Mike Lupica thinks his warped views are shared by everyone else:
"And the Yankees could not find a way to get Randy Johnson out of Phoenix. And if they don't win it all, this will be remembered as the season when one of the great baseball pitchers of all time wanted the Yankees, the Yankees desperately wanted him, and the richest organization in all of world history had nothing that interested the last-place Diamondbacks."
First of all, acquiring Randy Johnson certainly wouldn't have guaranteed the Yankees a World Series title.
Secondly, it should be obvious that the Yankees didn't desperately want Randy Johnson.
Thirdly, let me ask Lupica the accompanying question: What will this team be remembered for if they win the World Series? Gee, let me guess. Overpaid millionaire mercenaries who merely did what they were supposed to do.
Lupica playa hates if they lose and playa hates if they win. The Yankees are failures if they win the World Serires and failures if they don't.
Funny thing is, Lupica seems to think his opinion actually matters. He thinks Lupica view is your view. Lupica has officially decreed "How the Yankees Will Be Remembered." It's unbelievably arrogant and ignorant.
He's clearly pulling for the Red Sox (can barely contain his excitement with phrases like "it won't be easy!" for the Sox to win the East), yet he also wants to believe that he's the True Voice of Yankee Fans. He speaks for all the True Yankee Fans who are absorbed with Steinbrenner Hatred, Big Money Backlash, Puppy Love for David Cone and Paul O'Neill. Sure, the Yankees are winning, but winning is Joyless with these mercenary strangers in the pinstripes.
Hey, Lupica: Don't tell me how I'm going to remember this season.
Speak for yourself.
Tuesday, August 31, 2004
Even when Lupica is right, he changes his mind eventually.
The Red Sox have been hot in the past two weeks and winning 12 out of 13 is tough to do, even if your competition is, in the words of Mike Lupica, "tomato-can teams."
But why have they won 12 out of 13? There has to be a reason.
Is it because they traded Nomar Garciaparra? Is it because of ARod's fight with Varitek over a month ago?
No.
It seems odd that a third baseman has to be the person who simplifies things and tears down the pillars of baseball journalism, but ARod's flat-out correct:
``They are playing extremely well, but we're in the driver's seat,'' Rodriguez said. ``This game is about runs and they are in the best run of the year.''
Of course the Yankees didn't expect to lose six games to the Red Sox in just two weeks. Nobody expected the Red Sox to win 12 out of 13 against anybody. If you expected that, you're crazy. That's a .923 winnning percentage. If the Sox are able to keep that up in the remaining 30 games? They'll win 106 games and the AL East, and there is nothing the Yankees can do about it except pack their bags and head to Minnesota for the playoffs.
But they won't continue this pace for long. Why? Because ARod is right. Baseball is about streaks and slumps and nobody knows why they start and why they stop. Just watch Bull Durham on USA Network and you'll see that Kevin Costner knows more about the game than Mike Lupica and plenty of other sportswriters.
Lupica was actually right-on when he first mentioned the topic, mocking the idea that the fight "woke up" the Red Sox: "If it did really wake up the Sox, why did it take five innings for them to wake up?"
More to the point, why did it take three weeks? Am I really supposed to believe that the ARod fight woke up the Red Sox after a 20-game delay? Because that's the only way the theory holds.
As for the Yankees' need to "wake up," they just won five out of their last seven. Sure, the competition was "tomato-can" teams, but who does Lupica think the Red Sox have been beating lately? The recent Red Sox success is more attributable to a fight in July -- a delayed reaction to a fight in July -- than to just plain old Good Baseball by a $130 million team against weak competition?
See, there's really no way to prove Lupica wrong or to prove Chimelis wrong. Because if you go looking for something long enough, you'll always find it:
- Jeter's early-season slump was due to ARod's presence on the team (no word if ARod's slump was due to John Olerud's presence on the team).
- Yankees' loss to Florida in the World Series was due to lack of character (Paul O'Neill teams also lost in playoffs, but it couldn't be because of poor character).
- The Sox are better since getting rid of Nomar (but let's ignore the fact that the Cubs are better since acquiring Nomar).
How can one disprove these theories? It's all 20/20 hindsight.
