Eric Wilbur's Fuzzy Math.

Look, we've been through this 100,000 times, but I'm forced to question the core of Eric Wilbur's argument:

"In late-inning, close-game situations (seventh inning or later with the batting team ahead by one, tied or having the tying run on base, at bat or on deck), Ortiz came through with far greater efficiency than Rodriguez this past season, batting .346, driving in 33 runs, 11 home runs, and -- get this -- an .846 slugging percentage, almost double A-Rod’s in the same category. Rodriguez, meanwhile, drove in 12 and hit four home runs in late, close games for the Yankees.

Not to place too much emphasis on one set of numbers, but what that tells you is that when the game was on the line, when his team needed him the most, Ortiz came through at a rate about triple that of the Yankees third baseman. Triple."

Not to place too much emphasis on one set of numbers, but let's place too much emphasis on one set of numbers.

"Rate" is an interesting word.

When Wilbur says "rate," he only means homerun rate, which is a very ridiculous argument. I mean, Eric Wilbur is saying that a batter can only "come through" when he hits a homerun. Ortiz wins 11 to 4.

I can not find the actual close-and-late statistics, but I believe Ortiz was 27-for-78 and Alex Rodriguez was 22-for-75.

Which means Ortiz hit .346 in this particular cross-section and Rodriguez hit .293. That's a "rate." While I may not be too familiar with Eric Wilbur's artihmetic, I damn sure know that .346 is not "about triple" of .293.

Over the course of 162 games, Ortiz had 5 more "clutch" hits. (Not my definition of "clutch," Wilbur's definition of "clutch.") Big whoop. It doesn't seem like that big of a deal when the numbers are examined in detail.

I'm also left to wonder what Ortiz was doing in the first six innings. What was Ortiz's batting average when the game was close-and-early? Maybe the Yankee games weren't close when they got late because ARod had already given his team a big lead.


" 'We win games that other teams are going to lose because we have David in our lineup,' Red Sox manager Terry Francona said late last season after a game that featured yet more Ortiz heroics.

Most Valuable? Call me crazy, but that virtually defines the term, no?"

Well, gee. I think it's safe to say that the Yankees won many games that other teams would have lost because the Yankees have Alex Rodriguez in their lineup, no?

ARod played all 162 games and added value in all aspects of the game (besides pitching). I happen to think games can be won in the first six innings. I also happen to think games can be won on the field and on the basepaths.


"Far too many voters merely looked at the 'holy trinity' of batting average, home runs, and runs batted in, saw Rodriguez led in two of the categories, and checked his name off. Simple as that, yet again demeaning the award of what it was intended to be, handed out to the player who meant the most to his team. Is there any doubt on the Red Sox that was Ortiz?"

Huh?

In this case, the voters seem to have looked at the overall game. Hooray for the voters.

Besides, I could make a very strong case for Manny Ramirez as the most valuable player on the Red Sox. Manny had two less hrs, four less rbis, but played the outfield and even led the AL in outfield assists. I even believe Manny had a better close-and-late average, but don't quote me on that.

"Close-and-late" is something that crawled out of the woodwork when it was time to make a case against Alex Rodriguez.

Anybody remember Vlad's close-and-late average from last year? Didn't think so.


"On the Yankees, was Rodriguez really more valuable than Mariano Rivera? Hell, Aaron Small?"

Yes, and yes.

Just a word of advice, Eric. When you suggest that Aaron Small was a more deserving MVP candidate than ARod, you don't hurt ARod's credibility, you hurt your own credibility.