Derek Jeter Will Surpass Pete Rose

[Scott Dierking]

Let me clarify what I meant Scott

his DEFENSE in the OUTFIELD was sub-par

not his overall package. (500 homers, lots of walks and some memorable world series moments)

excuse me for not making that clear.

Kinda like your not knowing what the "pennant" was.

So let's see-An outfielders inabilty to "hustle" in the field creates a subpar category for you.

YET, an infielders inabilty to be a part of winning teams and contribute to the is alright.

OK

[Blackout]

YET, an infielders inabilty to be a part of winning teams and contribute to the is alright.

OK

A-rod's been on a few winning teams. A couple with the M's, and his 2 seasons with the Yankees.

If you think I have better things to do than argue then your wrong, I'll go on and on.

Go A-rod.

[Bugg]

Scott-

Gibson never hit 30 homers, nor got 100 RBIs. Frankly his MVP belongs on Darryl Strawberry's mantle, but sportwriters got all weepy about his "football mentality" nonsense and looked for reasons not to give it to Straw, who at that time wasn't a nice guy(and age and experience have changed that, though I bet Straw wish he'd changed his ways before he pissed away a HoF career). If you look at the stats, his MVP is a total disgrace. If the Dodgers had an MVP that year, it was Orel Hershiser.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/g/gibsoki01.shtml

Gibson was a great player. But he wasn't ever close to the player A-Rod is. Not even close. You're pushing it past credible.

[Scott Dierking]

Scott-

Gibson never hit 30 homers, nor got 100 RBIs. Frankly his MVP belongs on Darryl Strawberry's mantle, but sportwriters got all weepy about his "football mentality" nonsense and looked for reasons not to give it to Straw, who at that time wasn't a nice guy(and age and experience have changed that, though I bet Straw wish he'd changed his ways before he pissed away a HoF career). If you look at the stats, his MVP is a total disgrace. If the Dodgers had an MVP that year, it was Orel Hershiser.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/g/gibsoki01.shtml

Gibson was a great player. But he wasn't ever close to the player A-Rod is. Not even close. You're pushing it past credible.

Bugg-You are missing the point. What Gibson did was make players better around him. What Gibson did was come up BIG in game situations. What Gibson did was elevate teams.

THAT is what kind of players I want on my teams. NOT ARODs who are shrinking violets when the heat is on and try to rely on others.

Blackout has this love affair with NUMBERS (In fact I heard he is dating the number 69 because he heard she has a "mystique" to her) and numbers put up by players being their defining stature. Numbers and hardware (minus WS rings) don't mean crap, unless you are some kid that likes to look at the back of baseball cards to try and define players and their "greatness".

Me. I would rather have a player who stands up when it is time to be counted, and ensures the ultimate prize is in grasp.

I do find it peronally satisfying that a Yankee fan has now had to resort to pointing a dialogue in the direction of saying "AROD has been on winning teams" by classifying winning teams as +.500 only. Not even playoff winning and more precisely WS winning.

How the mighty have fallen.

Bugg-Let me lay this out to you and others. WS Game 6, you are down 3 games to 2, bottom of the 8th, runner on 2nd, 2 out down by one run. Which player, in their prime would you want up for your team-AROD, Gibson or Jackson?

[Bugg]

Scott-

Right now, today, in their primes, I want A-rod up there, because he has so much to prove. He's gonna break through and win a title soon.

Gibson was part of 2 championships to his credit.But so was Keith Hernandez, who as a 1st basemen really did make his infielders better. But Hernandez isn't in A-Rod's class either. I think you're allowing one very improbable homer in the 1988 World Series to distort Gibson's career way put of proportion. His MVP is a joke, Now, may be with roids and tightly-wound balls, Gibson's numbers could failry be adjusted up. He's still not anywhere close to A-Rod.

