Sunday Night Open Thread

Do we have a new Mr. October and is his name Alex Rodriguez? The Yankees WIN!!!

Madmen (encore) coming up now.

This is an Open Thread.

< Gay Rights Weekend | He Was Never That Into You >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    ARod (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by barbarajmay on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 10:02:35 PM EST
    I was at the game, and the Minnesota fans jeered "A-roid" when he hit, and the Dome played commercials about the evils of steroids before his at bats.  We have a sense of humor here in Minnesota!

    Well, the Yankee$ won, but the Twins (none / 0) (#14)
    by DFLer on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 08:45:34 AM EST
    beat themselves.

    Congrats to Brian CA$H-MAN and his Yankee$$$


    Money isn't everything! (none / 0) (#22)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 09:49:20 AM EST
    Look at the Cubs. The third highest payroll and what do they have to show for it? Sorriano, Bradley and Zambrano. What a trio of misfits.

    The Cubs Mistake (none / 0) (#24)
    by CoralGables on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:03:33 AM EST
    is they only dabbled in the money pit. They needed to spend another 70 million for the year. Then they could be the Yankees.

    Understood, but, what, Yankee$ payroll is (none / 0) (#25)
    by DFLer on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:08:09 AM EST
    something like 250 million compared to Twins @ 80? might not have the stats right.

    True (none / 0) (#33)
    by CoralGables on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:30:11 AM EST
    but baseball salaries deal with several diverse entities. Smart teams with low budget payrolls such as the Twins, Marlins and Rangers; Less than smart teams with low budgets such as the O's Pirates, and Nationals; Smart high budget successes such as the RedSox, Angels, Phillies, and Dodgers; and less than smart high budget failures like the Cubs and Mets.

    Then we have the Yankees who spend so much there is no way to know whether they are smart or dumb, but they definitely pay far more per win than any other team.

    You are right about the Cubs though. Another 70 million with the way they make decisions might not have made any difference. (That goes for the Mets too)


    Cubs declaring bankruptcy for purposes (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 11:51:13 AM EST
    of gaining a buyer.  

    Pettitte was on the juice (none / 0) (#46)
    by eric on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 12:10:50 PM EST
    too.  Seriously, the Yankees with their obscene payroll and HGH enhanced players, they should just play in their own league and let the rest of us play some honest baseball.

    Not for nothing.... (none / 0) (#51)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 01:31:28 PM EST
    HGH is readily available to big payroll/big market and small payroll/small market teams alike, and well within the budget of even those players making the league minimum:)

    Um. . .Go Phillies! (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 12:08:29 AM EST

    See Anthony Gregory's article at The Independent Institute, The Real Problem With Obama's Nobel:
    The real problem with Obama's Nobel is not that it might neuter him, but rather that it may embolden him. In the name of peace, he and previous presidents have kept America in a virtual state of perpetual war for three generations. The Nobel is a signal to Obama that he can keep talking like a man of peace even as he acts like a master of war.

    There's also Arthur Silber's article, at The Power of Narrative: Endless Lies, Endless Sucker Plays:

    In a comment on Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, Martin Indyk, of the [pro-war] Brookings Institution, said: "It frees up governments to respond positively to Obama's call for them to assume their responsibilities." [snip]

    Those formerly resistant nations are now under more pressure to support Obama's "crippling" sanctions to punish Iran severely: for the unforgivable crime of exercising its rights and refusing to behave as the U.S. demands. [snip] As always, a sanctions regime is not an alternative to war: it is the prelude to attack or invasion. [snip] It was the alleged failure and unsustainability of the Iraq sanctions that led many people (including many liberals) to support the Iraq invasion.

    With Iran, they're ready to do it all over again. A powerful nation embarks on a course of sanctions to make life intolerable...given sufficient time and sufficient provocation, the weaker country and people will finally do something that the actual aggressor can seize on as a pretext for the policy upon which it had already decided. What then unfolds becomes the victim's 'fault'.[snip] So much for the positive value of this Nobel Peace Prize.

