Re: Just Arod being Arod

On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 19:08:20 -0400, Kenny1111 <kcyanks1@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

EGK wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 17:46:55 -0400, Kenny1111 <kcyanks1@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

EGK wrote:
On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 17:19:20 -0400, Kenny1111 <kcyanks1@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

EGK wrote:
Perhaps the difference is for myself I can accept statistics without being a
slave to them. I value them enough I don't go around calling him A-Fraud
or saying he sucks. On the other hand, I value intangibles much higher
than I think you do for instance. Heart, guts, nerve. Whatever you wish to
call it.
And the point is that in the end, if "[h]eart, guts, [and] nerve"
matter, they will lead to better or worse statistics. Do you disagree?
Only in certain situations which brings us back to how people feel about
someone like Scott Brocious for instance. In his case timely play overroad
his statistics.
Which gets us back to mixing points. You went back to "how people feel"
rather than answering my question, which was: '[I]f "[h]eart, guts,
[and] nerve" matter, they will lead to better or worse statistics. Do
you disagree?'

Now you're just being purposely obtuse. Do you deny that a lot of Yankee
fans think much more highly of Brocious than his statistics may warrent? I
personally think he had a winning mentality and winning did make him in NY
not his yearly statistics. Personally he's not my favorite ball player but
I was using him as an example because his name came up in a thread where
someone said they'd take him over ARod.

No, I'm not being "purposely obtuse." I am trying to discuss the issue I
find relevant. No, I don't deny that "a lot of Yankee fans" think that
about Brosius. I just don't care to discuss it, because those fans are
not hear to discuss it with me.



I will rephrase: Say player A has lots of heart, guts, and nerve.
Player B has very little heart, guts, and nerve. They have similar raw
ability. Will player A's heart, guts, and nerve, lead him to have
better statistics in clutch situations? Will player B's lack of heart,
guts, and nerve lead him to have worse statistics in clutch situations?
What is your personal view on this matter, regardless of what you think
others think, and regardless of any real life players?

My personal view is some awfully good players choke when the heat is on. How
much is impossible to say. Sometimes all it takes is one at bat in a
critical time to be considered clutch forever. Winning makes failures of
the past go away. Winfield winning a WS with Toronto for instance. On the
flip side is Reggie Jackson. I never particularly liked him because of the
circus that often surrounded him but there's no denying what he did in
October. ARod has a hell of a long way to go to match Reggie in Yankee lore
no matter what statistics he piles up.

You didn't answer my question, at least not directly. Aside from that
you went right back to actual examples, you didn't directly address the
question.

My take: If a winning player "chokes" -- say, strikes out on three
pitches, it's in his stats. If he chokes a lot, he'll have bad
close-late/RISP/etc. stats. If he steps up, or whatever one would call
it, he will have good close-late/RISP/etc. stats. We can (1) examine
these stats for any individual player, and compare them to that player's
overall stats. We also can (2) examine, in the aggregate, whether these
stats have predictive value for future similar situations, as compared
to overall stats. Do you agree?

No I don't agree with you because you look at the stats as if they're all
alike. You're not going to convince me that a big hit in a big series with
Boston is the same as a big hit in a series with Kansas City. That's why I
used examples which you appear not to like. Timing is important not just in
what it does to the stats or even the won/lost column. It's one of those
pesky intangibles. Melky's catch lastnight is a perfect example. It's much
more important in my mind because of who it was against and what it can do
for the morale of the club.

One more point I'd like to add to what I said above about not calling him
AFraud or whatever. You seem to want to put me or anyone else criticizing
him at all in to the camp of "hater" and that's bull*** and a big reason
this goes on and on. It's amazing to me to read the same names bitching
and moaning on here about Cairo for instance while giving the supposed
greatest player in baseball a pass for a 3 pitch strikeout.
How many times within the span of 24 hours do I have to point out the
distinction between the literal meaning of the word "hate[]" and the way
I, and others, often use it?

Go read some of the posts about Cairo. They sure do sound like a lot more
than people just saying he can't hit.

Go read *my* posts about Cairo and show me where I "hate" him, by the
literal definition of the word. You like to speak for other people. I
don't, unless I explicitly say that I'm expressing what I believe to be
the view of others.

"Cairo ***" is a current header. When people post something inflamatory
like that about ARod, you and the usual suspects start the storm of sarcasm.
Cairo has been fine for the role he was signed to play. He's not a star and
he's not even a regular. He was meant as a backup for all the infielders. I
think it's fair to criticize Joe for playing him at first base.


I don't believe that I am "giving the supposed greatest player in
baseball a pass." (I also have never said ARod is the "greatest" player
in baseball.) I don't think anyone ever needs a "pass" for one plate
appearance. I don't judge performance on fine levels like that. I get
upset or happy based on the results, but it does not affect my views of
the players.

Those timely plate appearances add up after a while. To you they're ALWAYS
just one.

Each "one" is "ALWAYS just one," yes. A season's worth of ones is a
season, not one. I don't see how this is hard to understand. They do
add up. And when we look at them added-up, as I and others have pointed
out countless times, ARod's "clutch" numbers are GOOD. I will repeat
myself: When "add[ed] up," ARod's "clutch" numbers are GOOD. Hence,
you look foolish when you whine about one at-bat, when we know in the
long run that he has been good, and we have every reason to expect that
going forward he will be good. (Usual caveat on clutch hitting stats
applies, of course.)

See above. I don't think we'll never agree on this. Timing means a lot
more to me than it does to you I think. I don't mean time of game but
things like who the opponent is as well as the situation. Another example
( though I know you hate them). Both Big Papi and Manny have been Yankee
killers. *I* (as opposed to everyone else who posts the same thing) worry
when they come to bat against us because they've hurt us so bad. I won't
speak for Boston fans but I really don't believe ARod strikes fear in the
hearts of Beantown. At least not yet. That's what I want to see from him.
*I* find things like that important but heck, ARod can always carry his
stats to the batters box with him next time showing what he did last week
against KC.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"There would be a lot more civility in this world if people
didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you"
(Calvin and Hobbes)
.