« A-Rod Asks Dominican Prez For Visit | Main | Root, Root, Root...For The Indians? »

September 13, 2007

October Feats: Random Or Raising?

From Dave Sheinin (of the Washington Post) via the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette -

We have long had a theory that there are certain players who have the ability to sharpen their focus, ignore the pressure and raise their games in October. It explains why, for example, the 1996-2000 New York Yankees of Derek Jeter, Paul O’Neill, Tino Martinez, Scott Brosius, Andy Pettitte and Orlando “El Duque” Hernandez (1999-2000) were more successful in the postseason than the all-star-at-every-position teams of Jeter, Alex Rodriguez, Jason Giambi and Mike Mussina.

The stats-obsessive crowd scoffs at any such notion, arguing that superlative individual Octobers are functions of random fluctuations in performance that might just as easily occur in April. Conversely, they say, if Alex Rodriguez takes an 0-fer for the entire postseason, it’s also purely random.

But not surprisingly, some of the players known for their October heroics think their success is something more than randomness.

“If you can get it done for the whole season, and you also do it in October, you’re legitimate. You’re a clutch player,” said Boston Red Sox designated hitter David Ortiz, whose postseason production (.301 batting average, .383 on-base, .552 slugging) is slightly better than his regular-season numbers (.287, .381, .553 ). “It’s not random. Not everyone can get it done in October. For whatever reason, some players raise their games, and some don’t.”

It explains why, for example, the 1996-2000 New York Yankees of Derek Jeter, Paul O’Neill, Tino Martinez, Scott Brosius, Andy Pettitte and Orlando “El Duque” Hernandez (1999-2000) were more successful in the postseason than the all-star-at-every-position teams of Jeter, Alex Rodriguez, Jason Giambi and Mike Mussina.

I can't agree with that statement. As I've pointed out before - the October losses of 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, and 2006 were due to a lack of Yankees pitching. What about 2003? Well, the Yankees did blow that one. Still, five of the last six were all about pitching for the Yankees - or the lack thereof. And, if the Yankees win in 2007, or if they lose, it will be because of pitching again - and not players raising their game or some random event.

Posted by Steve Lombardi at September 13, 2007 08:23 AM

Comments

You're right on the mark, Steve. I love those late 90's teams, but they didn't win because they were able to raise their games. They won because a rotation of Cone, El Duque, Pettitte, and Wells/Clemens and a bullpen of Nelson/Stanton/Mendoza/Rivera was far superior than the pitching staff of any playoff opponent.

Posted by: christopher [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 13, 2007 09:44 AM

And here I always thought they won because Mystique and Aura were dancing at Sin City, located just a few blocks away from Yankee Stadium.

Posted by: MJ [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 13, 2007 09:56 AM

This Sheinin article is sheer idiocy. His point about Ortiz, that he is inordinately clutch in the postseason, is disproved by the very stats he cite, which show that he performs almost idenitcally regular and post season. To even suggest that Brosius has ever been a better option at third than A-Rod should be reason enough to revoke your BBWA card. The article quotes JEFF WEAVER of all people, who apparently is the CLUTCHEST PITCHER OF ALL TIME, for chrissakes!!!

To think, in 2004 we were just one out away from shutting hacks like this up for awhile. Of course, instead of this "clutch" stupidity the story would be that our teams of an "All-Star at Every Position" were just a function of Steinbrenner buying rings throughout the 2000s.

Posted by: festus [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 13, 2007 10:57 AM