    Like the foregoing authors, many people in this country are highly discomfited by Obama's NPP; especially those who increasingly view Obama's first term as Bush's third term. It must look better to the Norwegians - evidently, they can't see us from their back porch.

    The idea that Obama's (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 08:05:40 AM EST
    decisions about defense and national security, or anyone's, is even remotely likely to be influenced by having received the NPP is so absurd, it's not even worth discussing.  This is complete and utter twaddle.

    And give me a break on the "Bush's third term" nonsense.  Rediculous over-the-top accusations like that help no one and nothing, they only degrade serious analysis to the level of Limbaugh-ism.


    I'm not sure you have any way of (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by Anne on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 09:06:04 AM EST
    knowing whether receiving the NPP will influence Obama's defense and national security policies - positively or negatively - so I don't know why you feel able to dismiss the concerns of others with such confidence.

    As for the "nonsense" of whether Obama's administration is equivalent to a third term for Bush, I find that to be more bluster on your part than anything else.  I'll let Glenn give you the highlights:

    If a historian were to write about the events of the first nine months of 2009 when it came to transparency issues as they relate to the war crimes of the Bush years, the following is what would be written.  Just remember this was all done with an overwhelming Democratic majority in both houses of Congress and a Democratic President elected on a promise to usher in "an unprecedented level of openness in Government" and "a new era of openness in our country."  There's no blaming Republicans for any of this:

    In February, the Obama DOJ went to court to block victims of rendition and torture from having a day in court, adopting in full the Bush argument that whatever was done to the victims is a "state secret" and national security would be harmed if the case proceeded.  The following week, the Obama DOJ invoked the same "secrecy" argument to insist that victims of illegal warrantless eavesdropping must be barred from a day in court, and when the Obama administration lost that argument, they engaged in a series of extraordinary manuevers to avoid complying with the court's order that the case proceed, to the point where the GOP-appointed federal judge threatened the Government with sanctions for noncompliance.  Two weeks later, "the Obama administration, siding with former President George W. Bush, [tried] to kill a lawsuit that seeks to recover what could be millions of missing White House e-mails."

    In April, the Obama DOJ, in order to demand dismissal of a lawsuit brought against Bush officials for illegal spying on Americans, not only invoked the Bush/Cheney "state secrets" theory, but also invented a brand new "sovereign immunity" claim to insist Bush officials are immune from consequences for illegal domestic spying.  The same month -- in the case brought by torture victims -- an appeals court ruled against the Obama DOJ on its "secrecy" claims, yet the administration vowed to keep appealing to prevent any judicial review of the interrogation program.  In responses to these abuses, a handful of Democratic legislators re-introduced Bush-era legislation to restrict the President from asserting "state secrets" claims to dismiss lawsuits, but it stalled in Congress all year.  At the end of April and then again in August, the administration did respond to a FOIA lawsuit seeking the release of torture documents by releasing some of those documents, emphasizing that they had no choice in light of clear legal requirements.

    In May, after the British High Court ruled that a torture victim had the right to obtain evidence in the possession of British intelligence agencies documeting the CIA's abuse of him, the Obama administration threatened that it would cut off intelligence-sharing with Britain if the court revealed those facts, causing the court to conceal them.  Also in May, Obama announced he had changed his mind and would fight-- rather than comply with -- two separate, unanimous court orders compelling the disclosure of Bush-era torture photos, and weeks later, vowed he would do anything (including issue an Executive Order or support a new FISA exemption) to prevent disclosure of those photos in the event he lost yet again, this time in the Supreme Court.  In June, the administration "objected to the release of certain Bush-era documents that detail the videotaped interrogations of CIA detainees at secret prisons, arguing to a federal judge that doing so would endanger national security."  In August, Obama Attorney General Eric Holder announced that while some rogue torturers may be subject to prosecution, any Bush officials who relied on Bush DOJ torture memos in "good faith" will "be protected from legal jeopardy."  And all year long, the Obama DOJ fought (unsuccessfully) to keep encaged at Guantanamo a man whom Bush officials had tortured while knowing he was innocent.

