Bagels & Biscuits

Do you prefer bagels and cream cheese or biscuits and gravy? Football on Saturdays or Sundays? Big 10 or SEC? The Braves or the Yankees? You know what? It doesn't matter. You can have it all right here.

Monday, December 11, 2006

Three years later, Yankees recover what they lost

Three years ago, it was hard to understand why the New York Yankees parted with Andy Pettitte. He was a productive southpaw who was more effective against right-handed hitters, pitching in a home ballpark that had deep dimensions in left-center field.

More importantly he was a proven performer in the postseason. Now that Pettitte is back after three seasons with the Houston Astros, the Yankees have improved their chances to return to the World Series for the first time since 2003.

Since it's pretty much a given that New York will be playing in October each year, why haven't the Yankees focused before on landing and keeping pitchers who have had a strong track record in the postseason? New York hasn't missed the playoffs since 1993 (1994 doesn't count because of the strike), so the Yankees can take a different approach than most teams.

They should and can go after guys like Pettitte and Orlando Hernandez, who has at times looked lost between April and September only to turn it around when the klieg lights were brighter than ever and each moment was tense.


Both Hernandez and Pettitte are perfect fits for New York. Nothing fazes them. They are clutch.
In many ways, Houston was never going to reap the return from its investment in Pettitte that the Yankees did and still could. The Astros made the playoffs just once during his time there and Pettitte may not warrant being paid his asking price of $14 million for what he does in the regular season.

But as Houston should have considered when it was negotiating with him is that Pettitte is valuable not only for his postseason potential but also for the influence he exerts over Roger Clemens. Clemens, who has seven Cy Young awards, has been teammates with his good friend since coming over to the Yankees in 1999. They hang out with each other, they work out together, and their career paths intertwined for the last seven years. It's Pettitte and Clemens. Clemens and Pettitte.

You think Pettitte could convince his good buddy to come out of retirement and take the mound for the Yanks again? It doesn't seem too far-fetched and if that's the case New York will be getting another pitcher who has been very successful in the postseason. Only someone who is naive would think Yankees general manager Brian Cashman hasn't thought about this.

Six years removed from their last title, Cashman and New York have finally realized that it's not the players who put up numbers during the regular season that bring championships; it's the guys that have a knack for getting the job done in October. That's why former third baseman Scott Brosius, a .257 lifetime hitter, is loved by New Yorkers while the guy now playing his position, future Hall-of-Fame inductee Alex Rodriguez, has been skewered.

Pettitte is what the Yankees need. Three years after the fact, they finally realized what they were missing.

66 Comments:

  • At 1:38 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "Since it's pretty much a given that New York will be playing in October each year, why haven't the Yankees focused before on landing and keeping pitchers who have had a strong track record in the postseason?"

    The Yankees try to acquire the best talent they can, period. The postseason is a small sample size of games, where lesser players who play well can shine. This does not mean they magically become better players in the postseason, just that they happened to play well for the time period. By acquiring the best talent, they give themselves the best odds that they will replicate their career norms in the small sampled postseason.

    This notion of "stepping up" is silly. I've heard drivel over the radio where they say the Yankees need to acquire more Brosius types who "step it up" when the chips are down. I guess Cashman should try to pick out these special people from a pool of .240 hitters rather than trading for the ARod's of the world. Yes, some players handle pressure better than others, but they don't instantly improve in these situations.

     
  • At 1:57 PM EST, Blogger Rainer Sabin said…

    Thanks for the comment. All good points. I don't think the Yankees haven't tried to make the right moves. But some of them have been ill-advised. I think the difference between the recent teams and the ones that won championships in the 1990s is the lack of role players and the absence of a solid core of players developed within their farm system. Most of the Yankees now are mercenaries. Pettitte, Derek Jeter, Bernie Williams all started their careers with the Yankees.
    Brosius, Paul O'Neill, Chad Curtis and Shane Spencer — while not necessarily All-Star material every year or any year for that matter — played vital roles on the team, especially in the postseason. They played well at the most critical of times.

     
  • At 2:29 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I agree with commenter number one. Get the best players and let God sort out the fly outs from 2-baggers. Eventually the talent will show through, so you shouldn't judge based on a small number of at-bats. Oh how quickly we forget...

