the other years where he did quite well. It is fanatic emotions driving those feelings.
THen you have morons try and justify their perception that Arod is a choker by saying that last years tremendous post season doesn't count against their argument because they feel the Yanks would have won it anyway. Are you freaking kidding me? Those are exactly the kind of dopes you hear on sports radio.
Not to mention that Arod had success BEFORE that post season drought too. Pure stupidity.
If there is a such thing as a post season player, then along with being a 'post season player,' the guys is also stupid or psychic, because he should be playing like that more often so they could get MORE post season appearances...or he is psychic because he knows he doesn't have to play that well in the regular season because he can see the future that he will be in the post season and he can just save his goodness for then.
I don't even know why I am elaborating on that...that notion was put to bed in another thread.
Since SteveK has never given a sound argument...he just has to live with Ryan Howard being one of the big chokers in baseball, and may just have to pull his pants up from his ankles.
If Arod really could not handle pressure, and really did fold when it counted, then why wasn't he making errors left and right in the post season??? Fielding a ground ball is also a high;y pressurized moment, and throwing it is even more highly pressurized! That may even be more pressurized than hitting because there is more time to think.
If he did indeed have a trait of folding under pressure, I would expect him to falter defensively too. But in 152 Post Season chances, he made three errors. He should have been throwing the ball into the stands at least once a game if he couldn't handle pressure. All your guys claims are pure B.S.
So here is what we have on Arod...
His post season fielding was on par with what he always did in the regular season.
His overall post season hitting was on par with what he always did in the regular season.
His first 21 post season games he had 100 plate appearances with an OPS of 1.062
His next 14 post season games with a grand total of 61 plate apperances, he had the famous drought with an OPS of .401
His last 17 post season games with 77 plate apperances, he went nuts with a 1.297 OPS
You bet your arse it is irrational to say that Arod was a choker when people are focusing on a stretch of 61 plate apperances, and ignoring his two other stretches where he was flat out outstanding, and then making an unfounded claim that Arod could not handle pressure and was not a big game player!
Add the fielding fact above, and it is completely insane for anyone to make absurd claims.
Just laying the stuff out in a simple manner, and a little bit of logic, is often all it takes to debunk unfounded perceptions.
NO kidding he stunk those years, but that does not me he can't handle pressure, and it does not mean that he isn't a big game player. These are the claims people make, and they are wrong.
Like it is outlined above, anyone who makes their judgement based on those 61 plate appearances, is making an error. THere is nothing wrong to say that he was terrible in those 61 plate appearances, or he didn't come through. BUt to make a character judgement, or to downgrade what kind of player he was because of that, is stupid.
As outlined above, he showed what he could do in those pressure moments you are harping on. People just ignore them.
If he was a choker, or couldn't handle the pressure appropriately, he should have been making errors left and right. People ignore that. You bet your butt randomness is the biggest reason for guys who have weird post season stats.
Heck, look at David Ortiz. This guy was suppose to be a post season GOd. Now he has been flat out AWFUL in the post season. Given time, it evens out.
If there is a belief that a player is a post season player, then he is stupid or psychic also.
This same player had another completely different 61 plate apperance stretch where he had a .470 OPS with 5 runs and 4 RBI. He had two Arod like stretches that you are beefing about and have your arms up in the air!
OH, here is a 61 plate appearance stretch for one of your Yankee clutch heroes. How about a .562 OPS in a 61 consecutive post season stretch?? He had three RBI and 5 runs scored in that stretch. How good is that player? THat is pitiful as well, and an utter failure. Where is the beef on that guy??
OH, here is a 61 plate appearance stretch for one of your Yankee clutch heroes. How about a .562 OPS in a 61 consecutive post season stretch?? He had three RBI and 5 runs scored in that stretch. How good is that player? THat is pitiful as well, and an utter failure. Where is the beef on that guy??
This same player had another completely different 61 plate appearance stretch where he had a .470 OPS with 5 runs and 4 RBI. He had two Arod like stretches that you are beefing about which have your arms up in the air!
WHere is the disdain for him? Where are the same exact words you are using for Arod for him?? He did what Arod did, only twice. He also did what Arod did in his other post season performances...he did quite well.
Wrong, people do not understand, or they wouldn't be making claims that Arod can't handle the pressure or play in the big games. They are flat out wrong, either from a flawed perception, or an ax to grind.
People don't have to agree, they need to be...
Knowledgeable, fair, and objective, otherwise their words are worthless.
None of those facts you presented can make the case for somebody to call Arod a player who cannot handle pressure, or not being a post season player. THose are the claims you made, and are constantly made. Those are the claims that are WRONG and I am arguing against.
Yet, as outlined above with the defense and what he DID do in the post season, it shows the COMPLETE opposite of what you are saying.
Oh, and Jeter had a third post season stretch where in that 2006/07 run where his OPS was .469 over 24 plate apperances.
Jeter had abysmal stretches just like Arod, only he had THREE of them instead of one. He, like AROD, did quite well in his other times. It makes no difference what the rest of the team did to get a World Series title....we are looking at the individual.