    That's the record which an historian, wedded as faithfully as possible to a narration of indisputable facts, would be compelled to write.  And those are just disclosure and transparency issues relating to Bush-era crimes.  None of that has anything to do with ongoing assertion of detention powers, habeas corpus denials, renditions, transparency issues generally, the Democrats' active efforts just this week to prevent abuses of the Patriot Act and FISA, etc. (for those with Twitter, just read Marcy Wheeler's infuriating account from the last two hours of how key Democrats in the Senate -- led by Dianne Feinstein and Pat Leahy -- just gutted virtually every effort to rein in Patriot Act and FISA abuses that were sponsored by Feingold, Durbin and even Arlen Specter:  NAJIBULLAH ZAZI!!!).  And now this war on transparency is all culminating with a White House-backed effort -- spearheaded by key ally Joe Lieberman -- to sweep aside two federal court rulings and to write a new exemption for FOIA that has no purpose but to prevent the world from seeing new and critical evidence of systematic American war crimes.  If the stated goal of Democrats had been to use their newfound control of Government to protect and suppress Bush-era war crimes, how could they have done any better?

    Now, really: does what Obama's doing sound like a drastic and much-needed departure from the Bush policies, or does it sound and appear to you, as it does to me, that Obama has strengthened and legitimized some of the most repugnant policies of the Bush years?

    Nonsense, my a$$.


    Could not agree more (none / 0) (#13)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 08:38:55 AM EST
    And I hope the idea is as absurd as we think. I have a dim enough view of world leaders without thinking they would base their policies on the whims of the Nobel board.

    Greenwald, Swanson are "twaddlers"? (none / 0) (#56)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:07:53 PM EST
    Gyrfalcon, as you know "twaddle" is trivial, foolish, self-indulgent speech or writing. Do you really think Greenwald and Swanson are talking "utter twaddle"; and that "they only degrade serious analysis to the level of Limbaugh-ism" when they criticize Obama for acting as if he is presiding over Bush's 3rd term?

    Do you mean to say this David Swanson is a Limbaughesque twaddler?

    David Swanson is a U.S. author, blogger, and activist. He is the author of "Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union" (Seven Stories Press, Sept. 1, 2009) and of the introduction to "The 35 Articles of Impeachment and the Case for Prosecuting George W. Bush," by Dennis Kucinich. Swanson served as press secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign. [snip] In May 2005, Swanson was instrumental in making the Downing Street Memos known in the United States and discussed in Congress. He co-founded a coalition at AfterDowningStreet.org...

    And this Glenn Greenwald is also a Limbaughesque twaddler?

    Glenn Greenwald is an American constitutional and civil rights lawyer, author, and a columnist/blogger, at Salon...He has also contributed to other newspapers and political news magazines, including The NY Times, The LA Times, The American Conservative, The National Interest, and In These Times.

    Greenwald is the author of three books: How Would a Patriot Act? (2006) and A Tragic Legacy (2007), both New York Times bestsellers; and Great American Hypocrites (2008). In March, 2009, he was selected, along with Democracy Now's Amy Goodman, devoted to rewarding excellence in independent journalism. His commentaries "on surveillance issues and separation of powers" have been cited in The NY Times, WaPo, in United States Senate floor debates, and in House "official ... reports on executive power abuses"...

    If we had Greenwald, Swanson, and Obama talk off-the-cuff for 30 minutes, about any issue of substance, we would see soon enough who's the biggest twaddler of them all.  


    There's a substantial difference (none / 0) (#57)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Oct 13, 2009 at 06:17:12 PM EST
    between noticing that the Obama administration is continuing some -- note that word "some" -- of Bush's policies, as Greenwald et al, and even I have, and announcing Obama's nothing more than "Bush's third term," which is, sorry, twaddle.  It was twaddle like that from Ralph Nader and his devotees that brought us King Georgie in the first place.