    SS Derek Jeter, 01ALDS-01WS ... 17 G, .226/.262/.290, 5 R, 1 HR, 4 RBI, 0.47 RC/G

    AND

    98ALDS-98WS 13 G, .235/.328/.294, 7 R, 0 HR, 3 RBI, 0.77 RC/G

    OF Babe Ruth, 18WS-22WS ... 14 G, .211/.333/.368, 4 R, 1 HR, 7 RBI, 0.71 RC/G

    OF Mickey Mantle, 61WS-63WS ... 13 G, .130/.216/.217, 3 R, 1 HR, 1 RBI, 0.23 RC/G

    C Yogi Berra, 47WS-50WS ... 14 G, .140/.204/.260, 6 R, 2 HR, 5 RBI, 0.64 RC/G

    Stats courtesy of http://firejoemorgan.blogspot.com/2006/10/truly-gods-work.html

     
  • At 2:41 PM EST, Blogger Rainer Sabin said…

    The point is that the Yankees can not only go after guys who are "stars" they can also go after the ones who perform well in the clutch. They have the resources to carry guys who may seem like dead weight in the regular season but are great in the playoffs.
    There was never any reason to send Orlando Hernandez packing. He's a very versatile pitcher and versatility is important in October. By the way, whatever happened to Ramiro Mendoza?

     
  • At 3:16 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    The point is that the Yankees can not only go after guys who are "stars" they can also go after the ones who perform well in the clutch. They have the resources to carry guys who may seem like dead weight in the regular season but are great in the playoffs.

    But this is exactly the myth we're talking about here. Can you provide any statistical expamples of these players that can't be countered with "small sample size"?

    I never wanted them to get rid of El Duque, and really thought they missed the boat by not bagging him as their #5. Then, the playoffs came around, and he was injured.

     
  • At 3:23 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I'd love for you to give me some examples of players who will "perform well in the clutch." This whole thing is ludicrous, and you should probably just throw your computer out.

     
  • At 3:34 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     
  • At 3:42 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Jason you're wrong. Players do step up. Some people thrive in a high pressure environment. Look at Lincoln Hawk in Over the Top. He just flipped his hat around and it was like a switch.

     
  • At 4:52 PM EST, Blogger Steve Bernard said…

    I think there is a good parallel here that can help defend Rainer's point - the USA Basketball team. Just throwing together a bunch of players who are individually good, yet they struggle. Role players are absolutely vital to any team and role players who perform well in the clutch are even better. USA Basketball is trying to adjust this by bringing in players like Bruce Bowen who fit certain roles. The Yankees used to do this by having guys like Scott Brosius or Luis Sojo. A bunch of all-stars playing together aren't always going to make up the best team.

    Just thinking off the top of my head - a guy name Endy Chavez for the Mets was pretty clutch this season. Numbers were great with runners in scoring position and he flashed the leather with the best of them when called upon to play, while manning three different outfield positions throughout the season. Role players who are solid in important situations help define a team. The Yankees, like USA basketball have been lacking players like this for a few years.

     
  • At 4:53 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Since it seems you didn't bother checking, here's Scott Brosius' "knack for getting the job done in October":
    a postseason line of .245 / .278 / .418.
    (196 AB over 12 postseason series from 1998 - 2001)

    And how did Brosius, who hit one of the 9th inning miracle HRs in the 2001 WS, bat overall in that series?
    .167 / .167 / .375

    "Clutch". Please. Stop embarassing yourselves and just retract your blog post now.

     
  • At 5:02 PM EST, Blogger Rainer Sabin said…

    If i recall, Brosius hit a game-winning home run off Kim in 2001. He also won the World Series MVP in 1998. I guess that doesn't count for being clutch...only stats do. My fault. I should have known

     
  • At 5:04 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    If a guy hits .167 for a series, how is that clutch?

     
  • At 5:06 PM EST, Blogger Rainer Sabin said…

    I guess it dependd on what hits add up to the .167 average. Baseball is not played in a vacuum.

     
  • At 5:07 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Something can only count as being "clutch" only if you believe in "clutch".

    And if you do, I guess you also believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy.

    Because the existence of all the above are equally provable.

     
  • At 5:09 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Yay Bruce!

     
  • At 5:13 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Don't you think that the fact that Brosius was so impotent in the 2001 series may have contributed to the fact that they ended up losing? Perhaps if he had hit consistently well throughout the series, instead of getting one big hit, there would not have been a need for such heroics. Baseball is not played in a vacuum.

