For the Love of F***, Lay the F*** off of A-Rod for F***'s Sake

Thank you, sweet fitting circumstance.

Neither I nor the sports media could have asked for a better consecutive three-game microcosm of the criticisms of Alex Rodriguez than we have seen the last three days. Allow me to summarize:

Sunday: A-Rod fails to reach base in a couple potential run-producing at-bats against the Mets--including one in which he makes perfect contact with the ball and blows out 281 of the 316 seams on the baseball, only to see it cruelly fly right into Cliff Floyd's mitt. The next day, the New York Post headline reads, "A-Rod Butcher Job Worst Seen in City Since Berkowitz Murder Rampage" (or something of that ilk), and A-Rod gets ripped by all the ESPN Daytime Trash Lineup talking heads. In addition, a SportsCenter preview headline and ensuing SportsCenter segment both insinuate that A-Rod is somehow a liability to the Yankees.

Monday: A-Rod spots the Red Sox a 9-1 lead by causing Chien-Ming Wang to pitch really badly and then hits a 9th inning home run when he should have just struck out so as not to be such a garbage-time hero. The next day, the ESPN talking heads all say "typical A-Rod," and the New York Post headline reads, "A-Rod Enjoys Failing Except During Blowouts."

Tuesday: A-Rod comes up in the 7th-inning, leading 4-1, and hits 3-run homer just to pad his stats and meaningless RBI total, giving the Yankees a 7-1 lead. The Yankees give up four more runs (probably out of disillusionment caused by A-Rod's lack of heart and team-player-ed-ness) before winning 7-5. Wednesday's New York Post headline reads, "A-Rod Linked to Levee Breaches During Upcoming Hurricane Season."

Now A-Rod bashers--allow me to bring a few insights to your jealous, resentful minds.

First off, over the course of a 162-game season, colassal run production of A-Rod's magnitude--regardless of whether it occurs in that memorable moment when you would like it to occur--will have a huge positive net impact on your team's win-loss record. Even if A-Rod has acquired some unfortunate psychological tick that causes him to alter his swing (or "squeeze the bat too hard" as the old wisdom goes) during notable situations--a possibility that anyone who's played baseball, or for that matter, any competitive sport can't deny--this failing does not in any way negate his contributions during those countless other "non-clutch" situations in which he produces far above-average offensive results. That SportsCenter producers would even insinuate A-Rod being a liability to the Yankees is an utter joke.

Second, make sure the facts bear out the claim. I don't currently have the energy to look up and analyze A-Rod's career "clutch" statistics (RISP, postseason, 7th inning or later, etc.), I would invite any A-Rod basher to do so. I know I have done so in the not too distant past, and as I remember, they proved to be as I expected--only slightly less awesome, if not as awesome, as his total numbers. Don't base his performance in the clutch on those couple times when you really, really wanted A-Rod to get that big hit to stick it to the Sox or Mets during that 9th inning rally that one time.

[Admittedly, I did hear on the Great ESPN earlier that A-Rod is hitting in the low .100-somethings this season during "such and such clutch situation," which on the surface sounded pretty damning. But forty-some games into the season, any situational statistic should always, always, always be given with the statistical sample. In fact, any season stat, period--particularly such a nuanced one--should be given with the sample size. Simply spitting out a percentage--say, a .125 BA--implies a statistically significant sample. For once, just say "2 for 16" and let fans dice that for themselves.

I don't mean to insist that every sports broadcaster, writer, and fan should have an extensive background in statistics and statistical probability, but if one asserts to have identified a trend, he or she should at least know the statistical validity of the trend or have a really really really really awesome intuitive understanding of how trends and statistics bear out.]

Third, why is it that some players can do no right and others can do no wrong, and why are fans--and more importantly journalists--unable to back off of these quickly-formed perceptions? When it's Tadahito Iguchi or David Eckstein or Kevin Millar or Adam Everett or any other "glue guy" making a big mid-game hit or doing something that "doesn't show up in the box score," the reward is a massive verbal pat on the ass. But when A-Rod has big run-producing games that don't end in a walk-off mob at home plate, it's just, "He's a garbage-time player."

Why do people assume that memorable equals less valuable? "Man, maybe if that Derek Jeter weren't so selfish always trying to pad his batting average by going for singles, the Yankees would have a lot more mid-game homers that would help build up leads. Instead, he only tries at the end of the game when he can get all the glory. What a prick." Is that not the exact equally-irrational flip side of the A-Rod criticisms? I don't know; I could be wrong.

Mostly what I'm saying is this: I find it nauseating that ESPN and other media outlets rely on these unfounded, unfair, narrowly-targeted trends to create stories for themselves to compensate for having nothing meaningful to report. Not only do they shed little to no insight on the sport on which they center, but they inevitably turn players into undeserving objects of ridicule by playing on flimsy perceptions. And in my opinion, that's bullshit.

And oh by the way, A-Rod just happens to be the reigning leauge MVP and the greatest pre-Pujols talent of our generation. So lay the F off him, and enjoy his talent for chrissake.