    Get a grip.


    Gyrfalcon, what prospective actions (none / 0) (#58)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Oct 22, 2009 at 12:04:24 AM EST
    would, in your opinion, meet the definition of the Obama Administration being analogous to a third Bush term? I'm in agreement with Greenwald and Swanson. Do you have ANY line in the sand of your own, at all? It would stand to reason that you do.

    And while we're at it, which of Greenwald's (or Swanson's) actual findings meet your definition of "utter twaddle"? Do you dispute the veracity or accuracy of the issues they present? Or is it just the appellation "Bush's third term" that offends your sensibilities? After all, one man's "torture" is another man's "harsh interrogation".

    BTW, if you are so averse to "twaddle", you might set a good example if you stopped saying inane things to your fellow commenters, like "get a grip" ;-)


    The 2009 pound elephant called cost (2.00 / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 09:41:14 AM EST
    just got up and started walking around.

    Price Waterhouse says Obama's health care planS will cost the average family of four $4000 a year.

    They didn't add that it will also lead to the destruction of Medicare and health care rationing for the old.

    You mean AHIP says (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:17:07 AM EST
    Exactly (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:20:18 AM EST
    Also I didn't see any mention of what the cost increases will be if there is no reform. I guess we can assume current rates will be frozen then? Yippee!

    Do you mean reform (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 12:41:01 PM EST
    without the so-called savings or with the so-called savings?

    Yankees, Giants . . . (none / 0) (#2)
    by nycstray on Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 10:33:05 PM EST
    do we get a Triple with da J-E-T-S, Jets, Jets JETS!?

    And I'm currently ahead of my FFL opponent by 71 pts. If Clark could pull off a TD (yeah right!) in the last 2min, I'd be the top of the scoreboard so far this season. Not bad considering I've got Brees on a bye week, lol!~ PU Matt Hasselbeck at about 11:30 this AM. Throw in Ahmad Bradshaw and Roddy White with a couple other of my guys . . .

    All around great sports weekend so far :)

    You started Bradshaw... (none / 0) (#12)
    by kdog on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 08:26:11 AM EST
    and White?  You should be a GM in the NFL stray!

    Oakland could use your help...you're a better talent evaluator than Al Davis, for damn sure:)


    Yup! (none / 0) (#23)
    by nycstray on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:00:17 AM EST
    The only thing I ended up sweatin' yesterday was my pick of Dallas in Survival football, lol!~

    I was surprised as to how bad the Raiders looked yesterday. O.M.G. what a mess. Their QB looked like someone they had picked up off the street. Does he even work out? Just an embarrassment.


    of course (none / 0) (#3)
    by cpinva on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 12:01:44 AM EST
    the yankees won, as if there was even a question!

    And that's why Yankee fan$ are loved (none / 0) (#15)
    by DFLer on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 08:46:56 AM EST
    around the world. :)

    Yankees/Dodgers World Series... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Dadler on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 12:06:34 AM EST
    ...is MLB's dream matchup right now.  I'd love it, as it would be a repeat of those series from my 70's childhood.  

    As for A-Rod, f him.  Jeter is twice the player and person.  If Roidriguez pee'd in a cup, it'd look like dry ice the guy is so dirty.  I bet he has to bring uncontaminated toddler urine with him to work every day just in case.  Luckily, as with most of these idiots, their chemists are ahead of the testing game by years.  Alright, alright, I'm just kidding, obviously, sort of.

    And Manny Ramirez hasn't been able to do sh*t since he gave birth, has any one else noticed?

    Jeter is so overrated it's ridiculous (none / 0) (#7)
    by cymro on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 04:04:21 AM EST
    One 2009 study rated him the second worst infielder of all time. If he weren't playing in New York, the rest of the country wouldn't have to put up with the never-ending flow of sickening Jeter-worship by sports commentators. Give us a break, please.

    Jeters' range is clearly wanting (none / 0) (#32)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:21:16 AM EST
    But that is a pretty unpersuasive article.

