• It’s Great To Be With A Wiener

    Posted by on March 29th, 2010 · Comments (15)

    Today, Jayson Stark offers:

    Ingredients for winning require rare mix
    Sometimes it’s easy to see which players and managers have that rare “it”

    Check it out. The sabermetric crowd will hate it. The chemistry professors will love it. And, those in the middle, like me, will find it an interesting read – especially because of who Jayson highlights in the feature.

    Comments on It’s Great To Be With A Wiener

    1. Corey Italiano
      March 29th, 2010 | 5:16 pm

      Is it too late to change my over-hyped AL player to Johnny Damon? For the love of all that is good, how could you possibly ever, EVER, EEEEEEEEEEVER put Damon and Jeter in the same category when it comes to drive and hustle and intensity with reference to the game.

      You cannot, I repeat, cannot in the same breath report a quote from Pettitte saying that Jeter has never taken a single at-bat “off”, than say that Johnny “I almost threw the ball into the stands with less than 2 outs” Damon is on that level? I’ll give credit where credit is due. Damon is a very good ballplayer. But to say that he and Jeter are on the same level is a slap in the face of Jeter (and all the other players on his “level”).

    2. Raf
      March 29th, 2010 | 5:31 pm

      Nothing there worth hating, it’s a puff piece. Players have good series in the postseason, players have bad series in the postseason. Has little to nothing to do with clutchy cluchitude or “it.”

      Give a player enough postseason AB’s and he will approach his career averages.

    3. GDH
      March 29th, 2010 | 6:07 pm

      Yeah, it’s a puff piece, but it’s true. Anyone who’s ever played or coached a sport knows this type of player and the difference they make on a team. Pete Rose said on Home Plate the other day when asked if there are any players today who play like he did – he said yeah there are lots, but a lot of ‘em are Yankees. I see Jeter, Tex and CC as this type of player, and they all have a huge (intangible) contribution. FWIW this article should have mentioned Matsui over Damon, as he more exemplifies this point.

    4. Evan3457
      March 29th, 2010 | 6:29 pm

      Look Damon is a great asset when he wants to play, but if he decides to take a winter off because he doubts he wants to play as he did in the off-season of 2006-7, he has also proven the ability to help torpedo a season, as he did in 2007, when he nearly sunk the Yanks in the first half (with the help of the pitching, obviously) by showing up out of shape, and getting hurt partially because of it.

      Fewer hitters I want up there more than Damon when the team must have a single to start a rally or to finish one, but he’s far from perfect, especially at age 36.

    5. Corey Italiano
      March 29th, 2010 | 6:41 pm

      @ Evan3457:
      Agreed.

    6. Jake1
      March 30th, 2010 | 7:59 am

      anyone who doesnt believe in clutch hasnt watched a yankee playoff game the past 15 yrs. its a part of every sport. it is what separates the great from the good.

      the stat crowd doesnt want to believe it because it defies one of their main beliefs

    7. Evan3457
      March 30th, 2010 | 12:19 pm

      A-Rod’s postseason last year is why the stat crowd doesn’t believe in it. (Also see Barry Bonds postseason record before 2002, and then in 2002.)

      If clutch “exists”, it is a character trait of a player that should persist. It should not enter remission, not for a whole postseason, not to the levels that A-Rod displayed last year, and Bonds in 2002.

      Why was Matsui so clutch in 2003 and 2004, so unclutch in 2005-6-7, and then clutch again in the postseason last year?

      See? That’s the problem. Did Matsui forget how to be clutch in 2005-6-7?

    8. BOHAN
      March 30th, 2010 | 1:06 pm

      Jake1 wrote:

      the stat crowd doesnt want to believe it because it defies one of their main beliefs

      the main reason i hate stat geeks. dont know the game they can take any numbers and play with them until they make sense doesnt mean they mean anything. i could do that to if i really felt like it

    9. MJ Recanati
      March 30th, 2010 | 1:21 pm

      BOHAN wrote:

      dont know the game

      So-called stat geeks don’t know the game? If that’s the case, how come so many of those “stat geeks” are running major league baseball teams with pretty decent track records of success? Might I add that the GM of your presumed favorite baseball team employs several “stat geeks” and isn’t a true baseball man himself.

    10. Raf
      March 30th, 2010 | 3:04 pm

      I’ve played the game for about 20 years. I also have an understanding as to how statistics work. The two aren’t mutually exclusive.

      If clutchy clutchitudeness meant anything worth a damn, it would show up in the stats.

    11. Raf
      March 30th, 2010 | 3:08 pm

      Jake1 wrote:

      anyone who doesnt believe in clutch hasnt watched a yankee playoff game the past 15 yrs.

      And what about the rest of the games? The other 2430 regular season games? Or postseason games played by teams other than the Yankees? They don’t count?

    12. BOHAN
      March 30th, 2010 | 4:59 pm

      @ MJ Recanati:
      i mean that stat geeks who come up the news stats comin out. the bill james and what not. not the guys who use the stats. and what u mean by presumed favorite team?

    13. MJ Recanati
      March 30th, 2010 | 7:42 pm

      @ BOHAN:
      So, according to you, innovation is a bad thing. OK then.

      I assume you’re a Yankees fan, yes? I make that assumption based on the fact that you’re leaving comments on a Yankee-centric website. I was merely pointing out that your favorite team — the Yanks — employ plenty of stats geeks and their GM just might be an egghead too.

    14. McMillan
      November 10th, 2013 | 4:33 pm

      MJ Recanati wrote:

      I was merely pointing out that your favorite team — the Yanks — employ plenty of stats geeks and their GM just might be an egghead too.

      So much for those stats geeks; what this team needs, as of the year 2013, is another $243.5 million for starting pitching, or a new egghead.

    15. McMillan
      November 10th, 2013 | 4:43 pm

      Raf wrote:

      If clutchy clutchitudeness meant anything worth a damn, it would show up in the stats.

      LOL…

      http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/o/ortizda01.shtml

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.