Alex Rodriguez has homered in four of the last five games, including in three straight against the AL East-leading Tampa Bay Rays. And all those home runs have one thing in common--they were all meaningless.
A-Rod's dinger on Tuesday came in Mike Mussina's 17th victory of the season as the Yankees beat the Rays 7-2. But *yawn*--the home run came in the eighth with the Bombers well in front, 6-2. The blast came off mediocre reliever Jason Hammel, who has a lifetime ERA of 5.98 and is surely the worst arm in the Tampa Bay pen.
Yes, A-"I'm the First"-Rod made history Wednesday when his ninth-inning blast was upheld by instant replay--the first time the replay system was used in major league history.
But again, his two-run long fly came with the Yanks already up 6-3, a fairly comfortable margin--especially when you consider the incomparable Mariano Rivera closes games for the Bombers. Translation: another meaningless home run. Finally, Thursday, Rodriguez victimized Hammel again--this time with a two-out, ninth-inning blast.
However, that came with the Yankees behind 7-4 and down to their final out. So, yes, three straight late-inning homers, two straight ninth-inning blasts and a two-out dinger in the final inning Thursday.
But so what? Those who have long said A-Rod's homers come with nothing on the line just got their points proven again this week. (In fact, there was another one of A-Rod bashing articlesthis past week, just BEFORE his recent surge, written by Yahoo! Sports' Jeff Passan.)
Yes, yes. A-Rod has homered in three straight games. Yawn. Wake me up when they matter.
Not only does KP Wee writes for the Bleacher Report, he's also a published author (for Cacoethes Publishing House). Check out his fiction novel, "Showing Their Scales", on Amazon.ca and Amazon.com.
7 comments Last one added 10 months ago — Leave a Comment
charles Kelly 10 months ago
I have to disagree here, KP baby. A-Rod's replay home run made it 8-3. The Rays then scored once in the ninth, and Upton lined out with a man on to end it, meaning if he had hit a home run, the score would have been 8-6. Subtract A-Rod's homer and. . .?
Of course, if the game had been 6-3 going into the Rays' ninth Rivera would likely have pitched, I know. Still your assertion that cushioning a 3-run lead going into a dangerous foe's final licks is meaningless is kind of silly. Actually, not kind of. Is.
As for his home run today, he scored as many runs as he possibly could at a time the Yankees were rallying. How can you call a 100% contribution at a time like that meaningless?
Yeah, he's not been the most clutch performer in his career, (then again Elway took his time to win the big ones, too). Yet even if he never gets that ring, and never shines in the playoffs, I enjoy watching this man play ball 162 games per year. I guess I'm just not as obsessed with winning as some. I prefer it, I cheer for it, love to see it, but I certainly don't tie my appreciation for the game of baseball to it.
And since you're a published writer, here's a few helpful tips (and ignoring what I assume to be typos, like "there was another one of A-Rod bashing articles this past week"):
"And all those home runs have one thing in common--they were all meaningless." Using the word "all" twice is unnecessary and clunky.
". . .just got their points proven again this week" Although it might seem as if "points" is correct, in fact they collectively have one "point"--A-Rod ain't clutch.
Cheers. And get some sleep, will ya'?
Edit Comment Cancel
KP Wee 10 months ago
Thanks for reading and your feedback. ;-)
Of course, since you watch the Yankees on a more regular basis than me, then I would say you have more insight on the A-Rod matter. Fair enough.
Edit Comment Cancel
Tyler Strickland 10 months ago
It's true that he has misleading stats. But give him credit where it is due: he's still one of the top two or three most talented players in the league. There are plenty of mediocre players that play nothing but mediocre in pressure situations. He just happens to be a choker that smashes 35-50 home runs a year. He's like the Jay-Z lyric: "I'm not a businessman, I'm the business, Man!" He fills seats. Even if only to boo him, people show up to watch A-Rod.
Edit Comment Cancel
charles Kelly 10 months ago
"Of course, since you watch the Yankees on a more regular basis than me" More regular basis than I.
Seriously, though, I am a resident of Japan and can watch at most 40 Yankee games per year. I just bristled at the hyperbolic "meaningless" being applied to those particular dingers.
Eddie, love the photoshopped mug (Lord, I hope it's photoshopped), but your point was beside KP's point. He declared three home runs "meaningless". I kind of proved they weren't. Not kind of. Did. You just went off tangentially on one of the all-time greats. Not the best public face to wear, boyo.
Edit Comment Cancel
KP Wee 10 months ago
"more regular basis than ME"
"more regular basis than I DO"
Charles, I appreciate your feedback, but I do teach grammar, so I know when it is correct. And yes, that article was first typed when it was past my normal bedtime, so cut me some slack.
Edit Comment Cancel
charles Kelly 10 months ago
Uh, yeah, I haven't a doubt you teach grammar DO. I know the "rules" and was actually poking fun at myself for offering corrections in my initial post, by citing a more traditionally correct yet less often employed grammatical construction.
Below is what some "expert" wrote:
Than I versus Than Me.
Than, as used in comparatives, has traditionally been considered a conjunction; as such, if you're comparing subjects, the pronouns after than should take the "subjective case." In other words, "He's taller than I," not "He's taller than me"; "She's smarter than he," not "She's smarter than him." If, on the other hand, you're comparing direct or indirect objects, the pronouns should be objective: "I've never worked with a more difficult client than him."
There are some advantages to this traditional state of affairs. If you observe this distinction, you can be more precise in some comparisons. Consider these two sentences:
* He has more friends than I. (His total number of friends is higher than my total number of friends.)
* He has more friends than me. (I'm not his only friend; he has others.)
The problem, though, is that in all but the most formal contexts, "than I" sounds stuffy, even unidiomatic. Most people, in most contexts, treat than as a preposition, and put all following pronouns in the objective case, whether the things being compared are subjects or objects. "He's taller than me" sounds more natural to most native English speakers.
This isn't a recent development: people have been treating than as a preposition for centuries. Consider the following from big-name English and American writers:
* Matthew Prior, Better Answer: "For thou art a girl as much brighter than her,/ As he was a poet sublimer than me."
* Samuel Richardson's Clarissa, 1.10.58, "I am fitter for this world than you, you for the next than me."
* Lord Byron's letter of 2 November 1804, "Lord Delawarr is considerably younger than me."
* Robert Southey, Well of St. Keyne, 51: "She had been wiser than me,/ For she took a bottle to Church."
* William Faulkner's Reivers, 4.82: "Let Lucius get out . . . He's younger than me and stouter too for his size."
So what should you do? I don't have a good answer, other than the most general advice possible: try to size up your audience, and figure out whether they're likely to be happier with the traditional or the familiar usage. [Entry added 3 Jan. 2005.]
Edit Comment Cancel
KP Wee 10 months ago
Charles, thanks for your concerns and feedback.
Cheers. :-)
Edit Comment Cancel
Leave a Comment
You must register to post a comment.