But all I ask is that of these Leonard Nimoys "In Search of" reasons for slumps and streaks is that they apply their theories evenly.
I wonder if Lupica has noticed how well the Astros have played since Andy Pettitte's season-ending injury? Could that be why they're playing so well? Nah, it couldn't be. That would make no sense.
Sunday, August 29, 2004
Mike Lupica is a dummy.
"And, oh by the way, if the Yankees were such smarties about Andy Pettitte's elbow, as I've been hearing all over the airwaves all summer, why in the world did they offer him about $50 million on his way out the door?"
- Lupica should make up his mind. Did the Yankees want Pettitte, or didn't they? Because his whole well-documented "George of the Bungle" take is that the Yankees were "dummies" for running Pettitte out the door. Now, in retrospect, they're "dummies" for offering him a ton of money to keep him in New York. (Lupica doesn't actually refer to the Yankees as "dummies," just suggests they were not "smarties." I conducted a poll of several 3-year-olds over the weekend, and they concurred that the semantic opposite of "smarty" is "dummy." They also said Lupica is a poo poo head, but apparently Lupica has lifetime enforcement of the I'm Rubber, You're Glue clause and, therefore, the insult did not stick.)
- I agree with Lupica's latest observation. The Yankees were not "smarties" for offering Pettitte all that money. But if the Yankees were not "smarties" for offering Pettitte so much, then what does that make Mike Lupica if he wanted the Yankees to offer even more money and more years on the contract? Yes. Mike Lupica just called himself a "dummy" and he didn't even realize it.
Mr. Dummy then sets the new record for consecutive columns that ridicule Yankee payroll. It's his own record and he adds to it with every column he writes:
"This is the time of year when Mr. Steinbrenner gets to rest that check-writing hand, which I'm pretty sure is why he doesn't have that carpal tunnel deal yet."
Truly a chuckle-inducing observation by Lupica. Imagine Steinbrenner with a wrist injury caused by writing too many checks for his high payroll. Ha ha ha. LOL. That's funny. Quite an original observation, too.
I really hope Visa doesn't see it and sue Lupica for plagiarism.
Friday, August 27, 2004
Kruk <3 Jeter.
Duh:
"Now, I know people can throw all kinds of numbers at me, telling me why there are better players out there than Jeter.
I know all that stuff. I'll be the first to admit that Jeter isn't the best hitter. He isn't the best shortstop or the best base runner, either. But you put what he has all together, and you'd be crazy not to make him the cornerstone of your team.
Yes, Bonds will probably break Hank Aaron's home run record; and a few years later, A-Rod might even catch him. Even knowing all that, I'll still take Jeter."
The Felz Kwik-N-Ez Path to Enlightenment: Just read whatever John Kruk has to say, and think the opposite.
I mean ... when? ... who? ... what the heck? ... why? ... how did this guy get a job at ESPN and a baseball column in the first place? Whose job is he taking?
Just because Kruk "broke into the majors in 1986; and since that time, I've either been in games, been watching games or been talking to guys who have done both."
Hey, I've got two out of three of those criteria. Since 1986, I have been watching games and talking to guys who watch games. Additionally, I can write complete, fairly coherent sentences in the English language.
Few Yankee fans would rip Jeter after all he has done for their team, and ripping Jeter is certainly not my intention. But before one claims a player is the best player in the majors, one should at least present an argument that the player is extraordinarily good at something besides trying hard.
"Now, I know people can throw all kinds of numbers at me, telling me why there are better players out there than Jeter.
I know all that stuff. I'll be the first to admit that Jeter isn't the best hitter. He isn't the best shortstop or the best base runner, either. But you put what he has all together, and you'd be crazy not to make him the cornerstone of your team.
Yes, Bonds will probably break Hank Aaron's home run record; and a few years later, A-Rod might even catch him. Even knowing all that, I'll still take Jeter."
The Felz Kwik-N-Ez Path to Enlightenment: Just read whatever John Kruk has to say, and think the opposite.
I mean ... when? ... who? ... what the heck? ... why? ... how did this guy get a job at ESPN and a baseball column in the first place? Whose job is he taking?