If you are to ignore all of Arod's defensive plays, and other post season performances that were outstanding, and then focus merely on a 61 plate apperance stretch to claim that he was a choker, or choked, then you also have to say that Jeter choked like that in THREE instances, and then ignore his other performances like you are doing for Arod.
p.s. I know how fans act...they act stupid, biased, and irrational. I know why and when they call people chokers. That is why I am writing to show the folly in their ways.
I don't care how fans feel, or what else it takes to get him out of your doghouse. You were jilted...not very hard to understand. Fan WILL have those feelings. THose feelings lead to irrational claims and judgements.
If all you are saying is, "he pizzed me off for those two years," then just say that. However, that is not enough to argue against my point. Not deep enough evidence!
I am arguing against the point that Arod is a choker, and that he cannot handle big game pressure. THat is wrong. Flat out wrong. He did bad for a stretch just like guys who people think are the opposite of Arod. Jeter had THREE such stretches. Hitters tend to do that, in case you didn't know.
Fans put labels on these guys such as, 'he can't handle the pressure', or 'he is a big game player'. They don't look at everything, and they are wrong. If a creature like that exists in MLB, it certainly isn't Arod.
You FINALLY recognized fielding, but ignored Arod and used a Jeter example. If a big game choker existed in MLB, and Arod is that guy like MANY claim, then why was he able to handle the pressure and avoid throwing the ball into the stands every other player, and how on earth did he do this...
His post season fielding was on par with what he always did in the regular season. IF he couldn't handle pressure, then he should have made errors left and right.
His overall post season hitting was on par with what he always did in the regular season.
His first 21 post season games he had 100 plate appearances with an OPS of 1.062
His next 14 post season games with a grand total of 61 plate apperances, he had the famous drought with an OPS of .401
His last 17 post season games with 77 plate apperances, he went nuts with a 1.297 OPS
THe post season player does NOT exist in MLB, and guys don't have a trait of being able to raise their ability because it is a big game. Players do bad all the time in the post season, even Saints like Jeter. GIven enough at bats it tends to even out to the performance that they showed over their thousands of regular season at bats.
To make a claim because a player has a 15 game, or 61 at bat stretch, will give you an erroneous result. It may cure a fans need for venting, but won't tackle the issue I speak of.
Arod's post-season OPS is higher than it is for the regular season, as is Jeter's (though Arod's is significantly higher in both cases). I do not understand why Arod is supposed to be a choker and unable to handle pressure situations. There are fluctuations in the performance of any player. If you play a lot of games in the post-seaason you will have a stretch (or in Jeter's case, three stretches) where your performance is below your norm. It happens in the regular season as well. Look at the post-season numbers for Williams, Mays, and Bonds. Were they chokers? Bonds was awful in 4 of his first five post-seasons, and terrific his last four. Did he overcome the choke factor? Do roids overcome the choke factor?
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
You are arguing something completely different than I am. I fully understand the jilted feelings you had when you guys got Arod and he put that horrible stretch together, causing anger that they were eliminated from the playoffs. Since he was 'the man' that anger was directed at him.
THe problem is, people use that stretch to make the unsubstantiated claims that they do.
It has been said on these boards many times that Arod was not a big game player, and could not handle the pressure. I am addressing all who have said that. The basis of their argument stems from that 61 plate appearance stretch...and as laid out above, it would be foolish to make that claim.
Arod certainly could handle the pressure, and HE DID. He had a bad stretch just like many other players who are perceived to be post season, or big game players. If you are to say that Arod 'choked' during that stretch, that is fine. If you are to use that to claim that he could not handle pressure or perform in the big games,or label him a choker, then you are flat out wrong.
It is a myth that MLB has these so called big game players, or super stars that cannot handle the pressure of the big game. Just being able to get to MLB and sustaining a job is passing the pressure test already.
It is the nature of hitting to have many times like Arod...Jeter had three such times in the playoffs himself. Reggie Jackson was flat out awful in ALCS play. Arod was flat out awful in that 61 PA stretch, and outstanding BEFORE and AFTER that stretch.
If a player who hit like garbage in the post season was given the tag that he could not handle big game pressure...then his fielding should also reflect that to a high degree. Yet it usually doesn't. THose guys who are said to get nervous, or press, or whatever...should be throwing the ball into the stands because of those same adjectives. But they don't. THe nature of streaky failures with hitting is the culprit.
P.S. SItuational Batter Runs is a more precise measurement of what a player did, compared to standard batter runs. It tells you how much their hitting actually helped/hurt the team because of the timeliness of the hits. It is the common fans dream, and they don't even realize it! It eliminates people's claims and guesswork on how well of RBI guy they were, and such.
The amount situational batter runs changes a players impact compared to regular batter runs isn't that much. It is basically extra credit. If one were to make the argument that the hitting in those Men ON Base situations is also subject to chance and randomness like the post season, they can make a very good argument for their case.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
Here is what I mean about fielding and the argument about the existence of post season players in MLB:
Somebody claims a player is a choker because he was awful at hitting in the post season. THey reason that they are human and cannot handle the pressure of big games. THey apply many adjectives as to why and how....they say the get nervous, they press, they get uncomfortable, they are out of their element, when the games get more important, etc...
If these players truly do have an inability to perform in the pressure, and those adjectives about them are true, then their nervousness or pressing, should also manifest itself when they are fielding a ball and having to throw it to first with a runner racing down the bag.
