Go Back   Cigar Weekly Community Forums and Discussion Groups > Community Centers > The Sports Bar

The Sports Bar A place for cigar smokin' sports fans to discuss the latest.

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 11-16-2007, 12:23 PM   #36
cjv
Herf Meister
 
cjv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Edinburg, TX
Posts: 5,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by monteman
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjv
Quote:
Originally Posted by monteman
In the last 3 years of post-season play, here are A-Rod's stats...over 13 games....
BA: 7 for 44 or .159 with 15 K's
1 HR & 1 RBI in 13 games over 44 AB's (and that came in the meaningless last inning of loss to Cleveland)

Granted - he helped get to the post-season - but those numbers are damnimg..he in the post-season..
Those numbers are damning? I think you could probably find a 13-game stretch for ANY player with worse numbers. And you could probably find a 13-game stretch where any player has Barry Bonds numbers.

13 games is a miniscule sample size.

Chris
I humbly disagree. Those 13 games were over 3 consecutive years - meaning he didn't produce in 3 straight years of post-season play. If that isn't a pattern
Meaning he didn't produce is 13 games scattered over 3 years. And you call that a pattern? IIf you are driving and hit 13 red lights in a row, is that a pattern? Are you more prone to getting stuck at a red light? No, you are just experience random fluctuation. In 13 games, ANYONE could put up horrible numbers, or put up great numbers. It is still ONLY 13 games, an extremely small subsample when measuring a baseball players ability.

And why only use the past three years? It's pretty convenient to exclude 2004, when he hit .320/.414/.600 in the post season because that doesn't jibe with your point. Yet according to you, it should fall in the same category since it is four continuous years. But the truth is that 24 games is STILL a small sample size.

In his career, he has hit .279/.373/.483 in the postseason, not "best player in the world" but far from horrible. That was in 39 games - still a somewhat small sample size, but better than 13 games.

That fact is that judging a player on 13 games, 44 at bats is pretty silly. That's like saying when someone start the beginning of the year and is on pace to hit 120 home runs after 13 games, he is the best player ever. It is a miniscule sample size, and shouldn't be used to judge a player.

Don't get me wrong, I am glad he isn't with the Red Sox. I am in now way an Arod apologist - I think he brings discontent with him where ever he goes, and I think he is a phony. I don't want him on my team because I think he disrupts everything. But the fact is that he is one of, if not THE, best player we have ever seen, and judging him, or any player, on 13 selected games is just silly.

Chris
__________________
Christopher John Vitek

"Stupid stupid rat creatures"

Twitter: @skeetobite | Google+: ChrisVitek | Game Center: DRSKEETO
cjv is offline   Reply With Quote
 

Bookmarks
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:25 AM.