Just because Kruk "broke into the majors in 1986; and since that time, I've either been in games, been watching games or been talking to guys who have done both."
Hey, I've got two out of three of those criteria. Since 1986, I have been watching games and talking to guys who watch games. Additionally, I can write complete, fairly coherent sentences in the English language.
Few Yankee fans would rip Jeter after all he has done for their team, and ripping Jeter is certainly not my intention. But before one claims a player is the best player in the majors, one should at least present an argument that the player is extraordinarily good at something besides trying hard.
Ray Ratto thinks Barry Bonds is Boring.
The argument is a bit incoherent, but he seems to think Bonds is not the NL MVP because ....
- Walks are boring.
- He doesn't play for the Cardinals.
Apparently in an attempt to further convince the world that he's an idiot, Ratto also comes up with this pearl of wisdom a year after ARod won the MVP for a last-place team:
"This association with the best team is typically, and rightfully, very helpful to MVP candidates, because value is defined by what you do to make your team as good as it can be, and there isn't a lot of head room between where the Cardinals are and how much they can improve. That's why Todd Helton hasn't gotten any MVP trophies yet."
First of all, it's kind of obvious that Bonds helps make the San Francisco Giants baseball club "as good as it can be." Just look at the rest of the team full of mediocre players. The Giants have no business leading the league in runs and challenging for a playoff spot. It's all Bonds.
Ratto's argument collapses upon itself because the Giants score as many runs as the Cardinals without Edmonds, Pujols, Rolen. Just Bonds. That's Value and it is easily measured.
Secondly, I love his Helton take. I just mentioned this yesterday in passing. Helton is not winning MVPs largely because of Coors Field, and rightfully so.
You have to look at Home/Away splits when you're talking about Rockies players.
This year, Helton is .314, 10 hrs, 28 rbis on the road. Nice player, but hardly an MVP candidate. Same goes for his entire career.
Everybody knows this, Ray Ratto must know this. Maybe Ratto's just being silly.
For his entire career, Helton is .375, 152 hr, 501 rbis at home and .296, 95 hrs, 315 rbis on the road.
The Coors Effect is so well-known and striking, it's hardly worth discussing, but for more proof please check out the following Rockies players who also never won MVPs: Jay Payton and Vinny Castilla.
Thursday, August 26, 2004
Barry Bonds, On-Base%, Value ...
Third post about Barry Bonds in two days, but this is my blog and it's good to vent.
First, for reference, here is a list of all-time leaders in on-base% for a season.
Bonds set the single-season record last year with .582. Only 18 times in the history of baseball has a player achieved an on-base% of .500. This has been achieved only 13 times since the beginning of the 20th Century, and only three times since 1957 -- zero times since 1957 by somebody other than Barry Bonds.
Secondly, for reference, here is a list of the all-time leaders in batting average for a season.
The highest batting average ever is .440, but the highest batting average in the modern era is .424 by Rogers Hornsby, and this is generally acknowledged as the highest single-season batting average ever.
If one compares the difficulty of a .400 batting average to a .500 on-base%, one finds quite a few similarities.
Only 28 players have achieved a .400 batting average and disproportionate amount (13) occurred in the 19th Century. Everybody is aware that the last player to hit .400 was Ted Williams in 1941. (Not coincidentally, Williams is also the only modern-day player who challenges Bonds in the on-base% category.)
Thirdly, what is the value of on-base%? Some claim it's even more important than batting average.
On-base% has less historical significance than plain old batting average and ob% is not one of the three coveted and well-loved "scoreboard stats," but ob%'s importance is understood by a growing number of sabermetricians, fans, players, and, perhaps most telling, the GMs who cut the checks and pay the players.
Also, one merely needs to take a gander at the overall offensive stats in MLB and sort by runs. Just look at the on-base% column and you'll see it correlates strongly to runs scored, while the batting average column does not. There's more to scoring runs, of course, but a strong argument can be made that ob% is more valuable than batting average. (That's what we're all trying to do, right? Score runs?)
So, what's the case I am building? What is the inevitable conclusion? Well, the conclusion is that 2004 Bonds is one of the greatest seasons in the history of baseball.