Gibson isn't as good a case for the HoF than Dwight Evans-

http://www.baseball-reference.com/e/evansdw01.shtml

Real problem-nobody can justify A-Rod's contract short of going 4-4 every day. And while he's a big boy, the contract has nothing to do with what he does between the lines. I saw Jeter flub a sure double play and allow last night's game to go into extra innings. Doesn't mean he's not a great player. But if that happens to A-Rod he totally sucks.

Hernandez-

http://www.baseball-reference.com/h/hernake01.shtml

Gibson again-

http://www.baseball-reference.com/g/gibsoki01.shtml

[Scott Dierking]

Scott-

Right now, today, in their primes, I want A-rod up there, because he has so much to prove. He's gonna break through and win a title soon.

Gibson was part of 2 championships to his credit.But so was Keith Hernandez, who as a 1st basemen really did make his infielders better. But Hernandez isn't in A-Rod's class either. I think you're allowing one very improbable homer in the 1988 World Series to distort Gibson's career way put of proportion. His MVP is a joke, Now, may be with roids and tightly-wound balls, Gibson's numbers could failry be adjusted up. He's still not anywhere close to A-Rod.

Gibson isn't as good a case for the HoF than Dwight Evans-

http://www.baseball-reference.com/e/evansdw01.shtml

Real problem-nobody can justify A-Rod's contract short of going 4-4 every day. And while he's a big boy, the contract has nothing to do with what he does between the lines. I saw Jeter flub a sure double play and allow last night's game to go into extra innings. Doesn't mean he's not a great player. But if that happens to A-Rod he totally sucks.

Hernandez-

http://www.baseball-reference.com/h/hernake01.shtml

Gibson again-

http://www.baseball-reference.com/g/gibsoki01.shtml

Bugg-Again, what you tend to overshadow is what these players brought their team. And yes, a Keith Hernandez ABSOLUTELY fits that profile. They elevated their teams and elevated their teammates.

They said "Fellows, jump on my back, I am going to carry us through the tough stretch, count on me". They LED. They did not follow, they LED. They did not wait for someone else to get the big hit, they got the big hit. Their teams performed better with tehm in the line-up. Their teams became better when they were added to the mix.

Youi seem to want to give AROD a pass by saying "He is due" "It will happen soon".

Want to know the sad fact about AROD and the teams he has been on-They have gotten BETTER after he was gone.

You guys can be statistic whores, I will prefer the gamers every time.

[Bugg]

I see your point. But the expectations on A-rod are mostly based on his contract which he cannot ever be live up to. Nobody could.And it's irrelevant.

Remember-Hernandez made an out in the bottom of the 10th in 1986 Game 6. Gamers don't do it every time. Nobody does.

IF you want to talk about money and baseball,ask why it is the Royals, owned by the Glass/Walton Walmart family, pocketed $20 million profit in 2005 in revenue sharing and spent nothing on their team.

[Maxman]

Scott...

A few things. ARODs contract hurts him. Texas paid him but then fielded a pretty bad team around him. Not really his fault.

Also you want to say a guy like Kirk is a winner. Agreed. What he did in 1988 was amazing. I think that was his only at bat in the Series and we all remember it.

BUT...there are 2 different things here. Are you talking about the player as a whole or are you talking about 1 at bat? 1 at bat, sure you roll Kirk out there. Jeter as well. But if you are talking about how is the better player you need to pick a better example than Kirk.

Kirk's career included only a few postseason apperarances. And he was on some pretty good teams. After what the Tigers did in 1984 how come they couldn't repeat? Kirk had his best year ever in 1985. Why didn't others respond?

1984 was about Jack Morris. 1988 was about Orel. I get your point with the "Number Infatuation". But your example is a bit of a reach.

Actually if you used Jack Morris as an example I would give you more credit. He pitched bigger than his #'s indicate. Black Jack McDowell is another guy that comes to mind like that.

[Scott Dierking]

Scott...

A few things. ARODs contract hurts him. Texas paid him but then fielded a pretty bad team around him. Not really his fault.