    2nd worst great player infielder is a better description.

    Now where is the ranking for shortstops on offense?

    Funny how the Jeter hater never break those lists out.


    I hate the Yankees... (none / 0) (#48)
    by tworivers on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 12:29:12 PM EST
    but you have to hand it to Jeter.  The guy's a first ballot hall of famer without question.  He also comes off as a pretty classy guy mostly.  

    A. Rod, on the other hand, sounds like a total megalomaniac/diva.  Whenever he tries to do the whole humility act (e.g., "I'm just trying to do whatever it takes to help the team"), it's almost laughable, it's so phony and insincere.  The dude's ego is the size of Greenland and no amount of Bull Durhamisms can hide that fact.


    From start to finish (none / 0) (#50)
    by CoralGables on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 12:48:25 PM EST
    completely true with regard to Jeter at Arod, with bonus points for throwing in "Bull Durhamisms".

    Dodgers/Angels. (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 01:02:24 AM EST

    Go Dodger's (none / 0) (#9)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 07:18:11 AM EST
    At least then, they wouldn't have to play in the snow!

    Funny... (none / 0) (#37)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 11:00:10 AM EST
    ...I don't recall any games being played in the snow.  

    Cleveland. (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 11:52:44 AM EST
    I remember a Cleveland opener (none / 0) (#45)
    by Cream City on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 12:07:01 PM EST
    that wasn't played because of snow -- so it was moved to Milwaukee!  (Ah, the irony.)  Wonder why, if Cleveland has played despite the flakes flying?

    I didn't realize... (none / 0) (#52)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 02:52:24 PM EST
    ...the Indians made the post-season this year.  Is LeBron playing Center Field for them?

    Your comment included "ever." (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 04:44:34 PM EST
    ugh (none / 0) (#16)
    by CST on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 08:50:39 AM EST
    what a terrible sports weekend.

    At least the Bruins won.

    It's almost basketball season! (none / 0) (#38)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 11:02:00 AM EST
    I feel for you though--tough times in the Nation.  But, did I not call the Bronco's win yesterday or what?!

    thank goodness (none / 0) (#41)
    by CST on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 11:36:43 AM EST
    one nice thing about Boston sports these days, when one team lets you down, there is always another one there to pick you up.  The Bruins were down by 3 heading into the third quarter and won the game in a shootout.

    I didn't realize Brady was 1-5 (1-6 now) in his career against the Broncos.  I think they are the only team he has a losing record against.  They certainly seem to have his number.  Great game, despite the end result.  Pretty well matched and well played with missed chances on both sides.  And yes, you did call it.


    Broncos seem to know how to beat Belichick (none / 0) (#47)
    by tworivers on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 12:18:04 PM EST
    When Shanahan was head coach of the Broncos, he regularly beat (and outcoached) Belichick.

    I say this as a fair weather Pats fan (I'm more of a Sox and Bruins type person)


    It was a great game! (none / 0) (#53)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 02:59:50 PM EST
    I've never seen a coach show so much emotion as McD did after the final whistle.  His fist pumps were positively Tigeresque.

    The undefeated Broncos are the talk of town today and the poor Rockies are distant also-rans.  No surpise as this is a football town first and foremost.  Although I have a heard a person or two complaining about the 2 missed calls on the one play against the Phillies last night.  

    Does the Big Ticket stay healthy all year this season?  He's no Spring chicken anymore...


    Is the root of Corzine's unpopularity (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 09:22:33 AM EST
    that he's a member of the cult of substance?

    Hearing Christie describe Corzine as a weak executive -- easily rolled, the challenger claims, by unions and party bosses -- is frustrating to those who have worked closely with the governor.

    They say Corzine's shaky communications skills have led to a disconnect between the public image and the man they know, a governor who killed sacred cows like "Christmas tree" spending and dual officeholding and who revamped a nearly 40-year-old school funding system.