I don't think people are quite understanding what is happening when a baseball player's on-base% is .620. I don't thnk Joe Buck knows what he's saying when he claims that Rolen is a better fielder than Bonds and therefore a strong NL MVP candidate.
Maybe that's the problem. What Bonds is doing is so utterly unprecedented, it's impossible to put into perspective. It's like giving the MVP to Larry Walker because nobody understood yet just how much Coors Field inflated the stats.
Imagine, for a moment, if a baseball player in 2004 was going after the highest batting average of all time. Imagine if that player was shattering the record by forty points.
Forget about the first player since 1941 to hit .400. This guy is hitting .464, forty points higher than Hornsby. He's hitting .464 in late August when that batting average would be quite impressive for a week, much less an entire season.
Then, imagine that player not winning the MVP. You'd sound like a fool if you suggested that the player batting .464 was not the MVP of the league.
The analogy between a .620 ob% and a .464 ba might not be perfect, but I think it's pretty close if you look at the history of baseball. There is more to baseball "value" than just ob%, of course. The ob% leader in the AL is the unfairly-forgotten Melvin Mora, and he might not win the AL MVP, he might not deserve the AL MVP.
But, for some more perspective on the matter, Mora is trailing Bonds in ob% by how many points? 190.
First, for reference, here is a list of all-time leaders in on-base% for a season.
Bonds set the single-season record last year with .582. Only 18 times in the history of baseball has a player achieved an on-base% of .500. This has been achieved only 13 times since the beginning of the 20th Century, and only three times since 1957 -- zero times since 1957 by somebody other than Barry Bonds.
Secondly, for reference, here is a list of the all-time leaders in batting average for a season.
The highest batting average ever is .440, but the highest batting average in the modern era is .424 by Rogers Hornsby, and this is generally acknowledged as the highest single-season batting average ever.
If one compares the difficulty of a .400 batting average to a .500 on-base%, one finds quite a few similarities.
Only 28 players have achieved a .400 batting average and disproportionate amount (13) occurred in the 19th Century. Everybody is aware that the last player to hit .400 was Ted Williams in 1941. (Not coincidentally, Williams is also the only modern-day player who challenges Bonds in the on-base% category.)
Thirdly, what is the value of on-base%? Some claim it's even more important than batting average.
On-base% has less historical significance than plain old batting average and ob% is not one of the three coveted and well-loved "scoreboard stats," but ob%'s importance is understood by a growing number of sabermetricians, fans, players, and, perhaps most telling, the GMs who cut the checks and pay the players.
Also, one merely needs to take a gander at the overall offensive stats in MLB and sort by runs. Just look at the on-base% column and you'll see it correlates strongly to runs scored, while the batting average column does not. There's more to scoring runs, of course, but a strong argument can be made that ob% is more valuable than batting average. (That's what we're all trying to do, right? Score runs?)
So, what's the case I am building? What is the inevitable conclusion? Well, the conclusion is that 2004 Bonds is one of the greatest seasons in the history of baseball.
I don't think people are quite understanding what is happening when a baseball player's on-base% is .620. I don't thnk Joe Buck knows what he's saying when he claims that Rolen is a better fielder than Bonds and therefore a strong NL MVP candidate.
Maybe that's the problem. What Bonds is doing is so utterly unprecedented, it's impossible to put into perspective. It's like giving the MVP to Larry Walker because nobody understood yet just how much Coors Field inflated the stats.
Imagine, for a moment, if a baseball player in 2004 was going after the highest batting average of all time. Imagine if that player was shattering the record by forty points.
Forget about the first player since 1941 to hit .400. This guy is hitting .464, forty points higher than Hornsby. He's hitting .464 in late August when that batting average would be quite impressive for a week, much less an entire season.
Then, imagine that player not winning the MVP. You'd sound like a fool if you suggested that the player batting .464 was not the MVP of the league.
The analogy between a .620 ob% and a .464 ba might not be perfect, but I think it's pretty close if you look at the history of baseball. There is more to baseball "value" than just ob%, of course. The ob% leader in the AL is the unfairly-forgotten Melvin Mora, and he might not win the AL MVP, he might not deserve the AL MVP.