Also you want to say a guy like Kirk is a winner. Agreed. What he did in 1988 was amazing. I think that was his only at bat in the Series and we all remember it.

BUT...there are 2 different things here. Are you talking about the player as a whole or are you talking about 1 at bat? 1 at bat, sure you roll Kirk out there. Jeter as well. But if you are talking about how is the better player you need to pick a better example than Kirk.

Kirk's career included only a few postseason apperarances. And he was on some pretty good teams. After what the Tigers did in 1984 how come they couldn't repeat? Kirk had his best year ever in 1985. Why didn't others respond?

1984 was about Jack Morris. 1988 was about Orel. I get your point with the "Number Infatuation". But your example is a bit of a reach.

Actually if you used Jack Morris as an example I would give you more credit. He pitched bigger than his #'s indicate. Black Jack McDowell is another guy that comes to mind like that.

Max- My point is about having guys that elevate teams by their presence.

Kirk Gibson came to the Dodgers as a free agent, I believe it was '88. The famous story was that Jesse Orosco but eye black on his hat THE FIRST DAY of Spring training. Gibson got bent out of shape, stormed off the field and told Lasorda "That is way you guys have finished 73-89 (or whatever it was) the last 4 years.

You know what he did-He told his teammates that winning isn't about having fun-It is a serious game, and God damn it, if you are going to play the game, play it right.

It affected the way his teammates approached the game. You are right on about Morris and Orel, but I give pitchers less creedance than every day players in leading on the field and in the clubhouse.

People want to break it down to that one at bat-BUT, it was a lot more than that. leaders lead. They have a presence. It is a rara quality, I will admit.

To me, AROD is certainly a great player, I am not stupid enough to counter otherwise. BUT, he does not have that quality to come up big when it counts. At least not yet. He is not alone in that as it is a qunatity that is rare.

Willie Stargell had it. Tony Perez was underrated and he had it.

[Scott Dierking]

I see your point. But the expectations on A-rod are mostly based on his contract which he cannot ever be live up to. Nobody could.And it's irrelevant.

Remember-Hernandez made an out in the bottom of the 10th in 1986 Game 6. Gamers don't do it every time. Nobody does.

IF you want to talk about money and baseball,ask why it is the Royals, owned by the Glass/Walton Walmart family, pocketed $20 million profit in 2005 in revenue sharing and spent nothing on their team.

Bugg-It is not a money thing-it is a gamer thing. Some guys want to be at bat in teh big spot. They know they will come through.

AROD does not seem to be that player.

[Green Jets & Ham]

Bugg-It is not a money thing-it is a gamer thing. Some guys want to be at bat in teh big spot. They know they will come through.

AROD does not seem to be that player.

SD, some Guys do have a knack for coming through in a big spot, you're right about that, but that doesn't make them better players than the ATG's who have a shaky PS resume

Take Ted Williams, his career PS BA is well below is career regular season BA ... I think his PS BA is like .250'ish {or lower}, but that doesn't diminish his entire career where his numbers were staggering

I mean, you wouldn't take a Reggie Jackson over a Ted Williams if you're building a baseball team ... NO WAY, NO HOW ... but you might prefer a Reggie Jackson if you needed a HR in a big spot

BTW, if you read about Ted Williams you'll find many similarities with Arod ... all of the same criticisms were often attached to Williams, and that's why a number of people preferred DiMaggio who was always a big game player

But as a Yankee fan I have to be honest, Ted Williams was better than DiMaggio ... I love the Yankees and I hate the Red Sox, so I'd love to say DiMaggio was better, but he wasn't as good as Ted Williams ... NO WAY ... I don't care if DiMaggio hit .400 in the WS and Ted Williams hit .250, Ted was the better player

I really think Arod is this era's Ted Williams ... the more you study Ted Williams, THE POSITIVES and THE NEGATIVES, the more you see how unbelievably similar these two players are ... but just like Williams was better than DiMaggio, AROD is better than Reggie or Gibson ever were

JMO

[Scott Dierking]