    "One of the things that is a common thread is that Jon -- because of his view of human nature and how people are -- is often willing to think that substance will speak for itself," said Brad Abelow, who worked under Corzine at Goldman Sachs and later was his state treasurer and chief of staff. "The ability to convey what he's accomplished has not been equal to the accomplishments themselves. But this idea that he's ineffective is way, way, way off base."

    No it is the economy (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:17:55 AM EST
    that is the root of Corzine's unpopularity.

    Mostly, yes (none / 0) (#30)
    by andgarden on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:20:27 AM EST
    After months of writing legislation (none / 0) (#19)
    by MO Blue on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 09:29:29 AM EST
    that greatly benefits the insurance industry, the Dems are rewarded by the industry.

    After working for months behind the scenes to help shape health care reform, the insurance industry is now sharply attacking the emerging plan with a report that maintains Senate legislation would increase the cost of a typical policy by hundreds, or even thousands, of dollars a year.
    Several major provisions in the current legislative proposal will cause health care costs to increase far faster and higher than they would under the current system," Karen Ignagni, the top industry lobbyist in Washington, wrote in a memo to insurance company CEOs.

    The study projected that in 2019, family premiums could be $4,000 higher and individual premiums could be $1,500 higher.


    Time to write real health care legislation.

    Hillary on Obama (none / 0) (#20)
    by domer5000 on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 09:33:18 AM EST
    Hillary Clinton: Obama Given Nobel For Restoring 'Image And Appreciation of Our Country'

    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the Today show that President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize because of "his attitude toward America's role in the world." "His willingness to really kind of challenge everyone ... restores a kind of image and appreciation of our country," said Clinton.

    thankless job done as well as it could be (none / 0) (#28)
    by ruffian on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:18:58 AM EST
    That's Hillary for ya!

    Looks like she is settling in (none / 0) (#31)
    by domer5000 on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:20:55 AM EST
    to be the best SOS in our history

    "Clinton Says She Will Not Run Again
    For the first time, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in an interview that she would not run for president again.

    Clinton said "No" three different times when asked "Will you ever run for president again? Yes or No?"


    There (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:34:05 AM EST
    would be no reason for Hillary to run.  

    As I've said a hundred times,

    She's too old.
    Her name is Clinton
    She's a woman.

    This country isn't ready for any of these things.


    I predict she'll go off on her own (none / 0) (#35)
    by nycstray on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:43:26 AM EST
    ala WJC when she's finished with her SoS gig. She's laying down some serious ground work.

    Strange times (none / 0) (#36)
    by domer5000 on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 10:44:52 AM EST
    when an African American named Obama can get elected, but not someone named Clinton

    As for a New Mr October. (none / 0) (#39)
    by CoralGables on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 11:09:49 AM EST
    Ummm no.

    Arod career regular season avg .305
    Arod career Postseason avg .291

    Arod career regular season slugging % .576
    Arod Postseason slugging % .519

    He's actually worse than his average in October but not by a whole lot. Perhaps we could call him Mr. Slightly Less Than Average October.

    You are looking at his past (none / 0) (#40)
    by nycstray on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 11:25:18 AM EST
    not present. He seems to be looking better this year. For now anyway  ;)

    Not at his past (none / 0) (#42)
    by CoralGables on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 11:48:26 AM EST
    but rather his entire career. Reputations aren't built on three games, unless they are the only three you have ever played.

    But if you really want a New Yorker to claim as a Mr October. Try Carlos Beltran.

    Career BA .283
    Post Season BA .366

    Career Slugging % .496
    Post Season Slugging % .817

    Just as impressive is Bobby Brown from the Yankees from 1946 thru 1954.

    Career BA .279
    Post Season BA .439

    Career Slugging % .376
    Post Season Slugging % .707


    My response wasn't entirely serious (none / 0) (#54)
    by nycstray on Mon Oct 12, 2009 at 03:13:09 PM EST
    doesn't matter if we have a new Mr October or not as long as the team wins. But it should be noted that A-Rod may actually be delivering (meeting expectations) this time . . .

    and again, "for now anyway" :)