I sort of get it now...command of a curveball is being able to make the sucker curve sharply. Whereas in this context control is essentially the same thing as 'aim'...it's all sort of made-up but I can see a difference at least.
Dombrowski came into a great situation, there's no question about that.
Theo also came into a very good position after the 2002 season, inheriting a team with a 100-62 Pythagorean record. He did a great job with it, of course.
I'm not sure I follow this. We usually recognize big moments as they're happening, as far as I can tell. We know the significance of the game and the at-bat within the game.
If you're talking about things like Dave Henderson's home run in Game 6 against the Mets being devalued by the fact we blew the game, I would agree that happens but a lot of fans are still able to recognize that it was still a big clutch hit for him personally...
I'm fine with bringing up the series in which he stunk.
I think the idea that any hitter is going to be clutch all the time is obviously ridiculous.
I'm just looking at the preponderance of data, myself, that's usually how we judge players.
Good effort, still a little dicey though. One could argue that being able to throw the curve but not being able to get it over the plate is not really 'command'.
One word should suffice.
It didn't help his rep with Yankee fans that in his first season they did the unthinkable and blew a 3-0 lead against us...and of course we had come within an eyelash of signing him instead. Then he was awful in 05, 06 and 07, with the crowning insult being demoted to 7th in the lineup in 07...
2 post-seasons? For the sake of accuracy, the 2 stretches I mentioned involved 7 separate postseasons.
Also, I didn't 'decide' anything, I specifically said I couldn't explain any of it.
And this is why you always have a double-barreled answer available:
He did great in the clutch, because he's a great hitter period!
He did lousy in the clutch, because even great hitters are subject to random terrible stretches!
You can't lose. It's like the old 'heads I win, tails you lose' proposition.
Dave Henderson was not a great hitter, but he was a great postseason hitter.
Jeff Bagwell was a great hitter, Mark Teixeira was a superior hitter, Nick Swisher was a very solid hitter, but all 3 were terrible postseason hitters.
Let's examine the question of why A-Rod acquired the reputation of being a choker.
It started with the 2004 ALCS. Up until Game 4 of the ALCS he was doing just fine and seemed to be earning his stripes as a Yankee.
From Game 5 of the 2004 ALCS through the 2007 postseason he had a 16 game stretch that looked like this:
.143/.314/.214 1 RBI
In 2009 he had a tremendous postseason and led the Yanks to the title.
But in 2010 he reverted to his disappearing ways. From the 2010 postseason through the 2012 postseason he had a 21 game stretch that looked like this:
.160/.261/.187 6 RBI
I can't explain any of it, but it is somewhat remarkable for a hitter as talented as A-Rod to go through 2 stretches as incredibly bad as those.
But where is the leveraging for the importance of the game? All these 'high leverage' situations are not equal in importance. I don't see how that could be more obvious to even the most casual observer of the game.
You're right, but I guarantee the pitcher is not trying to throw a ball in that situation.
Also, if you throw a straight fastball down the middle, major league hitters are usually going to crush it. If pitchers threw nothing but straight fastballs down the middle major league hitters would probably be hitting .600 and games would be won by scores of 30-25.