But it doesn't.
It is the streaky/failure nature of hitting at the root cause of their hitting woes, not some personality trait. Hitting is very prone to randomness/luck in so many ways. If it were a personality trait, it would be evident in the fielding too.
It counts as one putout, which is what it was. If you are a fan of Jeter, I suggest you stay away from a discussion of defense. He is a class guy, a first ballot HOFer, and a tremendous offensive player for the position. He is a bad defensive SS any way you look at it.
<< <i>It counts as one putout, which is what it was. If you are a fan of Jeter, I suggest you stay away from a discussion of defense. He is a class guy, a first ballot HOFer, and a tremendous offensive player for the position. He is a bad defensive SS any way you look at it. >>
No fanboy of Jeter here but that's not the point.
In your eyes, it's just another out. It's valued the same as a lazy pop fly to 3rd. Nothing more, nothing less.
Thanks for your response.
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
<< <i>It counts as one putout, which is what it was. If you are a fan of Jeter, I suggest you stay away from a discussion of defense. He is a class guy, a first ballot HOFer, and a tremendous offensive player for the position. He is a bad defensive SS any way you look at it. >>
No fanboy of Jeter here but that's not the point.
In your eyes, it's just another out. It's valued the same as a lazy pop fly to 3rd. Nothing more, nothing less.
Thanks for your response. >>
It is valued the same as a lazy pop-up. His hustle on the play appears as an extra putout, nothing more or less. A ground ball to his left would appear, most likely, as a single up the middle. If he hustles to more balls, it will appear in the stats. If he has a slow first step, or can not go to his left, that will appear as well.
<< <i>It is valued the same as a lazy pop-up. His hustle on the play appears as an extra putout, nothing more or less. A ground ball to his left would appear, most likely, as a single up the middle. If he hustles to more balls, it will appear in the stats. If he has a slow first step, or can not go to his left, that will appear as well. >>
How can you account for "extra putouts" if there's no footage of the play?
So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
Comments
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
The whole Ralph Kiner induction taking 16 years is just beyond comprehension. Something went wrong... again and again and again and I think we get my point.
While I believe Hodges belongs in the HOF- I respect those that disagree with my view. Obviously, he is not there and neither is Frank Howard. Some may say these players like these water down the HOF and that is where I can say that MLB is not just about numbers, but events, players and stories that really constitutes folklore and oral history which clearly documents a side of baseball that numbers are just not able to do.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
You made the comment about folklore and oral history as being subjective and inherently desperate- I do not see the concept behind interviewing players that were there- experienced the game and played with and against those with real talent and those that were lucky to be part of the game. This is not desperate, but an effort to perserve history by those that made it and they are the best source to provide an insight to what numbers leave out.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Now, that is funny...
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
That would mean only the Ruths and the Mathewsons and the like belong?
Not the Palmers and the Jenkins of the baseball world?
I agree the Ferrells and the Rizzutos and that ilk do not belong.
But what about the Molitors and that class of player, do they belong?
Steve
I don't think that changes my view-
There will always be a difference of opinion- even amoung those that played the game- however, their imput seems to have value. I have mentioned Hodges more than Howard and perhaps Howard is the better example to illustrate my point- Howard was traded from the Dodgers to the Senators for Claude Osteen before the start of the 1965 season- Howard went from a pennant contender to a cellar dweller. And it is the folklore and stories surrounding a player like this that makes baseball what it is and the stories about him exist in every American and to a point, National League City in MLB. It is not about LA or Washington- what he did was seen in Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland and New York. Numbers are not the only mesurement- but the unmeasurable home runs he hit are what fans remember- not to mention other players.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Steve
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Your answers to the clutch argument fail the logic test. NO need for me to point out why...it already has been. Those guys you believe to be clutch or chokers are either stupid or psychic...as pointed out before.
You may not be biased by using Schmidt...you are biased because the heart of your 'beliefs' are being shown to be wrong...and it hurts.
You, like 99% of sports fans, are brainwashed by 'clutch' thinking because of the media using the hero/goat aspect to create an exciting story to report....because that sells more papers and commercials than what the truth does
Don't be ashamed that they hooked you...you have a lot of company.
<< <i>SteveK,
Your answers to the clutch argument fail the logic test. NO need for me to point out why...it already has been. Those guys you believe to be clutch or chokers are either stupid or psychic...as pointed out before.
You may not be biased by using Schmidt...you are biased because the heart of your 'beliefs' are being shown to be wrong...and it hurts.
You, like 99% of sports fans, are brainwashed by 'clutch' thinking because of the media using the hero/goat aspect to create an exciting story to report....because that sells more papers and commercials than what the truth does
Don't be ashamed that they hooked you...you have a lot of company. >>
No, I'm like most fans who don't give a chit what the media thinks - we form our own opinions and viewpoints based on what we already know about the game and the new games we watch. And if you ever listen to 610 WIP sportstalk, you'll know that fans do sometimes disagree with members of the media on certain issues. I enjoy the media for info I'm not privy to which they are, but I don't need some media member to inform me whether or not ARod or Schmidt chokes because I've seen it.
