Crock of IT.

This argument will probably go on forever and you know where I stand.

Even after this Weekend of Horrors when ARod had the nerve to hit a mere .300. Throw in a couple walks and a stolen bases and, you know, it's not nearly as bad as, say ... well, you know who I'm going to say. Actually, take your pick.

ARod only had one rbi in three games, but it was a 2-out RISP single. The man is clutch like that. Too bad Jeter got thrown out at third on the play -- might have killed a rally by trying to do too much because of the absence of Sheffield and Matsui.

That is what the numbers say and also what my eyes saw:

"This is not a subject I tackle with naivete. We live in an era of advanced statistical analysis and, en masse, that group would tell me - is probably writing e-mails to tell me - there is no such thing as clutch or non-clutch, and that qualities such as IT are media-generated hogwash. I take the research seriously and, I agree, intangible qualities have been thrown around far too much in baseball coverage. But how do you disregard your eyes completely? How do you ignore that at the most intense moments Rodriguez seems to be carrying his 32-ounce bat and the weight of the world into each at-bat?"

1) Advanced statistical analysis? How about just batting average?

ARod's batting average this year increases with runners on base, with RISP, and with RISP and two outs.

2) Name one moment this weekend that qualifies as "intense."


I think the writers, fans, and even the manager have the template for the story before it's even written.

That's how a mid-June series vs. Oakland can somehow be "intense." Yesterday's game was only "intense" because ARod went 0-for-3. It's a regular season statistic-accumulating waste of time if ARod hits two homeruns.

That also explains how Jeter can go 1-for-13 in the series and Joel Sherman will not even notice. Since it doesn't fit the story, he completely disregards what he sees with his own eyes.