John Harper and Wallace Matthews both wrote columns this week about A-Rod’s magical development of clutchness, specifically about how getting his steroids use off his chest and playing “under the radar” all season relieved the pressure that prevented A-Rod from performing in the playoffs.

But maybe A-Rod’s just performing in the playoffs because he’s one of the very best players in baseball.

Look: A-Rod had a couple of very bad postseasons in 2005 and 2006. That’s true. But those two bad stretches accounted for a total of 29 at-bats, hardly a reasonable sample size upon which to gauge his ability in the clutch. In 2007, A-Rod posted an unspectacular but solid .267/.353/.467 in the ALDS, but since he already had the unclutch label, all anyone wanted to see was how he didn’t come through.

And of course, they saw him “tight” and “pressing” and all of those vagaries we almost always notice when we have it in our minds that a player is struggling.

It’s the whole rabbit or duck thing again.

In A-Rod’s case, I saw it too. It really looked to me like A-Rod was somehow not programmed to come through in those situations.

Betting on it continuing, though? For the one of the best hitters of this era? Not a smart wager.

So now Harper is trying to take credit for having called, so to speak, A-Rod’s postseason dominance. But you know who else called it? The wisest of sportswriters: math.

It’s called regression to the mean. Good baseball players, when given a large enough sample of at-bats, will usually perform like good baseball players. Even if there is some mental hiccup standing in their way, the large majority of players will overcome it and again perform like they always do, because overcoming mental hiccups is an important aspect of reaching the Major Leagues.

Now A-Rod’s career postseason line is .294/.384/.519, remarkably similar to his career .305/.390/.576 line. His postseason record is notable only for his one notable postseason record: Most nonsensical columns inspired.