But while A-Rod has obviously been a huge "net positive" for the Yankees as a whole, it's hard for me to avoid the fact that he's been the farthest thing from that in five out of the seven postseason years he's been with them. To me that's the most significant postseason "overall" number of them all.

Let me see if I'm understanding you correctly. What I think I'm reading is that you'd be happier with A-Rod if he'd played worse in '09, and better by an equal amount in at least a couple of the years when he played badly. I have a hard time coming around to that position, because if A-Rod plays worse by even a little in '09, there's an excellent chance you lose that title, and you're hardly guaranteed to pick one up in the other years, because the Yanks didn't even make it to the Series in any of them. (If A-Rod plays better in 2010, for instance, it's not going to make a bit of difference, because all four of the Yankee losses in the ALCS that year were by at least 5 runs.)

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about what I've been saying. It has nothing to do with how I'd parcel out his 2009 heroics. It was simply a recital of the indisputable fact that in five of his seven Yankee postseasons, he's been a mediocre to suckworthy performer. I'm not sure how many times I'll have to repeat that before it sinks in.

------------------------------------------

Okay, boys and girls, how's this? "A-Rod sucked in five out of seven postseasons, ruled the world in one, and produced mixed results in another."

How's this: "Postseason splits such as '.133 with 2 outs in RISP' are too small a sample to be meaningful, and it's silly to care about them, even if TBS flashes them at you during the broadcast."

Stop letting TBS do your thinking for you, Andy.

Those numbers I cited in # 69 were from BB-Reference, not TBS, and they referred to A-Rod's year-by-year postseason OPS figures, not to the smaller numbers for two outs / runner(s) in scoring position. Perhaps at some point you, too, will notice that, though I'm not holding my breath.

Ray, I'm on your side on this. Was merely speculating about one series we might have won, but one should infer that it would have been of little use in all the rest.

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about what I've been saying. It has nothing to do with how I'd parcel out his 2009 heroics. It was simply a recital of the indisputable fact that in five of his seven Yankee postseasons, he's been a mediocre to suckworthy performer. I'm not sure how many times I'll have to repeat that before it sinks in.

This particular fact is conceded. I'll requote the part I have an issue with:

To me that's the most significant postseason "overall" number of them all.

It's not just that he's been mediocre-to-bad in five postseasons; it's that (unless I'm misreading you) you find those poor performances more significant than the fact that he went supernova and won the Yankees a title in '09.

Andy, I was referring to the .133 split you cited in post 5.

This screaming line drive was clearly A-Rod's fault.

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about what I've been saying. It has nothing to do with how I'd parcel out his 2009 heroics. It was simply a recital of the indisputable fact that in five of his seven Yankee postseasons, he's been a mediocre to suckworthy performer. I'm not sure how many times I'll have to repeat that before it sinks in.

This particular fact is conceded. I'll requote the part I have an issue with:

To me that's the most significant postseason "overall" number of them all.

Compared to his total NY postseason numbers, I'd say it is, since one should hold superstars to a higher standard than lesser players, and he's fallen well short of that over 70% of the years he's been in a postseason in New York.

It's not just that he's been mediocre-to-bad in five postseasons; it's that (unless I'm misreading you) you find those poor performances more significant than the fact that he went supernova and won the Yankees a title in '09.

That's a subjective question that's impossible to answer, because there's no way to take "surplus" hits from one series and transfer them to another. From a personal POV, his heroics in 2009 tend to make me forgive his flops in other years, but that doesn't mean it hasn't been major agita to watch him in most of his postseason games, up to and including last night.

-----------------------------------------------

Andy, I was referring to the .133 split you cited in post 5.

I understand that, but in the meantime I'd already elaborated my point in a post you ignored.

-----------------------------------------------

This screaming line drive was clearly A-Rod's fault.

The law of averages will take care of him if he continues to hit balls like that. It won't help him if he continues to flail helplessly like he did last night.

Nobody's ever doubted for a second that A-Rod's overall 2009 postseason was among the greatest in baseball history. Considering the context many of those hits, in fact, it may well have been the best.

I'm a Yankees fan but A-Rod's 2009 can't touch the year Bonds almost won the WS on his own practically. That performance was just unreal considering how carefully they were pitching to him.

Nobody's ever doubted for a second that A-Rod's overall 2009 postseason was among the greatest in baseball history. Considering the context many of those hits, in fact, it may well have been the best.

I'm a Yankees fan but A-Rod's 2009 can't touch the year Bonds almost won the WS on his own practically. That performance was just unreal considering how carefully they were pitching to him.

I'm a Yankees fan but A-Rod's 2009 can't touch the year Bonds almost won the WS on his own practically. That performance was just unreal considering how carefully they were pitching to him.

The key word there is "almost". The Giants didn't win.

I'm a Yankees fan but A-Rod's 2009 can't touch the year Bonds almost won the WS on his own practically. That performance was just unreal considering how carefully they were pitching to him.

Yeah, when you look at the numbers, Bonds' 2002 was a clear winner, although not having paid that much attention to that particular World Series (zero rooting interest, and I was on the road), I can't recall that many particular instances of Bonds hits that turned games around in the way A-Rod's did. Not to say that they didn't, I just wasn't paying that much attention.

But you also make a good point about the way Bonds was being pitched to. That's not too surprising, since given the ferocity and depth of the 2009 Yankees' lineup, you couldn't really pitch around A-Rod in the same kind of way.

given the ferocity and depth of the 2009 Yankees' lineup, you couldn't really pitch around A-Rod in the same kind of way.

And yet, the Angels issued him two intentional walks with nobody on base during the ALCS.

To me that's the most significant postseason "overall" number of them all.

One more follow up on this - to me, the most significant "overall" postseason number for A-Rod is:

Number of World Series the Yankees have won because he was awesome = 1.

It's a matter of opinion, of course, but focusing on the five mediocre years rather than the Krakatoa performance of '09 plays very much into the common perception of Yankee fans.

The key word there is "almost". The Giants didn't win.

In the 4 games the Giants lost, Bonds went 4-9 with 8 W, 3 HR, 5 runs scored and 4 RBI.

In the 4 games the Giants lost, Bonds went 4-9 with 8 W, 3 HR, 5 runs scored and 4 RBI.

Yes, but he didn't pitch or field every position, so it's all his fault.

He did make some critical fielding miscues.

What could go wrong?