SD, some Guys do have a knack for coming through in a big spot, you're right about that, but that doesn't make them better players than the ATG's who have a shaky PS resume

Take Ted Williams, his career PS BA is well below is career regular season BA ... I think his PS BA is like .250'ish {or lower}, but that doesn't diminish his entire career where his numbers were staggering

I mean, you wouldn't take a Reggie Jackson over a Ted Williams if you're building a baseball team ... NO WAY, NO HOW ... but you might prefer a Reggie Jackson if you needed a HR in a big spot

BTW, if you read about Ted Williams you'll find many similarities with Arod ... all of the same criticisms were often attached to Williams, and that's why a number of people preferred DiMaggio who was always a big game player

But as a Yankee fan I have to be honest, Ted Williams was better than DiMaggio ... I love the Yankees and I hate the Red Sox, so I'd love to say DiMaggio was better, but he wasn't as good as Ted Williams ... NO WAY ... I don't care if DiMaggio hit .400 in the WS and Ted Williams hit .250, Ted was the better player

I really think Arod is this era's Ted Williams ... the more you study Ted Williams, THE POSITIVES and THE NEGATIVES, the more you see how unbelievably similar these two players are ... but just like Williams was better than DiMaggio, AROD is better than Reggie or Gibson ever were

JMO

GJH-I never purported that they were necessarily better players-I can admit that. I was focusing on which players I would build a team around, and more succinctly, which players I would want up for me in a big spot, game on the line.

It is a tough measure. I saw some statistic a while ago which was LIPS-Late Inning Pressure Situation-Something like that. It was a really inconclusive statistic.

But, there is no denying that pressure spots seem to find and define some players better than others. I will admit that it can be an unfair knock sometimes, but it is a knock that AROD currently has.

And, until he comes through in a few of those in big games, and his team wins a championship, it is a somewhat fair knock.

Call it a final criteria for greatness, the stuff legends are made of, but it is a criteria. Here to now, it is not on AROD's resume.

[Maxman]

Max- My point is about having guys that elevate teams by their presence.

Kirk Gibson came to the Dodgers as a free agent, I believe it was '88. The famous story was that Jesse Orosco but eye black on his hat THE FIRST DAY of Spring training. Gibson got bent out of shape, stormed off the field and told Lasorda "That is way you guys have finished 73-89 (or whatever it was) the last 4 years.

You know what he did-He told his teammates that winning isn't about having fun-It is a serious game, and God damn it, if you are going to play the game, play it right.

It affected the way his teammates approached the game. You are right on about Morris and Orel, but I give pitchers less creedance than every day players in leading on the field and in the clubhouse.

People want to break it down to that one at bat-BUT, it was a lot more than that. leaders lead. They have a presence. It is a rara quality, I will admit.

To me, AROD is certainly a great player, I am not stupid enough to counter otherwise. BUT, he does not have that quality to come up big when it counts. At least not yet. He is not alone in that as it is a qunatity that is rare.

Willie Stargell had it. Tony Perez was underrated and he had it.

I hear what you are saying. The intangibles. I have been praising Jeter for this for years.

That being said....you take AROD as your SS over Jeter everyday of the week. You can teach a guy how to play the game and hope for the best. You can not teach someone how to go .350 - 50 - 150.

[mbn007]

Very interesting thread. I wanted to see how this would come out. All posters made fine points here. Solid arguments on both sides.

The thing is, intangibles is the issue at hand. Gibson had it. Hernandez had it. Jeter has it. Were they the best at their positions ever? Were they the best even among their peers?

The answer to both questions is a resounding no!! But they had this other "thing" that made them winning ballplayers. That "thing" is called intangibles, or "winning player mentality".

Jeter has this. He has the Championship pedigree to back this up. So when the argument comes around here (as it does quite often) is Jeter the best, or is he the one you want on your team to build around, the answer better be "YES", even from all the non-Yankee fans around here.