    And please don't try to compare it to basketball. The yankees didn't lose because A-Rod and Giambi can't share the ball, and they didn't have a defensive stopper like David Eckstein to shut down Magglio Ordonez. There is no passing in baseball, there are no plays, there is no real teamwork of any kind. Baseball is a team game in pretty much the same way as team bowling. Getting no-hit by Jeremy Bonderman for six innings has nothing to do with chemstry. It's called "bad hitting."

    Also of note: Endy Chavez had a .229/.226/.286 line in the playoffs this year, and had a .262/.328/.344 line on the season in C&L situations.

    You want me to believe in clutch? Prove it to me.

     
  • At 5:14 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    You cannot argue Brosius' home run wasn't clutch. With two outs in the bottom of the ninth, that is a high pressure situation. That's clutch.

     
  • At 5:15 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "Rainer Sabin said...
    If i recall, Brosius hit a game-winning home run off Kim in 2001. He also won the World Series MVP in 1998. I guess that doesn't count for being clutch...only stats do. My fault. I should have known"

    It seems you may be missing the point. Yes, Brosius did do that, but what we're talking about is the probability of him doing it AGAIN. It's not like Brosius transforms into Babe Ruth when the chips are down. He's performed incredibly in a few spots. You're talking about basically guessing which average players will be able to do that again. Your best odds are by having the best players.

     
  • At 5:16 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     
  • At 5:19 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I agree with Jason. The best players give you the best chance of winning. That's common sense. Would you rather have a player like Arod or would you rather have David Eckstein? Who do you think improves your chances of winning?

     
  • At 5:20 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     
  • At 5:20 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "You cannot argue Brosius' home run wasn't clutch. With two outs in the bottom of the ninth, that is a high pressure situation. That's clutch."

    Wow. I'm sopping up the blood leaking from my eyes, hold on...

    Ok. Yes. The HIT was clutch. The player was not. If Scott Brosius was clutch, perhaps he could have turned the DP in the 9th in game 7. Or maybe he would have gotten a meaningful hit at any other time in the series.

    That is the point, ace. There is no "clutch" skill set. While Brosius did have a big, monstrous, mammoth home run off of Kim, in the next clutch situation he walked into, he was likely to hit like Scott Brosius again. In Scott Brosius' career, he had a .244/.329/.396 line with RISP, a .254/.335/.434 line in C&L situations, and his career postseason line was .245/.278/.418. Not clutch.

     
  • At 5:22 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    That makes no sense, brisco. Show me all the stats you want. His HR was clutch. Brosius was a World Series MVP. That is also clutch. You're putting the magazine before the olive.

     
  • At 5:23 PM EST, Blogger Rainer Sabin said…

    Not guessing. You look at guys like Suppan and he was very valuable to the Cardinals in the 2004 and 2006 playoffs. Not great in the regular season, very good in the postseason. It's not just a numbers game. There is a human element to it. It's why guys like Rick Ankiel, Mark Wohlers and Mackey Sasser are mysteries. Stats can't quzntify what happened to them.

     
  • At 5:24 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    So Rainer, do you think Suppan presses some type of button and becomes a better pitcher in the postseason? Your argument implies that he pitches different in the playoffs than he does in the regular season.

     
  • At 5:27 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Matt, I repeat:

    The home run was a clutch hit. I don't disagree that Brosius had a monster series in the 1998 WS. (.471/.471/.824) However, what I am refuting is the idea that this was a specific skill that Brosius had, and I've proved it by showing other data of his that could be construed as "clutch." His "clutch situation" numbers throughout his career almost exactly mirror his regular numbers, and his postseason numbers are substantially worse than his regular season numbers.

    What you seem to want to do is to take a tiny amount of anecdotal evidence, and use it to declare a guy clutch. What are we talking about here? One home run in a series his horrible hitting largely contributed to a loss in, and a good four game stretch, 3 years apart. Brosius, as a player, was not clutch, because there is no such skill. There is no such thing as a clutch player. Brosius regular tendency to fail in clutch situations throughout his career should be proof that he isn't one.

     
  • At 5:27 PM EST, Blogger Rainer Sabin said…

    Perhaps he does. How am I supposed to know what makes him tick? That's why they do psychological profiles on draft picks.

     
  • At 5:29 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    brisco you could not be more wrong. Brosius hit a HR in an intense situation. That's clutch. Again, you're putting the cotton swab before the pine tree. Not many people could perform like this in that situation. Scotty was clutch and he was great at the barehand grab. He also had a good batting stance, which enabled him to hit the HR. You are totally off-base.