By the way, your idol Bill James who has written a number of books and therefore would be considered part of the media, I think has you brainwashed. I'm not saying Bill James isn't interesting, I happen to respect those who create original ideas and opinions...but I am saying that Bill James was emphatically stating that Pete Rose didn't bet on baseball, despite the fact that almost everyone else figured Rose did, because logically Rose did, and of course Rose later admitted that he did. Your idol really blew that call, and there are many who disagree with some of the ideas of Bill James. Last time I checked, he's not some old guy with a long white beard standing on a cloud talking down to the people on earth.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Whether it is the media brain washing you on it, or just the need to place a personal hero/goat label on people...it doesn't matter.
What matter is that this was discussed in another post, and the people who believe in the existence of the 'clutch' players must think those players are either stupid or psychic. I need not elaborate on what that means, as I already did.
If 610 sportstalk is like all the other sports talk...and they are like you on...no thanks. It would just be mindless unfounded and poorly researched cliches...like your theories.
<< <i>SteveK,
Whether it is the media brain washing you on it, or just the need to place a personal hero/goat label on people...it doesn't matter.
What matter is that this was discussed in another post, and the people who believe in the existence of the 'clutch' players must think those players are either stupid or psychic. I need not elaborate on what that means, as I already did.
If 610 sportstalk is like all the other sports talk...and they are like you on...no thanks. It would just be mindless unfounded and poorly researched cliches...like your theories. >>
Well then, you just continue to do what you like to do, and that is being obsessed with stats and Bill James. I'd rather enjoy sports for fun and entertainment, an escape from the "real world" for awhile, and I've got no interest in analyzing sports as though I'm trying to calculate the proper mathematics involved in lauching a spacecraft to Mars.
I think many of your stats and calculations would have that Mars spacecraft going to Uranus. LOL
You do realize that randomness/luck in a small sample size is the biggest reason why you see players perform above/below their established level of ability in the clutch situations, don't you?
No, you don't...you already stated that. Ok, so YOU have established that those factors aren't what cause players to rise or falter in the key situations. Ok, great.
If a guy is a clutch, you have stated that he should come through in the pressure moments, otherwise, he is a choker. You seem to already disregard if a player HAS come through in clutch moments(like with AROD), and just focus on his failings instead, and then ignore the moments where he doesn't fit your perception.
Now that the ground rules are laid out per YOUR definition, lets examine a true CHOKER in baseball....Ryan Howard.
The ultimate clutch test is in the World Series, hitting with Runners in Scoring position, and in a late/close ballgame. Here is what Ryan Howard has done in his World Series play...
IN THE WS WITH RUNNERS IN SCORING POSITION:
BA .125,,,, OB% .222,,,,, SLG% .375. TEN strikeouts in 16 at bats!!
IN THE WS IN LATE/CLOSE AT BATS
BA .000,,,,OB% .000,,,,SLG% .000. SIX strikeouts in 8 at bats!!
Not only was he bad, he was flat out putrid. He was so scared, and such a choker that he couldn't even hit the ball...and struck out nearly every time when the pressure was REALLY on!
So it seems Howard was THE reason why they lost the World Series last year, and with Phillies winning easily in the Rays World Series so easily, they would have won it without him anyway, after all, somebody else won the WS MVP. He is a choker.
Steve
You do realize that randomness/luck in a small sample size is the biggest reason why you see players perform above/below their established level of ability in the clutch situations, don't you?
No, you don't...you already stated that. Ok, so YOU have established that those factors aren't what cause players to rise or falter in the key situations. Ok, great.
If a guy is a clutch, you have stated that he should come through in the pressure moments, otherwise, he is a choker. You seem to already disregard if a player HAS come through in clutch moments(like with AROD), and just focus on his failings instead, and then ignore the moments where he doesn't fit your perception.
Now that the ground rules are laid out per YOUR definition, lets examine a true CHOKER in baseball....Ryan Howard.
The ultimate clutch test is in the World Series, hitting with Runners in Scoring position, and in a late/close ballgame. Here is what Ryan Howard has done in his World Series play...
IN THE WS WITH RUNNERS IN SCORING POSITION:
BA .125,,,, OB% .222,,,,, SLG% .375. TEN strikeouts in 16 at bats!!
IN THE WS IN LATE/CLOSE AT BATS
BA .000,,,,OB% .000,,,,SLG% .000. SIX strikeouts in 8 at bats!!
Not only was he bad, he was flat out putrid. He was so scared, and such a choker that he couldn't even hit the ball...and struck out nearly every time when the pressure was REALLY on!
So it seems Howard was THE reason why they lost the World Series last year, and with Phillies winning easily in the Rays World Series so easily, they would have won it without him anyway, after all, somebody else won the WS MVP. He is a choker.
EDITED TO ADD: Winpitcher, he is on his way....
<< <i>Stevek,
You do realize that randomness/luck in a small sample size is the biggest reason why you see players perform above/below their established level of ability in the clutch situations, don't you?
No, you don't...you already stated that. Ok, so YOU have established that those factors aren't what cause players to rise or falter in the key situations. Ok, great.
If a guy is a clutch, you have stated that he should come through in the pressure moments, otherwise, he is a choker. You seem to already disregard if a player HAS come through in clutch moments(like with AROD), and just focus on his failings instead, and then ignore the moments where he doesn't fit your perception.