But, for some more perspective on the matter, Mora is trailing Bonds in ob% by how many points? 190.
Daily Quickie is a Barry Bonds Convert.
Is this guy reading my blog from yesterday? Hmmmm ...
"I 'fess up to being caught up in the Beltre hype yesterday. Because last night's Giants' win is the reason Barry Bonds is the undisputed 2004 NL MVP.
Bonds was given a free pass from the Marlins in the 10th to load the bases, promptly followed by four balls to pinch-hitter A.J. Pierzynski, ending the game. 'Valuable?' When he retires, they should name the award after him."
At least Daily Quickie atoned for his sins. Felz forgives you. But please don't let it happen again.
"I 'fess up to being caught up in the Beltre hype yesterday. Because last night's Giants' win is the reason Barry Bonds is the undisputed 2004 NL MVP.
Bonds was given a free pass from the Marlins in the 10th to load the bases, promptly followed by four balls to pinch-hitter A.J. Pierzynski, ending the game. 'Valuable?' When he retires, they should name the award after him."
At least Daily Quickie atoned for his sins. Felz forgives you. But please don't let it happen again.
Wednesday, August 25, 2004
"Heads," we invade Normandy. "Tails," we invade Canada.
Mets pitching coach Rick Peterson questions his influence on the decision to trade Scott Kazmir:
"When decisions are made, they're made by a group of people," Peterson said. "I don't know, was Eisenhower the first to say, 'Let's invade Normandy?' That's why Presidents have cabinets. Look at the Ronald Reagan era. How many decisions did he really make?"
"When decisions are made, they're made by a group of people," Peterson said. "I don't know, was Eisenhower the first to say, 'Let's invade Normandy?' That's why Presidents have cabinets. Look at the Ronald Reagan era. How many decisions did he really make?"
Another Bonds Rant.
Barry Bonds in 2004 is having one of the best seasons ever in baseball history. A team whose second-best everyday player is Marquis Freakin' Grissom is challenging for the NL wild card solely because of Barry Bonds. He is not only the MVP of the NL in 2004, he might be having the most valuable season a player has ever had in the history of baseball.
I didn't think I'd live to see a .500 on-base% for a season. Boggs gave it a go in the mid-'80s, but I didn't think it would ever happen in my lifetime. Not only has Bonds achieved the highest on-base% ever last season with .582, he's about to go over .500 for the fourth-straight season. In fact, as of today, he's well over .600, at .612. Completely historical, unprecedented, unbelievable, mindboggling, game-altering. Don't tell me Rolen is a better fielder. Rolen would have to do something similarly historical -- bat .400, 57-game hitting streak, 190 rbis -- before he can enter the MVP discussion with Bonds.
Plus, just in case nobody noticed, Bonds also hits for power. 35 hrs and a slugging% of .822 in 286 official at-bats ... 286 times the opponent actually pitched to him rather than just walk him.
So what gets me going this morning? The Daily Quickie at espn.com (the link probably won't last long, since it's updated daily and quickly).
Guy tries to make a case for Adrian Beltre, of all people:
"Then there's Adrian Beltre: Who deserves it more than any of them and will get some pub after becoming the first to 40 HRs. Let's review his criteria:
He's got the stats (.334, 40 HR, 94 RBI); his team is up in the standings (Dodgers lead NL West by 5); he gets the "Breakout Bounce" that happens in a player's first monster year."
Before you get carried away with Adrian Beltre or any other player not named "Barry Bonds," let me direct your attention to Barry's staggering situational stats which are often used to determine "clutch" performance.
Barry Bonds is batting .398 with runners on base, .386 with runners in scoring position, and .429 with runners in scoring position and two outs.
I know he has already won six MVP awards and we can all get a bit jaded by his excellence, but let those numbers sink in for a minute. Then tell me that Adrian Beltre "deserves it more."