[Scott Dierking]

Very interesting thread. I wanted to see how this would come out. All posters made fine points here. Solid arguments on both sides.

The thing is, intangibles is the issue at hand. Gibson had it. Hernandez had it. Jeter has it. Were they the best at their positions ever? Were they the best even among their peers?

The answer to both questions is a resounding no!! But they had this other "thing" that made them winning ballplayers. That "thing" is called intangibles, or "winning player mentality".

Jeter has this. He has the Championship pedigree to back this up. So when the argument comes around here (as it does quite often) is Jeter the best, or is he the one you want on your team to build around, the answer better be "YES", even from all the non-Yankee fans around here.

No DOUBT Jeter has it and he is twice the player AROD is because of it, in my mind.

MBN it is an immeasurable, and tough to classify.

[JetsMan57]

I think AROD's postseason failures are overblown.

In 1997 he batted .312 in the ALDS

2000 .308 against the CWS then .412 against the Yankees with 2 homers and 5 RBis. If my memory serves me correctly one of those homers was off Rivera.

2002 - .421 against the Twins and if it werent for his big hit in game 2 against Nathan in the 9th we fall behind 0-2 in that series.

He did nothing after game 3 against the Red Sox in 04 but the whole team collapsed with him, yet AROD gets most of the blame. ANd he did do terrible last year against Anaheim.

Not saying AROD is Mr. Clutch, but its not like he never hits in the postseason either.

[Scott Dierking]

I think AROD's postseason failures are overblown.

In 1997 he batted .312 in the ALDS

2000 .308 against the CWS then .412 against the Yankees with 2 homers and 5 RBis. If my memory serves me correctly one of those homers was off Rivera.

2002 - .421 against the Twins and if it werent for his big hit in game 2 against Nathan in the 9th we fall behind 0-2 in that series.

He did nothing after game 3 against the Red Sox in 04 but the whole team collapsed with him, yet AROD gets most of the blame. ANd he did do terrible last year against Anaheim.

Not saying AROD is Mr. Clutch, but its not like he never hits in the postseason either.

Ahhh-The very pedestrian equation of looking at batting average and evaluating worth.

Let's look at something more worthy of determining accountability in a big spot-run production-more dfinitively-The RBI

AROD during regular season has driven in a run every 5.05 ABs. In post season, this slips to a run every 7.38 AB's

Kirk Gibson during regular season has driven in a run every 6.66 AB's. In post season he did a remarkable run every 3.71 AB's

Reggie Jackson in reg season did a run evry 5.79 AB's. Post season was close at 5.85 AB's

Pretty remarkable numbers for Gibson and that number is based on 78 AB's and AROD's is 118 AB's, so that is a comparable measurable.

Someone please check my #'s. but I feel they are accurate. AROD feels a little tight around the collar in the big game

[JetsMan57]

Ahhh-The very pedestrian equation of looking at batting average and evaluating worth.

Let's look at something more worthy of determining accountability in a big spot-run production-more dfinitively-The RBI

AROD during regular season has driven in a run every 5.05 ABs. In post season, this slips to a run every 7.38 AB's

Kirk Gibson during regular season has driven in a run every 6.66 AB's. In post season he did a remarkable run every 3.71 AB's

Reggie Jackson in reg season did a run evry 5.79 AB's. Post season was close at 5.85 AB's

Pretty remarkable numbers for Gibson and that number is based on 78 AB's and AROD's is 118 AB's, so that is a comparable measurable.

Someone please check my #'s. but I feel they are accurate. AROD feels a little tight around the collar in the big game

Not comparing AROD to Jackson or Gibson, I believe you and BUGG ARe having that debate. All I am trying to point out is that AROD has had some success and big hits in the playoffs. You seem like you want AROD nowhere near the plate in a big postseason at bat,.The guy took Rivera deep in 2000 (who else have hit homers off Rivera in the post season, after sandy alomar, cant think of anybody else off the top of my head) he had a huge hit off Nathan in 2004 which tied the series.