Now that the ground rules are laid out per YOUR definition, lets examine a true CHOKER in baseball....Ryan Howard.
The ultimate clutch test is in the World Series, hitting with Runners in Scoring position, and in a late/close ballgame. Here is what Ryan Howard has done in his World Series play...
IN THE WS WITH RUNNERS IN SCORING POSITION:
BA .125,,,, OB% .222,,,,, SLG% .375. TEN strikeouts in 16 at bats!!
IN THE WS IN LATE/CLOSE AT BATS
BA .000,,,,OB% .000,,,,SLG% .000. SIX strikeouts in 8 at bats!!
Not only was he bad, he was flat out putrid. He was so scared, and such a choker that he couldn't even hit the ball...and struck out nearly every time when the pressure was REALLY on!
So it seems Howard was THE reason why they lost the World Series last year, and with Phillies winning easily in the Rays World Series so easily, they would have won it without him anyway, after all, somebody else won the WS MVP. He is a choker. >>
<<< You do realize that randomness/luck in a small sample size is the biggest reason why you see players perform above/below their established level of ability in the clutch situations, don't you? >>>
Geez, while graduating from Penn State with a degree in Finance, a very tough degree to get from Penn State as they have a highly respected school of Finance, I must have slept through those classes and cheated on the exam regarding randomness and sample sizes. LOL
I'm gonna root for Ryan Howard the exact same way I rooted for Mike Schmidt, and after the book is written, if Howard turned out to be a choker, then so be it. ARod is in his 17th season...Howard has played for much less time...I'm gonna give Howard more time yet before reaching a definitive conclusion. He had a terrific series against the Dodgers but a disappointing series against the Yankees, but a lot of Phillies had a disappointing series against the Yankees.
<< <i>Yeah but he still has not morphed into Dave Kingman.........yet.
Steve >>
Steve - How dare you? Saberman and his stats and logic are never wrong, according to him. LOL
<< <i>
<< <i>SteveK,
Your answers to the clutch argument fail the logic test. NO need for me to point out why...it already has been. Those guys you believe to be clutch or chokers are either stupid or psychic...as pointed out before.
You may not be biased by using Schmidt...you are biased because the heart of your 'beliefs' are being shown to be wrong...and it hurts.
You, like 99% of sports fans, are brainwashed by 'clutch' thinking because of the media using the hero/goat aspect to create an exciting story to report....because that sells more papers and commercials than what the truth does
Don't be ashamed that they hooked you...you have a lot of company. >>
No, I'm like most fans who don't give a chit what the media thinks - we form our own opinions and viewpoints based on what we already know about the game and the new games we watch. And if you ever listen to 610 WIP sportstalk, you'll know that fans do sometimes disagree with members of the media on certain issues. I enjoy the media for info I'm not privy to which they are, but I don't need some media member to inform me whether or not ARod or Schmidt chokes because I've seen it.
By the way, your idol Bill James who has written a number of books and therefore would be considered part of the media, I think has you brainwashed. I'm not saying Bill James isn't interesting, I happen to respect those who create original ideas and opinions...but I am saying that Bill James was emphatically stating that Pete Rose didn't bet on baseball, despite the fact that almost everyone else figured Rose did, because logically Rose did, and of course Rose later admitted that he did. Your idol really blew that call, and there are many who disagree with some of the ideas of Bill James. Last time I checked, he's not some old guy with a long white beard standing on a cloud talking down to the people on earth. >>
You don't have to wait 17 years to see if Howard is a choker. Per YOUR criteria, he already is a choker since he has failed MISERABLY in the most pressure cooked situations.
Bottom line, the post season player is a myth, and it isn't a surprise that you believe in them like kids do in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.
Also, sports talk radio is just cliche ridden numb skulling entertainment. You claim you don't use the results of the players performance(stats) to determine how good they are/were, yet you do...only you choose the ones that poorly represent how good a player is...like RBI.
<< <i>SteveK,
You don't have to wait 17 years to see if Howard is a choker. Per YOUR criteria, he already is a choker since he has failed MISERABLY in the most pressure cooked situations.
Bottom line, the post season player is a myth, and it isn't a surprise that you believe in them like kids do in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny.
Also, sports talk radio is just cliche ridden numb skulling entertainment. You claim you don't use the results of the players performance(stats) to determine how good they are/were, yet you do...only you choose the ones that poorly represent how good a player is...like RBI. >>
<<< Also, sports talk radio is just cliche ridden numb skulling entertainment >>>
What then is analyzing mountains of sports stats under an electron microscope?
These are the saddest of possible words,
"Tinker to Evers to Chance."
Trio of bear cubs, and fleeter than birds,
Tinker and Evers and Chance.
Ruthlessly pr***ing our gonfalon bubble,
Making a Giant hit into a double –
Words that are heavy with nothing but trouble:
"Tinker to Evers to Chance."