     
  • At 5:29 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Perhaps he does? Perhaps he does press a button that makes him pitch better? Don't you think it's more likely that he just had two good starts in the NLCS? Is that really that hard to believe? We have to believe in magic, voodoo, and karma instead?

    I can't believe I got suckered into this debate. What a waste of time.

     
  • At 5:30 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "Rainer Sabin said...
    Not guessing. You look at guys like Suppan and he was very valuable to the Cardinals in the 2004 and 2006 playoffs. Not great in the regular season, very good in the postseason. It's not just a numbers game. There is a human element to it. It's why guys like Rick Ankiel, Mark Wohlers and Mackey Sasser are mysteries. Stats can't quzntify what happened to them."

    So you would rather have Suppan over a pitcher with much better overall career number who may have had a bad playoff series? You think Suppan will always outperform his numbers in the postseason?

     
  • At 5:34 PM EST, Blogger Rainer Sabin said…

    I think this is an interesting discussion. I can see your side of the argument, Jason. I just think it's interesting the baseball can spark this debate and I am glad "Moneyball" came out and gave the sabermetrics guys a chance to deliver their argument. It's just fun to talk about.

     
  • At 5:37 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    It isn't a discussion, Ranier, because you have absolutely no evidence for your point of you. You keep presenting questionable examples and citing them as "proof" of clutch. The numbers argument wins, because it is an actual record of what happened, as opposed to a record of what you "think" "seemed" to be the case.

     
  • At 5:38 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I'm typing too fast, I know I just butchered "point of view."

     
  • At 5:38 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Bottom line is the best players give you the highest probability of winning.

    If your team was comprised entirely of Scott Brosius', you would probably have the worst record in baseball.

     
  • At 5:44 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    The examples are not questionable. Explain to me how Brosius' HR was not clutch. Arod would have never done that. He hasn't prove that ability. Brosius has no fear in those situations. He's like Tino, Bernie, Paul, Mariano, and the Gooch. Give me all the number you want. You cannnot calculate fearlessness.

     
  • At 5:45 PM EST, Blogger Rainer Sabin said…

    Apparently not. How does Japan finish ahead of the U.S. in the World Baseball Classic? Does Japan really have better players? Does Canada?

    Explain that one. Explain how why the Yankees haven't made the World Series since 2003, despite having a better team on paper than the ones in the late 1990s. You can't. We all know Paul O'Neill is not better than Gary Sheffield or even Bobby Abreu, Tino Martinez is inferior to Jason Giambi, bad-throwing Chuck Knoblauch not as good as Cano — and yet the Yanks have not won the World Series with these guys.

    Stats son't tell the whole story. They never will.

     
  • At 5:49 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Good points, rainer. Stats won't ever tell the whole story. Neither will a narrator of a documentary. Special players raise to the occassion when the milk has been spilled. Paul O'Neil was one of the guys. Charlie Hayes was another. Scott Brosius. Jim Leyritz. Derek Jeter. Gary DiSarcina. Soriano. All these guys produced in the most nerve-racking situations.

     
  • At 5:49 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "Apparently not. How does Japan finish ahead of the U.S. in the World Baseball Classic? Does Japan really have better players? Does Canada?

    Explain that one. Explain how why the Yankees haven't made the World Series since 2003, despite having a better team on paper than the ones in the late 1990s. You can't."

    Yes I can: Sample size. Do you watch baseball? The best teams in baseball almost always lose more than 60 games a year. Sometimes they lose 3 or 4 in a row. Often they lose 3 of 5 or 4 of 7. Unfortunately, sometimes this happens in the playoffs. It has nothing to do with the special something that O'Neill, Brosius, Pettitte, and Knoblauch had. It's luck.

     
  • At 5:53 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Good teams should be able to rise in key situations. Basically, what you're saying is that it's all a matter of timing. It isn't all luck. Teams have to rise to the occassion. That is what makes a good team great.

     
  • At 5:54 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    We agree with ranier and matt.

     
  • At 5:55 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    You're not fully clean unless you're Zest-fully clean.

     
  • At 5:55 PM EST, Blogger Rainer Sabin said…

    It's all chance, really? That argument belittles the achievements of any player who has stepped in the batter's box or climbed the mound. I think Reggie Jackson would take umbrage with your musings. Baseball is not a coin-flipping contest.

     
  • At 5:57 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Another awesome point, Rainman. There is skill involves in baseball, no? Brisco makes it seem like baseball is like betting at a roulette table. That's just not right. Not right at all. Do you watch baseball, brisco? There's such a thing as elasticity of hitting components.