I didn't think I'd live to see a .500 on-base% for a season. Boggs gave it a go in the mid-'80s, but I didn't think it would ever happen in my lifetime. Not only has Bonds achieved the highest on-base% ever last season with .582, he's about to go over .500 for the fourth-straight season. In fact, as of today, he's well over .600, at .612. Completely historical, unprecedented, unbelievable, mindboggling, game-altering. Don't tell me Rolen is a better fielder. Rolen would have to do something similarly historical -- bat .400, 57-game hitting streak, 190 rbis -- before he can enter the MVP discussion with Bonds.
Plus, just in case nobody noticed, Bonds also hits for power. 35 hrs and a slugging% of .822 in 286 official at-bats ... 286 times the opponent actually pitched to him rather than just walk him.
So what gets me going this morning? The Daily Quickie at espn.com (the link probably won't last long, since it's updated daily and quickly).
Guy tries to make a case for Adrian Beltre, of all people:
"Then there's Adrian Beltre: Who deserves it more than any of them and will get some pub after becoming the first to 40 HRs. Let's review his criteria:
He's got the stats (.334, 40 HR, 94 RBI); his team is up in the standings (Dodgers lead NL West by 5); he gets the "Breakout Bounce" that happens in a player's first monster year."
Before you get carried away with Adrian Beltre or any other player not named "Barry Bonds," let me direct your attention to Barry's staggering situational stats which are often used to determine "clutch" performance.
Barry Bonds is batting .398 with runners on base, .386 with runners in scoring position, and .429 with runners in scoring position and two outs.
I know he has already won six MVP awards and we can all get a bit jaded by his excellence, but let those numbers sink in for a minute. Then tell me that Adrian Beltre "deserves it more."
You learn something new every day on the Internet.
Today, I learned that Armando Benitez is the best closer in the whole major leagues.
The SI.com voters did themselves proud in the latest online baseball poll:
Who is the game's best closer?
| Armando Benitez | 23% | 2635 votes |
| Francisco Cordero | 20% | 2619 votes |
| Eric Gagne | 11% | 1237 votes |
| Trevor Hoffman | 21% | 2410 votes |
| Mariano Rivera | 10% | 1098 votes |
| John Smoltz | 16% | 1845 votes |
| Total: | 11544 votes |
I must confess, I'm completely baffled by these results on many levels. Not that I'm expecting any cogent baseball knowledge to be displayed in an online poll, but I can't figure out these results no matter which angle I look at them from.
For one thing, the results are precisely backwards from what I would have expected. Gagne and Rivera should be battling it out for the top spot -- Mariano always gets the nod due to playoff domination -- with Smoltz as the obvious pick for third. The other three split the remaining 10% of the votes, Hoffman probably getting fourth place due to name recognition.
Okay, fine. Nothing to get in a tizzy about. Online polls are not fountains of knowlege for baseball, or any other topic, for that matter.
But I can't even process this from a pop culture standpoint.
Even if this poll is just reflecting the anti-Yankee sentiment amongst the baseball fan community, why would that translate to the Dodgers or the Braves? Is it an anti-First-Place backlash? That doesn't even make sense, because even if these teams are generally disliked, I'd think that Rivera and Gagne and Smoltz are still popular players and resistant to backlash.
Was there some campaign by previously non-existent Marlins fans and previously non-existent Rangers fans to hype up their closers? While the rest of the baseball community argues endlessly about Hall Of Fame credentials and AL MVP voting, have the small-market teams decided that they must go after the much-coveted Rolaids Relief Man Award? Unaware that it's not even voted for, but just based on some formula?
Maybe it's just two computer geeks battling it out online? TexasRocks85 vs. EyeLoveLA2002 in a spillover from some two-year-old game of Doom.
If you two were trying to confuse Felz, it worked. You guys rock.
Just to prove the Internet is not completely useless, git on down with this site.
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
You Make. The Move.
You would think that last night was a bad night for Met GM Jim Duquette (Or is it Dan Duquette? One of those Duqettes who ruin ballclubs.) considering the newly-traded prospect Scott Kazmir made a good major league debut.
The Mets traded Kazmir for Zambrano and most observers thought the Mets should have at least waited until the off-season and get more value for Kazmir.
But at least Zambrano had a great outing last night, too. Almost a no-hitter, even. That should make Duquette sleep a little more soundly.