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Hall of Fame Voting - 1951
We look at the voting now and criticize. Look at these votes. Jimmie Foxx gets in on the 7TH time on the ballot. Guys like Paul Waner and Hank Greenberg were just going through another year of waiting and not getting voted in. And it wasn't that the HOF was new and they had so many legends to vote in. Nobody got selected in 1950. There are dozens of future HOFers that are in the lower 2/3's of the voting. In 1963, the Veterans Committee voted in Sam Rice. In his 13th year of eligibility (1962) Rice got 50.6% of the vote. In 1951, he got one vote for 0.4%. I wonder how he went from one vote to 50% of the vote, to enshrinement. I also saw that Joe Dimaggio and Yogi Berra didn't get in on the first try.
<< <i><<< Also, sports talk radio is just cliche ridden numb skulling entertainment >>>
What then is analyzing mountains of sports stats under an electron microscope? >>
To create 200+ post threads.
<< <i>
What then is analyzing mountains of sports stats under an electron microscope? >>
Accurate.
<< <i>
<< <i>
What then is analyzing mountains of sports stats under an electron microscope? >>
Accurate. >>
Accurate like John Nash. LOL
The question was already answered, and it is accurate as Robin Hood.
It is good to see that you have judged your hero, Ryan Howard, as a choker who can't handle the big moments.
<< <i>SteveK,
The question was already answered, and it is accurate as Robin Hood.
It is good to see that you have judged your hero, Ryan Howard, as a choker who can't handle the big moments. >>
There you go again...I clearly implied that Howard shouldn't be judged until his career is over. Once again you distort what others mean, just like you distort the importance of your boatloads of stats.
Ryan Howard is not my hero. I've never "worshipped" sports stars or idolized them. I respect them for the athletic skills they have and the entertainment value they bring to the teams I root for, and that's good enough for me. Frankly, too many of them make poor role models.
You haven't judged players on their entire career, because you simply neglect the aspects that don't fit your view...like completely discounting Arod's post season last year by saying the Yankees would have won without him. So why start with Inflated RBI-Howard?
Arod's career Post Season OPS is higher than his regular season OPS. But instead, you only focus on the the 2005-2007 post season when he did his worst...or on your flawed and biased perceptions. Yeah, I know, Yankee fans felt that way too, and those perceptions are biased as well because they are irrational angry reactions from being fans.
So by YOUR criteria, Howard already is a choker, because by looking at what he has done in the toughest moments, he has failed miserably. One does not have to look at his successes, because by YOUR criteria you can just pick/choose the times you want and ignore the others.
ALso, Howard blew the world series for the Phils last year(and you blew something else), and they won easily and didn't need him when they did win it. So stop worshiping him and saying HE is a champion and such. By YOUR method he is not, just like you claim Arod is not.
But again, when you say a pro player is a big game player, you are also calling him STUPID or PSYCHIC.
The way you talk stupid about Howard certainly gives the impression he is your hero. Perhaps your boyfriend?
<< <i>SteveK,
You haven't judged players on their entire career, because you simply neglect the aspects that don't fit your view...like completely discounting Arod's post season last year by saying the Yankees would have won without him. So why start with Inflated RBI-Howard?
Arod's career Post Season OPS is higher than his regular season OPS. But instead, you only focus on the the 2005-2007 post season when he did his worst...or on your flawed and biased perceptions. Yeah, I know, Yankee fans felt that way too, and those perceptions are biased as well because they are irrational angry reactions from being fans.
So by YOUR criteria, Howard already is a choker, because by looking at what he has done in the toughest moments, he has failed miserably. One does not have to look at his successes, because by YOUR criteria you can just pick/choose the times you want and ignore the others.
ALso, Howard blew the world series for the Phils last year(and you blew something else), and they won easily and didn't need him when they did win it. So stop worshiping him and saying HE is a champion and such. By YOUR method he is not, just like you claim Arod is not.
But again, when you say a pro player is a big game player, you are also calling him STUPID or PSYCHIC.
The way you talk stupid about Howard certainly gives the impression he is your hero. Perhaps your boyfriend? >>
I knew you'd start acting like a little punk again sooner or later. You just can't help yourself can you?
Regardless of the adjective, it is a myth that those guys cannot handle the post season pressure, or guys all of a sudden get better because it is the post season. Yes, it is irrational for one to say that Arod is a choker because from 2005-2007 he did terrible in the post season...and then neglect all the other years where he did quite well. It is fanatic emotions driving those feelings.
THen you have morons try and justify their perception that Arod is a choker by saying that last years tremendous post season doesn't count against their argument because they feel the Yanks would have won it anyway. Are you freaking kidding me? Those are exactly the kind of dopes you hear on sports radio.
Not to mention that Arod had success BEFORE that post season drought too. Pure stupidity.
If there is a such thing as a post season player, then along with being a 'post season player,' the guys is also stupid or psychic, because he should be playing like that more often so they could get MORE post season appearances...or he is psychic because he knows he doesn't have to play that well in the regular season because he can see the future that he will be in the post season and he can just save his goodness for then.
I don't even know why I am elaborating on that...that notion was put to bed in another thread.
Since SteveK has never given a sound argument...he just has to live with Ryan Howard being one of the big chokers in baseball, and may just have to pull his pants up from his ankles.
If he did indeed have a trait of folding under pressure, I would expect him to falter defensively too. But in 152 Post Season chances, he made three errors. He should have been throwing the ball into the stands at least once a game if he couldn't handle pressure. All your guys claims are pure B.S.
