Reggie Sanders

[Kevin]

In the A-Rod post, someone talked about varience and small sample size in the post season. I remember when Reggie had a very bad post season against the Dodgers and Braves in '96 playing for the Reds. IIRC, It was said at the time that they found a hole in his swing.

As a result, Reggie went from a building block for the Reds to a well-traveled journeyman over the next few years.

It could have more to do with budgets, etc., but I was always amazed about how quickly he moved around with so much talent (and I have heard he is a pretty good club house guy - but not for sure)

I think they just said that over 200 post season at bats he now has a 333 average. Of course, he has been smokin so far this post season.

If he would have had this post season in '96 do you think his career would have had an entirely different trajectory? e.g. stays with Reds, they build the team around him, fixture as an fan voted all-star based upon post season reputation, etc.

Just some random thoughts because as sports fans, it seems that we are quick to call someone cluch or failure based upon small sample size.

[Victor]

if sample size did not exist then clutch would not exist.

Couldn't agree with you more.

Great assessment.