2002 Angels facing Yankees in ALDS had Kevin Appier with postseason experience while NY had over a hundred games of postseason experience. These guys have played thousands of games in their lives and a little more hype hardly affect their routine. Postseason experience means nothing.

So coherent on one hand with the whole "postseason experience isn't nearly as important as it's made out to be", and yet so off on the other hand with the whole "postseason players have it in their blood."

You'd think the Rockies would have debunked the myth of postseason experience last year. Or the 2006 Tigers. Or the 2003 Marlins. Or the 2002 Angels. Or the 2002 Giants...

They're too young to know they're supposed to be intimidated!!!

Like I said in 2002, going into the playoffs, the Angels had one guy with post-season experience. After game one, they had 25. Argument over.

I don’t care what the sabermetric geeks do with their calculators;

I thought all you nerds used spreadsheets not calculators.

K-Rod is a bizarre example to use. Back in 2002 he had one of the most memorable playoff runs by a reliever in recent memory. So what was it? Did he have "The Clutch(tm)" back then, and then lost it since? Did he just get too good at the regular season to do well in the postseason?

The thing I can't stand about this kind of argument is not whether some guys are clutch and some guys aren't, or the existence of clutch play, but it seems like players have to be one OR the other. So what is K-Rod? The guy who had a 5-1 record in the bullpen for the '02 Angels, or the guy who has given up 4 runs in 2 2/3 innings over his last two playoff series? Keith Foulke, in 2000 and 2003 combined, gave up 5 runs in 7.1 innings during the playoffs. Oddly, those aren't the two years he's remembered for.

I don’t care what the sabermetric geeks do with their calculators; the heroically clutch athlete — the one who elevates his game under pressure — is the foundation of all sportswriting. Therefore, I’m bound to insist that players who distinguish themselves in October are born, not made.

I didn't RTFA, but is this a joke? It actually reads like pretty good satire i.e. my job depends on fairy tales existing, therefore, I will continue to pretend they exist.

Edit: I'm sure it's not a joke though.

I thought all of Tampa's success was due to their leader with the postseason experience - Cliff Floyd.

Therefore, I’m bound to insist that players who distinguish themselves in October are born, not made.

All one needs to do is look at Vladdy Guerrero's series against Boston to realize what a load of bunk this is. Or was he reborn sometime between last October & this October and I missed it?

There are two kinds of people: winners, and losers.

In crunch time, the winners seem to make the better ballplayers.

Isn't the claim susceptible to analysis by someone more facile with a geeky spreadsheet calculator than I?

Fred Given Player performs in a playoff game, relative to his career numbers to that point, better, the same, or worse. Factor in the number of playoff games FGP (and all players who have been in playoff games) has played to that point, and come up with a numerical description. It's a finite problem. There's nothing unsolvable about it unless you're a sportswriter.

I was watching the UNC-Miami football game a few weeks back, and Miami had one last drive to win the game. Their offensive skill players were very young, and all from high schools with exceptionally successful football teams - very few losses in four years. So, the color guy said something along the lines of:

"These young guys aren't used to being in this situation of being behind, they won't know how to handle it."

After Miami was driving down the field, literally minutes later ,the same guy said something like:

"These young guys know how to win, they know what it takes, they have done it repeatedly."

In other words, whoever happens to win, they did it because they were predestined to win with their superior character. Whatever. Boston won 3 of 4 from a roughly equal team. Tampa Bay won 3 of 4 from a somewhat inferior team. No magic was needed.

Excuse me, I have a team to follow.

kevin always has a team to follow- because his life is essentially watching sports. What a ####### pathetic loser.

kevin always has a team to follow- because his life is essentially watching sports. What a ####### pathetic loser.

So nice of you to take time out of your productive schedule to point that out.

kevin always has a team to follow- because his life is essentially watching sports. What a ####### pathetic loser.

As opposed to those whose lives are limited to trolling on those whose lives are limited to watching sports, who are truly the engine that moves our society forward.

I haven't been following the young career of Fred Dobbs, but anyone who can make people even tangentially defend kevin must be pretty disliked around these parts.

That’s the difference between... a Francisco Rodriguez — whose record 62 regular-season saves didn’t stop him from taking a loss in Game 2 of the ALDS, and a Jonathan Papelbon, whose career postseason ERA remains 0.00.

Just like the great John Rocker!

Isn't kevin some sort of globe-travelling epidemiologist or something? Help me out, kevin.

The use of the word myth when the author means falsehood continues to play its part in the downfall of civilization and imagination. I imagine that children of the future will wonder why they have to bother reading Virgil or Homer or the Hebrew Bible; after all, they're all just a bunch of lies.

Isn't kevin some sort of globe-travelling epidemiologist or something? Help me out, kevin.

Is it serious?

No magic was needed.

Bollocks! The Cubs lost 3 of 3 to an inferior team -- they're cursed!

I thought all of Tampa's success was due to their leader with the postseason experience - Cliff Floyd.

SWING THE BAT CLIFF, SWING THE DAMN... oh, sorry, flashback.

Neal Cotts's postseason ERA is 0.00 too, in 8 appearances. Didn't help the Cubs!

Isn't kevin some sort of globe-travelling epidemiologist or something?

Played by Denise Richards?

Therefore, I’m bound to insist that players who distinguish themselves in October are born, not made.

I just want to point out this is absolutely true. I don't get what the fuss is about. Players who distinguish themselves in October are born, not made. As are players who do not distinguish themselves, and probably well over 99% of all animals in the world.

I don't think it's true of viruses, however. I'm not sure. I wonder how you would get the answer to that.

I just want to point out this is absolutely true. I don't get what the fuss is about. Players who distinguish themselves in October are born, not made. As are players who do not distinguish themselves, and probably well over 99% of all animals in the world.

A+.

I just want to point out this is absolutely true. I don't get what the fuss is about. Players who distinguish themselves in October are born, not made. As are players who do not distinguish themselves, and probably well over 99% of all animals in the world.


A+.

D-

The vast majority of animals are hatched.

COL (cackle out loud) for #24! (The quoted question is awfully cute too.)