So here is what we have on Arod...
His post season fielding was on par with what he always did in the regular season.
His overall post season hitting was on par with what he always did in the regular season.
His first 21 post season games he had 100 plate appearances with an OPS of 1.062
His next 14 post season games with a grand total of 61 plate apperances, he had the famous drought with an OPS of .401
His last 17 post season games with 77 plate apperances, he went nuts with a 1.297 OPS
You bet your arse it is irrational to say that Arod was a choker when people are focusing on a stretch of 61 plate apperances, and ignoring his two other stretches where he was flat out outstanding, and then making an unfounded claim that Arod could not handle pressure and was not a big game player!
Add the fielding fact above, and it is completely insane for anyone to make absurd claims.
Just laying the stuff out in a simple manner, and a little bit of logic, is often all it takes to debunk unfounded perceptions.
Like it is outlined above, anyone who makes their judgement based on those 61 plate appearances, is making an error. THere is nothing wrong to say that he was terrible in those 61 plate appearances, or he didn't come through. BUt to make a character judgement, or to downgrade what kind of player he was because of that, is stupid.
As outlined above, he showed what he could do in those pressure moments you are harping on. People just ignore them.
If he was a choker, or couldn't handle the pressure appropriately, he should have been making errors left and right. People ignore that. You bet your butt randomness is the biggest reason for guys who have weird post season stats.
Heck, look at David Ortiz. This guy was suppose to be a post season GOd. Now he has been flat out AWFUL in the post season. Given time, it evens out.
If there is a belief that a player is a post season player, then he is stupid or psychic also.
This same player had another completely different 61 plate apperance stretch where he had a .470 OPS with 5 runs and 4 RBI. He had two Arod like stretches that you are beefing about and have your arms up in the air!
OH, here is a 61 plate appearance stretch for one of your Yankee clutch heroes. How about a .562 OPS in a 61 consecutive post season stretch?? He had three RBI and 5 runs scored in that stretch. How good is that player? THat is pitiful as well, and an utter failure. Where is the beef on that guy??
OH, here is a 61 plate appearance stretch for one of your Yankee clutch heroes. How about a .562 OPS in a 61 consecutive post season stretch?? He had three RBI and 5 runs scored in that stretch. How good is that player? THat is pitiful as well, and an utter failure. Where is the beef on that guy??
This same player had another completely different 61 plate appearance stretch where he had a .470 OPS with 5 runs and 4 RBI. He had two Arod like stretches that you are beefing about which have your arms up in the air!
WHere is the disdain for him? Where are the same exact words you are using for Arod for him?? He did what Arod did, only twice. He also did what Arod did in his other post season performances...he did quite well.
Wrong, people do not understand, or they wouldn't be making claims that Arod can't handle the pressure or play in the big games. They are flat out wrong, either from a flawed perception, or an ax to grind.
People don't have to agree, they need to be...
Knowledgeable, fair, and objective, otherwise their words are worthless.
Yet, as outlined above with the defense and what he DID do in the post season, it shows the COMPLETE opposite of what you are saying.
Oh, and Jeter had a third post season stretch where in that 2006/07 run where his OPS was .469 over 24 plate apperances.
Jeter had abysmal stretches just like Arod, only he had THREE of them instead of one. He, like AROD, did quite well in his other times. It makes no difference what the rest of the team did to get a World Series title....we are looking at the individual.
If you are to ignore all of Arod's defensive plays, and other post season performances that were outstanding, and then focus merely on a 61 plate apperance stretch to claim that he was a choker, or choked, then you also have to say that Jeter choked like that in THREE instances, and then ignore his other performances like you are doing for Arod.
p.s. I know how fans act...they act stupid, biased, and irrational. I know why and when they call people chokers. That is why I am writing to show the folly in their ways.
I don't care how fans feel, or what else it takes to get him out of your doghouse. You were jilted...not very hard to understand. Fan WILL have those feelings. THose feelings lead to irrational claims and judgements.
If all you are saying is, "he pizzed me off for those two years," then just say that. However, that is not enough to argue against my point. Not deep enough evidence!
I am arguing against the point that Arod is a choker, and that he cannot handle big game pressure. THat is wrong. Flat out wrong. He did bad for a stretch just like guys who people think are the opposite of Arod. Jeter had THREE such stretches. Hitters tend to do that, in case you didn't know.
Fans put labels on these guys such as, 'he can't handle the pressure', or 'he is a big game player'. They don't look at everything, and they are wrong. If a creature like that exists in MLB, it certainly isn't Arod.
You FINALLY recognized fielding, but ignored Arod and used a Jeter example. If a big game choker existed in MLB, and Arod is that guy like MANY claim, then why was he able to handle the pressure and avoid throwing the ball into the stands every other player, and how on earth did he do this...
His post season fielding was on par with what he always did in the regular season. IF he couldn't handle pressure, then he should have made errors left and right.
His overall post season hitting was on par with what he always did in the regular season.
His first 21 post season games he had 100 plate appearances with an OPS of 1.062
His next 14 post season games with a grand total of 61 plate apperances, he had the famous drought with an OPS of .401
His last 17 post season games with 77 plate apperances, he went nuts with a 1.297 OPS
THe post season player does NOT exist in MLB, and guys don't have a trait of being able to raise their ability because it is a big game. Players do bad all the time in the post season, even Saints like Jeter. GIven enough at bats it tends to even out to the performance that they showed over their thousands of regular season at bats.