     
  • At 5:58 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Playoff baseball is more about the lucky draw of statistical variation than it is about magic and clutch. If you think otherwise, you have an IQ of 19.

     
  • At 6:00 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     
  • At 6:01 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     
  • At 6:02 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Insult me all you want but you still haven't proved me wrong.

     
  • At 6:04 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

     
  • At 6:06 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    The 2006 Detroit Tigers are the most obvious example of the lucky draw of statistical variation.

    Granderson, Monroe, Polanco & Ordonez completely crapped the bed overall in the WS.

    Is it because they could only step it up in ALDS and ALCS but not in the WS?

     
  • At 6:09 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    the tigers made it to the world series. the yankees didn't. your argument holds no water.

     
  • At 6:13 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    stephen goule said...
    the tigers made it to the world series. the yankees didn't. your argument holds no water.

    You're clearly an idiot and the argument is perfectly fine.

     
  • At 6:29 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    The only truth we have discovered here today is that I have personally vaulted your blog into the stratosphere. I have increased your average comment count by 2500%

    I demdand front page credentials now, immediately, lest you be cast aside like previous others, and suffer the same fate, as you sink back into obscurity.

     
  • At 6:30 PM EST, Blogger Rainer Sabin said…

    Jason, we appreciate your contributions. You have indeed managed to increase traffic.

     
  • At 7:35 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    What I think is interesting here is we've failed to address the original premise of this post, which was based on the idea that Andy Pettitte is a postseason clutch superhero, and the Yankees were dumb to let him walk. Pettitte's postseason ERA is 4.08, compared to a regular season ERA of 3.81, and his postseason ERA includes some real stinkbombs, like his chokefests in the 1997 ALCS, the 1998 ALCS, the 1999 WS, the 2001 WS, and the 2002 ALDS.

     
  • At 8:01 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Very true, Brisco.

    However, you're neglecting the fact that Pettitte has 4 rings, and no way does a player get all those without being superclutchitudinous.

     
  • At 8:06 PM EST, Blogger Steve Bernard said…

    Wow, I go out for dinner and come back to see this article has sparked some serious debate. Let me just thank everything for throwing out their opinion. When we started the blog, we were hoping for this kind of debate.

    Now - just a couple of responses to those who commented on my response. I know Bruce Bowen did not play on the US team at the World Championships, but he is still part of the team and can be put on the roster for any tournament. Two or three years ago, guys like Bowen don't even get invited to camp.

    Endy Chavez struggled some during the playoffs I am aware. But you can't say he didn't perform in important situations throughout the season.

    It's scientific fact that all people respond to different various stimulii and situations - including stressful situations. It's a fact of life. Some professional athletes thrive on stressful situations just like anyone else in the world at their jobs. Some people work best close to a deadline at work where there is more stress and pressure to get things done. Professional athletes are no different.

    Whether it be baseball, basketball or an office building in midtown Manhattan, companies/teams have to find the right mix of workers to get the most out of a team. And that includes having people who perform different in varying circumstances.

    Finding a guy who is a proven winner doesn't mean just taking the best person statistically. Winning can't be measured purely by statistics. There is no way to define clutch statistically in sports. That is why this debate has been so damn good.

    Being "clutch" is no different than guys who struggle to play in New York and are characterized as such.

     
  • At 8:24 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "There is no way to define clutch statistically in sports."

    Sorry, but that's a copout by those who so badly want to believe. You could easily define "clutch" statistically if it existed - by seeing certain players' stats elevate consistently, over time, over their averages in pressure situations and/or big games. It would be a repeatable skill.

    Honestly, "clutch" would be a piece of cake to prove.

    And, taking this back to what is most of our real worlds...you know who the people at work are who consistently thrive on deadline? They're the same people who typically do a superior job regardless of the circumstances.

    Just like in baseball.

     
  • At 8:33 PM EST, Blogger Steve Bernard said…

    I think the real-world example is valid. I have absolutely worked and seen and worked with people who work better the closer you get to a deadline. They could have all the time in the world, but won't complete or even start a project until the last minute possible so as to have that extra pressure and deadline looming.

    As for stats, yeah, I guess you could look at a players stats in baseball say after the seventh inning or in close games, sure. That would be a good way to measure it. I bet you'd be surprised to see some guys on lists who excel in those spots that aren't the biggest of stars. Why is it that some players just win consistently regardless of where they go?