He has not had Reggie or Gibsons success, YET, in the postseason but he isis not the dud in the postseason most make him out to be either.

[Scott Dierking]

Not comparing AROD to Jackson or Gibson, I believe you and BUGG ARe having that debate. All I am trying to point out is that AROD has had some success and big hits in the playoffs. You seem like you want AROD nowhere near the plate in a big postseason at bat,.The guy took Rivera deep in 2000 (who else have hit homers off Rivera in the post season, after sandy alomar, cant think of anybody else off the top of my head) he had a huge hit off Nathan in 2004 which tied the series.

He has not had Reggie or Gibsons success, YET, in the postseason but he isis not the dud in the postseason most make him out to be either.

In my mind, your run production should come close to matching your Reg season numbers, if you want to be thought of as at least 'clutch"

His numbers take a SIGNIFICANT dip.

Listen, I am not here to say AROD is a bad player or anything of that sort. My premise has been, and remains, there are certainly a good number of players I would rather have at bat in a big spot.

That goes for a lot of good players. But, when you are talked about in teh same breath of legends in baseball, as AROD is approaching, that distinguishing features knocks some of teh veneer of what could be called a legendary career.

With legends, you nitpick. This is nitpicking. But fair.

[JetsMan57]

In my mind, your run production should come close to matching your Reg season numbers, if you want to be thought of as at least 'clutch"

His numbers take a SIGNIFICANT dip.

Listen, I am not here to say AROD is a bad player or anything of that sort. My premise has been, and remains, there are certainly a good number of players I would rather have at bat in a big spot.

That goes for a lot of good players. But, when you are talked about in teh same breath of legends in baseball, as AROD is approaching, that distinguishing features knocks some of teh veneer of what could be called a legendary career.

With legends, you nitpick. This is nitpicking. But fair.

No argument from me here. I certainly wasnt trying to portray AROD as a legend in the postseason.

[mbn007]

In my mind, your run production should come close to matching your Reg season numbers, if you want to be thought of as at least 'clutch"

His numbers take a SIGNIFICANT dip.

Listen, I am not here to say AROD is a bad player or anything of that sort. My premise has been, and remains, there are certainly a good number of players I would rather have at bat in a big spot.

That goes for a lot of good players. But, when you are talked about in teh same breath of legends in baseball, as AROD is approaching, that distinguishing features knocks some of teh veneer of what could be called a legendary career.

Ted WIlliams was a post-season failure, if you want to be fair. Include any WS and playoff games (I believe the Bosox were in one back in the 1940s, with Cleveland). But his name is always in the top 3 mentioned when discussing the greatest hitters of all time.

A-Rod will end up with 800 HRs, 2000 RBIs, 2000 runs, and 3000 hits if he stays healthy and plays another 8 years or so (he turns 31 this coming July). That will rank him among the greatest who ever played this game.

Just like no one brings up Ted Williams post season failures (granted, he had very limited opportunities), no one will bring up A-Rods either.

[Maxman]

In my mind, your run production should come close to matching your Reg season numbers, if you want to be thought of as at least 'clutch"

I agree with this. I have often had the debate about Jeter. His postseason #'s are similar to his regular season #'s. This is clutch to me when you factor in that you are only facing the best pitchers!

[SouthernJet]

I agree with this. I have often had the debate about Jeter. His postseason #'s are similar to his regular season #'s. This is clutch to me when you factor in that you are only facing the best pitchers!

agree, anyone who bashes Jeter is clueless...

not only do you face best pitchers, but he has the respect wherin the opposing staff pitches around him,,they give him nothing,, he is batting his average in postseason with inferior pitches to hit,,

[Scott Dierking]

Ted WIlliams was a post-season failure, if you want to be fair. Include any WS and playoff games (I believe the Bosox were in one back in the 1940s, with Cleveland). But his name is always in the top 3 mentioned when discussing the greatest hitters of all time.