To make a claim because a player has a 15 game, or 61 at bat stretch, will give you an erroneous result. It may cure a fans need for venting, but won't tackle the issue I speak of.
I don't recall people saying Arod 'choked' they were saying he was not clutch during that period.
Big difference IMO.
Steve
You are arguing something completely different than I am. I fully understand the jilted feelings you had when you guys got Arod and he put that horrible stretch together, causing anger that they were eliminated from the playoffs. Since he was 'the man' that anger was directed at him.
THe problem is, people use that stretch to make the unsubstantiated claims that they do.
It has been said on these boards many times that Arod was not a big game player, and could not handle the pressure. I am addressing all who have said that. The basis of their argument stems from that 61 plate appearance stretch...and as laid out above, it would be foolish to make that claim.
Arod certainly could handle the pressure, and HE DID. He had a bad stretch just like many other players who are perceived to be post season, or big game players. If you are to say that Arod 'choked' during that stretch, that is fine. If you are to use that to claim that he could not handle pressure or perform in the big games,or label him a choker, then you are flat out wrong.
It is a myth that MLB has these so called big game players, or super stars that cannot handle the pressure of the big game. Just being able to get to MLB and sustaining a job is passing the pressure test already.
It is the nature of hitting to have many times like Arod...Jeter had three such times in the playoffs himself. Reggie Jackson was flat out awful in ALCS play. Arod was flat out awful in that 61 PA stretch, and outstanding BEFORE and AFTER that stretch.
If a player who hit like garbage in the post season was given the tag that he could not handle big game pressure...then his fielding should also reflect that to a high degree. Yet it usually doesn't. THose guys who are said to get nervous, or press, or whatever...should be throwing the ball into the stands because of those same adjectives. But they don't. THe nature of streaky failures with hitting is the culprit.
P.S. SItuational Batter Runs is a more precise measurement of what a player did, compared to standard batter runs. It tells you how much their hitting actually helped/hurt the team because of the timeliness of the hits. It is the common fans dream, and they don't even realize it! It eliminates people's claims and guesswork on how well of RBI guy they were, and such.
The amount situational batter runs changes a players impact compared to regular batter runs isn't that much. It is basically extra credit. If one were to make the argument that the hitting in those Men ON Base situations is also subject to chance and randomness like the post season, they can make a very good argument for their case.
I hate Arod by the way. Total liar and is everything that is wrong with baseball today.
How do you account this in Jeter's statistics?
Here is what I mean about fielding and the argument about the existence of post season players in MLB:
Somebody claims a player is a choker because he was awful at hitting in the post season. THey reason that they are human and cannot handle the pressure of big games. THey apply many adjectives as to why and how....they say the get nervous, they press, they get uncomfortable, they are out of their element, when the games get more important, etc...
If these players truly do have an inability to perform in the pressure, and those adjectives about them are true, then their nervousness or pressing, should also manifest itself when they are fielding a ball and having to throw it to first with a runner racing down the bag.
But it doesn't.
It is the streaky/failure nature of hitting at the root cause of their hitting woes, not some personality trait. Hitting is very prone to randomness/luck in so many ways. If it were a personality trait, it would be evident in the fielding too.
<< <i>Question for skin:
How do you account this in Jeter's statistics?
It counts as one putout, which is what it was. If you are a fan of Jeter, I suggest you stay away from a discussion of defense. He is a class guy, a first ballot HOFer, and a tremendous offensive player for the position. He is a bad defensive SS any way you look at it.
<< <i>It counts as one putout, which is what it was. If you are a fan of Jeter, I suggest you stay away from a discussion of defense. He is a class guy, a first ballot HOFer, and a tremendous offensive player for the position. He is a bad defensive SS any way you look at it. >>
No fanboy of Jeter here but that's not the point.
In your eyes, it's just another out. It's valued the same as a lazy pop fly to 3rd. Nothing more, nothing less.
Thanks for your response.
<< <i>
<< <i>It counts as one putout, which is what it was. If you are a fan of Jeter, I suggest you stay away from a discussion of defense. He is a class guy, a first ballot HOFer, and a tremendous offensive player for the position. He is a bad defensive SS any way you look at it. >>
No fanboy of Jeter here but that's not the point.
In your eyes, it's just another out. It's valued the same as a lazy pop fly to 3rd. Nothing more, nothing less.
Thanks for your response. >>
It is valued the same as a lazy pop-up. His hustle on the play appears as an extra putout, nothing more or less. A ground ball to his left would appear, most likely, as a single up the middle. If he hustles to more balls, it will appear in the stats. If he has a slow first step, or can not go to his left, that will appear as well.
<< <i>It is valued the same as a lazy pop-up. His hustle on the play appears as an extra putout, nothing more or less. A ground ball to his left would appear, most likely, as a single up the middle. If he hustles to more balls, it will appear in the stats. If he has a slow first step, or can not go to his left, that will appear as well. >>
How can you account for "extra putouts" if there's no footage of the play?