    Again, I go back to my first comment, I honestly would not want a team of only all-stars. It has proven that does not work. Role players are essential to peak performance in team sports.

     
  • At 8:35 PM EST, Blogger Steve Bernard said…

    Oh, and those who thrive at the deadline aren't always the best in non-deadline situations. I work in a business where deadlines are continual, and people just flat out perform differently with deadlines.

     
  • At 9:23 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    The original response was to the point in the article that said the Yankees should carry guys who may be poor in the regular season, yet good in the postseason. It was not about clutch situations vs. non-clutch.

    If you believe this, then you believe that Brian Cashman should look at average players who have done well in the playoffs, and acquire them over players who put up much better career numbers. If he operated like that, he would be sellig used cars within a very short time.

     
  • At 10:45 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Well, what we've learned tonight is that there's no way to convince people who believe in "clutch" and "stepping up" as a repeatable skill and the dreaded "players who know how to win" that they're woefully misguided.

    To these people, platitudes, cliches and empty, feelgood statements >>> facts, data and the most basic statistical principles.

     
  • At 1:00 AM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    baseball is the most boring sport ever, but it is a sport and hence it is a contest between humans. It's not played by robots and therefore there is some psychology behind the stats. There is no way anyone can convince me that some players don't perform differently when the pressure is on. I don't care for baseball, but take a look at Peyton Manning. EXCELLENT stats throughout the year but can't seem to win the big one when the chips are on the table. Statistically speaking, he should have won the big game by now, but he hasn't. He chokes. It's mental and some players can't handle it. Some can. That I believe is the point. When you have the ability to have anyone you want on your team, you can pick people who are statistically excellent in both regular season and post season.

     
  • At 7:40 AM EST, Blogger Steve Bernard said…

    Brisco,

    Clearly we are going to disagree on this one, but I have just one last question for you ---- With the game on the line (whether April 1 or Oct. 25), who would you rather have up to bat, Alex Rodriguez or Derek Jeter?

    The only way you can answer that given your argument is by saying Alex Rodriguez. But, it is painfully obvious to any sports fan who has watched the Yankees at all the last couple of years, the answer is Jeter. And for Yankees fans Jeter is the guy over absolutely anyone who's played Major League Baseball the past 10 years.

    I'm sorry I don't have stats to back up everything I see in sports (Kendrick great reference to Manning by the way). But there are guys who are proven winners, for whatever reason. Pettitte is among those guys - Kevin Brown, Carl Pavano and Jaret Wright (Wright hasn't performed well in a big game in about 10 years) not so much.

     
  • At 10:12 AM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Looking at the 2004 - 2006 seasons:

    Player A: .299 / .396 / .549
    Player B: .315 / .386 / .468

    Both are good batting lines, but which one would you rather have at the plate with the game on the line?

    You really have to say Player A based on the higher OBP and SLG.

    Player A is A-Rod, Player B is Jeter.

    People have selective memories. People are easily swayed by what they see in the media and hear from their friends & colleagues. People refer to stats like "close & late" that are essentially meaningless because of how they're defined and the sample sizes yielded.

    And just because people, Yankee fans included, would pick Jeter over A-Rod at the plate doesn't make it the right choice.

     
  • At 10:17 AM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "Pettitte is among those guys - "

    Pettitte has good numbers in the regular season. The article says that the Yankees should draft players who aren't good in the regular season yet shine in the playoffs.

    I don't think anyone would argue that pressure situations exist and that athletes at any level can be affected by them. The point is that there are not bad players who magically become good in those situations all the time. There are bad players who have done well in big spots, but logical thinking says it won't happen consistently.

     
  • At 2:33 PM EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    How can you have a discussion about "clutch" regular season or post-season without David Ortiz's name being mentioned?

    What you need to assemble a world championship caliber team first and foremost is pitching... then you need a lot of luck and good timing... and then you need hitting.

    Those Tiger hitters didn't crap the bed in the World Series, they crapped the bed all year long. It was the Tiger pitching and defense that magically disappeared.

    The biggest difference between those late 90s Yankee teams and the ones of today is the middle relief. I don't know the numbers, but Torre hasn't had confidence a single relief pitcher (not including their setup and closer studs).

    If the Yankees would've kept Petitte, there would still be 6 year old kids wandering around NYC wondering if they would ever see the Yankees win the WS.

    And also, Clemens is NOT a playoff superhero... I cant name a lot more big playoff game Losses and No Decisions than I can Wins with him on the mound...

     

Post a Comment

<< Home