A-Rod HR Watch, Summer Solstice Edition

In last night's loss to the Mets, I immensely enjoyed seeing an A-Bomb from A-Rod strike the Mets' Home Run Apple (video). It was like seeing a 429-foot hole-in-one.

That shot also reminded me that it was time to follow up on the post last month that examined whether or not A-Rod's HRs to date indicate a player in in a serious decline, as much of the media had been suggesting.

The method used was to calculate whether A-Rod's 2012 HRs are commensurate with a talent level of hitting HRs in 6.2% of one's at-bats. 6.2% is used because that was A-Rod's HR rate over 2009-2010, when he hit 30 HRs each year. As that post described, the low HR number through May 21 (5 HRs in 144 ABs) hardly justified the collective fork that the baseball media was sticking in A-Rod's back.

It's been a month since then. A-Rod now has 12 HRs in 254 ABs. 12 HRs is within the expected range of a player with a talent level of hitting a HR in 6.2% of his ABs; statistics suggest such a player, after 253 ABs, is expected to have between 10-22 HRs. 

In other words, statistics suggest that one should not give much weight to the media chatter about how A-Rod's 2012 HR numbers reflect a permanent power decline. A-Rod's age and recent health issues are of course legitimate causes for concern. However, the point is that when you read or hear someone concluding that A-Rod's current numbers indicate his days of being a slugger have passed, you should keep the following Biblical quote in mind:

   "See you a man that is hasty in his words? There is more hope for a fool than for him." (Proverbs 29:20)


Note: For reference, I calculated the expected range using the following R formula: qbinom(c(.95, .05), 253, .062).

Roger Clemens and the Court of Public Opinion

Roger Clemens' acquittal represent a debunking of Brian McNamee's credibility. This should not be shocking if you wade through the pages of McNamee's testimony before Congress and his interrogation by Congressional investigators. 

However, there has been a lot of sanctimonious talk about how Roger Clemens "is still guilty in the court of public opinion." The baseball media has been this court's ringleader; the media's reaction - well, Ken Rosenthal provided a priceless summary of the lessons learned by that free-thinking bunch:

"My opinion was formed well before this started; nothing that came out in the trial changed my opinion."

Anyway, a brief examination of the saga suggests the baseball media's reaction is ridiculous:

• The whole thing started with the publication of the Mitchell Report in December 2007.
• The report's accusations against Roger Clemens were entirely founded upon the testimony of Clemens's former trainer, Brian McNamee.
• Clemens vehemently denied the accusations, including in his 2008 testimony to Congress.
• McNamee's testimony has not held up since then. Several of the Congressional investigators ripped him to shreds, prefiguring the trial in which a jury clearly could not take his testimony seriously.
• The Justice Department's years of investigation did not turn up a single carbon-based life form who testified seeing Roger Clemens cheat by taking PEDs.
• To sum up, the portion of the Mitchell Reports related to Roger Clemens is solely based upon tales told by a man so lacking in credibility that he could not even tell the truth about being nagged by his wife. 

So, take away McNamee's discredited testimony and nothing against Roger Clemens remains.

The problem with the "public court of opinion" is that the media has never done its job of reporting and investigating. Instead of actually reading and reporting upon disturbing contradictions recorded in the transcripts, the media essentially functioned as cheerleaders for the Mitchell Report. The public has been grossly misinformed, and the people responsible for misinforming them are not exactly going to 'fess up and apologize for their unprofessionalism.

Wimpy Yankee Fans

This is painful to acknowledge, but in one important respect Red Sox fans demonstrate more loyalty than Yankee fans. This occurs at the end of games; unless the game is extremely close, Yankee fans start leaving in droves around the 7th inning. A good example is Thursday night's loss to the Rays, which I attended. It was a big game, an eminently winnable game, and yet by the 8th inning the place had mostly cleaned out.

This has been going on for awhile. I've been at games where I found myself thinking ahead a couple of innings that Mariano Rivera would be making his entrance, and then look up to see a pack of misguided folks streaming out the aisles. Number 42 running across the outfield grass while "Enter Sandman" rocks Yankee Stadium, and watching Mariano dominate, are historic baseball sights that it seems one should drink in and appreciate; why would anyone go to the expense and effort of a trip to 161st St. and River Ave. and then blow off some of the game's most dramatic moments.

You do not have to be at the game for visual proof of the lameness of too many Yankee fans are. When watching on TV, I've too often seen the Yankees mounting a late rally while YES cuts to the Great Hall to show fans watching the rally on the Hall's TV monitors instead of in their bloody seats. And then when YES pans across the stands late in games, too often the Stadium looks as barren as a crime-ridden urban downtown as 2 in the morning, or Citi Field.

By comparison, whenever a game in Fenway is on TV, the bulk of the fans seem to stay to the end.

Now before proceeding, let's not get carried away with the comparison, Red Sox fans have serious issues. A good example is the self-righteous manner in which too many of them carry on about how much the Yankees spend while simultaneously ignoring how much they outspend the rest of the league.

Regardless, Yankee fans should show more loyalty to the team. If your main concern is traffic on the Major Deegan, stay stay home instead of embarrassing loyal Yankee fans by emptying out the Stadium. When the team is trying to rally, it is much more fun and dramatic when the fans are rocking the Stadium. And more importantly perhaps, those who leave early deprive themselves of an opportunity to see a comeback that will provide a lifetime's worth of memories.

The perfect example is a great game my wife and I attended on the afternoon of April 19 2007. The Indians took a 5-2 lead in the 7th and made it 6-2 going into the 9th, meaning the usual quota of bogus fans had fled the Stadium. Indians' closer Joe Borowski got the first 2 outs of the 9th, and I recall seeing more fans get up and leave after the 2nd out. Obviously the odds were poor - .baseball-reference.com calculates the Yankees had a 0% (zero %) chance of winning at that point - but after all, steep odds are the prerequisite condition of a memorable comeback. Josh Phelps then hit a solo homer, Posada, Damon, Jeter, and Abreu reached base, and then Alexander Emmanuel Rodriguez slugged a no-doubter 3-run walkoff home run.

Yes, most of the time such rallies will not happen. But if you want to be present at such a great moment, you'll have to sit and root in hopes that this is the time it will happen.