Because he knows from empirical data.

"How come we don't hear nearly as much about Roethlisberger having it all over Eli, now and forever, when Roethlisberger plays the way he did last Sunday.

Or are we only supposed to use the empirical data we get from him when he's going good?"

Empirical data? Mike Lupica wants to bring empirical data into the discussion?

Dem's some big words for a guy who is wondering why long-forgotten Eli Manning isn't still part of the national discourse. After the NFL season is over. After the comparisons have been made and Roethlisberger has won hands down.

A guy who is the youngest player to ever win the Super Bowl, who won four straight road playoff games, and is practically undefeated as a starter in the NFL. Compared to a guy who was shut out at home in his first playoff game, the first time a home team had been shut out in the playoffs in 25 years.

This is how come we don't hear nearly as much about Roethlisberger having it all over Eli. Eli hasn't earned the right to be part of the discussion.


But let's get back to empirical data. If Mike Lupica is such an empirical data egghead whiz kid, I wonder how he can compare Randy Johnson's 2005 season to Carlos Beltran's 2005 season:

"Okay, I've got the first day of pitchers and catchers in the pool for when Randy Johnson tells us he just needed a year to get adjusted to New York.

March 1 for Carlos Beltran to say the same thing in Port St. Lucie.

And if they both don't play up to their previous standards this year, I say we write it all off to the famous New York City sophomore jinx."

Let's take a gander at the empirical data for Randy Johnson and Carlos Beltran (the Internet makes this so convenient!).

While I don't doubt that both Randy Johnson and Carlos Beltran will say idiotic things to the press about adjusting to New York, it really is the NY writers who thrive on the notion. It's so tough to play in New York because your doppelganger might appear in a back page cartoon at the Daily News.

But we only care about empirical data, right?


Randy Johnson was 17-8, 3.79 era, 225 2/3 inning pitched, 207 hits, 47 walks, 211 strikeouts.

The homeruns were way too high and he probably didn't meet the high expectations that accompany a five-time Cy Young Award winner, but how high were those expectations?

My expectations were 18 wins and an era under 3.50. I certainly wasn't expecting 25 wins and an era under 2.50. Were you? If so, are you crazy? Don't you know the batters in the AL can hit?

Unit was 4th in wins, 5th in innings pitched, 17th in era, 2nd in WHIP (normally, this would be terrific, but he gave up way too many homeruns), 2nd in strikeouts, and 4th in strikeouts-per-nine-innings, if that floats your boat.

Being empirical about it, I'd probably claim that Unit was still among the top ten starters in the AL (I tend to elevate the importance of innings pitches and quality starts), and Unit was certainly the best starting pitcher on the Yankees.


Now let's move on to Carlos Beltran. Empirically, of course.

.266, 16 hrs, 78 rbis.

.320 ob%, .414 slugging%, 83 runs, 17 stolen bases, 56 walks, 96 strikeouts, 34 doubles, 2 triples.

34 doubles is above-average. Tied for 27th in the league.

17 stolen bases is not too impressive, but it's still enough for top 20 in the league.

That's it. Nothing else about Carlos Beltran's season distinguishes him from an average NL centerfielder. Only his salary is in the top five.

Empirically speaking, please don't elevate a shlep like 2005 Beltran into the elite company of 2005 Unit.


As for the notion of Sophomore Slump, this is the domain of lazy sportswriters. (By the way, has Derek Jeter ever been able to duplicate the previous "high standards" he set in 1999? Has he just been in an extended Senior Slump?)

Empirical data is not too concerned with the reasons why. If I was a Mets fan, I wouldn't waste too much time wondering why Carlos Beltran stunk out the joint, I'd be unable to get past the stinkin' pile of garbage that my team was paying $100 million for. The empirical data is so damning, I don't need a reason why. I'm more concerned with the what and the who.