A-Rod will end up with 800 HRs, 2000 RBIs, 2000 runs, and 3000 hits if he stays healthy and plays another 8 years or so (he turns 31 this coming July). That will rank him among the greatest who ever played this game.

Just like no one brings up Ted Williams post season failures (granted, he had very limited opportunities), no one will bring up A-Rods either.

MBN-Williams' failures in the Postseason occured in one series. That is all that I know of that he played in.

Hard to judge a man on one Series. But, that being said, he never did win the big one. That is a peg lower, too.

And I absolutely agree on all the Jeter comments. That man is CLUTCH.

In my book, unless AROD does a 180 in playoff performances, he will have a chink in the armor, no matter what numbers he finished up with.

When you talk legends, all avenues are open, and this one is a huge one.

[Blackout]

Scott, you mean A-rod wasn't "clutch" in game 4 vs the Twins in '04 when he got a double, stole 3rd and scored the series clinching run?

or in the '95 postseason when he smacked a few homers against the pre-dynasty Yankees?

or what about all his go-ahead RBI's this year?

A-rod is no Jeter or Ortiz, but you act like his postseason stats are .000/.000/.000

[Scott Dierking]

Scott, you mean A-rod wasn't "clutch" in game 4 vs the Twins in '04 when he got a double, stole 3rd and scored the series clinching run?

or in the '95 postseason when he smacked a few homers against the pre-dynasty Yankees?

or what about all his go-ahead RBI's this year?

A-rod is no Jeter or Ortiz, but you act like his postseason stats are .000/.000/.000

Blackout-Clutch means that you CONTINUALLY get the big hit, not SELECTIVELY get the big hit.

There is a HUGE difference there.

If AROD never got a big hit in teh post season, we would be calling him a bum.

[Maxman]

Blackout-Clutch means that you CONTINUALLY get the big hit, not SELECTIVELY get the big hit.

There is a HUGE difference there.

If AROD never got a big hit in teh post season, we would be calling him a bum.

No the term for someone who never hits in the postseason is called "Barriod Bonds".

[Blackout]

No the term for someone who never hits in the postseason is called "Barriod Bonds".

*except for the one roided-up world series

[Blackout]

Blackout-Clutch means that you CONTINUALLY get the big hit, not SELECTIVELY get the big hit.

There is a HUGE difference there.

If AROD never got a big hit in teh post season, we would be calling him a bum.

nobody hits 1.000 in clutch situations

except Scott Kazmir, with his eyes closed.

[Scott Dierking]

nobody hits 1.000 in clutch situations

except Scott Kazmir, with his eyes closed.

I am not asking him to hit 1.000

I showed you the comparisons to his regular season clutch situations. I showed these numbers compared to a couple "clutch" post season names I mentioned.

He shrinks in comparison. 118 post season ABs-You named 3 or 4 where he supposedly came up big.

Give it up Blackout-you are picking at thin air by giving a couple of examples and then saying no one hits 1.000. Those are Captain Obvious examples.

Please tell me you have a better case than this.

[Blackout]

Scott, you said "Continually" get the big hit

that means do it on a continuous cycle, ala 1.000 BA

[Scott Dierking]

Scott, you said "Continually" get the big hit

that means do it on a continuous cycle, ala 1.000 BA

Blackout-I would be someaht more impressed if he SPORADICALLY came up big in teh post Season. That does not even happen.

Here is one GIANT clu about clutch hitters in teh Postseason-THEIR TEAMS WIN BIG SERIES AND MORE IMPORTANTLY CHAMPIONSHIPS.

It is kinda the Hallmark of being clutch. I just do not see that line on ARODs resume. All the jock sniffing in the world by you, will not change that.

You are just now throwing out words in hope that somehow sparks even somehat of a counterpoint. There is no statsitical basis or logic in what you are even proposing.

Please, stop this shameless charade. He is agreat player and we can live with that. But, a great plyer who comes up small at big times. At least to this point in time.

[Blackout]

you call me a jock sniffer?

okay, now its personal Scott.