How's that? You mean there's another pitcher named Zambrano? Which one did the Mets get for Kazmir? The almost-no-hitter Zambrano? Or the already-on-the-DL Zambrano?
Whoops. Wrong Zambrano.
I wonder if Lupica still thinks they should have "made the move"? You know what? He probably does still think that. I have never found any evidence anywhere that Mike Lupica has Ever Been Wrong.
The Mets traded Kazmir for Zambrano and most observers thought the Mets should have at least waited until the off-season and get more value for Kazmir.
But at least Zambrano had a great outing last night, too. Almost a no-hitter, even. That should make Duquette sleep a little more soundly.
How's that? You mean there's another pitcher named Zambrano? Which one did the Mets get for Kazmir? The almost-no-hitter Zambrano? Or the already-on-the-DL Zambrano?
Whoops. Wrong Zambrano.
I wonder if Lupica still thinks they should have "made the move"? You know what? He probably does still think that. I have never found any evidence anywhere that Mike Lupica has Ever Been Wrong.
Monday, August 23, 2004
How could George be the Man when, clearly, Todd Jones is the Man?
"One thing that rocks about baseball and the owners is what the Yankees have done. George Steinbrenner is the man ... the Boss decided to pay because he wants to win. He's playing the game the owners want to play, and he's still beating them. I say, right on."
Please, before you unfairly judge the dubious journalistic skills of Todd Jones -- who writes as if it's still the '70s and he's still in grade school -- I challenge you to read an excerpt from this clown's book.
I can't comment too much on Olney's excerpt because I didn't actually read the whole thing. I zoned out somewhere when Chad Curtis was explaining his opinions regarding Derek Jeter's tendency to swing at the first pitch. I was always wondering what Chad Curtis though about Derek Jeter's tendency to swing at a first pitch and, wouldn't you know it? I finally get a chance to have my question answered, and I just zoned out.
Please, before you unfairly judge the dubious journalistic skills of Todd Jones -- who writes as if it's still the '70s and he's still in grade school -- I challenge you to read an excerpt from this clown's book.
I can't comment too much on Olney's excerpt because I didn't actually read the whole thing. I zoned out somewhere when Chad Curtis was explaining his opinions regarding Derek Jeter's tendency to swing at the first pitch. I was always wondering what Chad Curtis though about Derek Jeter's tendency to swing at a first pitch and, wouldn't you know it? I finally get a chance to have my question answered, and I just zoned out.
Mathematics.
"The skid has shaved the Yankees' advantage in the East to a mere 5 1/2 games over the suddenly surging Red Sox, with six more meetings scheduled between the bitter rivals."
What about Cleveland? Are they a "mere" 7 games back of Minnesota? Nope. Their seven-game deficit puts them "out of contention."
"The Indians were just one game behind the Central-leading Minnesota Twins on Aug. 14, but have since dropped seven in a row, including a three-game sweep at the Metrodome over the weekend, to drop seven games back ... continuing its steady slide out of contention ..."
This is a very standard take, by the way. In the exact same article, the exact same author has concluded that 5 1/2 games is small for one team, but 7 games is insurmountable for another team.
Mathematically speaking, this is absurd. If 5 1/2 is really "mere," then 7 is just 1 1/2 games more than "mere." Yet, nobody in Cleveland seems to be printing playoff tickets.
I understand that the Red Sox are better-equipped than the Indians to make a run in September, but realistically speaking, both teams are already sunk in their division races.
Trending is lazy. Eveybody believes what they see with their own eyes. Everybody believes the latest data and it override mounds of contradictory pre-existing data. Everybody extrapolates rather than providing a thoughtful and logical analysis.
This is flawed thinking with the Yankees, however, because the latest data is the worst-possible data you can find.
Consider last week an outlier.
What about Cleveland? Are they a "mere" 7 games back of Minnesota? Nope. Their seven-game deficit puts them "out of contention."
"The Indians were just one game behind the Central-leading Minnesota Twins on Aug. 14, but have since dropped seven in a row, including a three-game sweep at the Metrodome over the weekend, to drop seven games back ... continuing its steady slide out of contention ..."
This is a very standard take, by the way. In the exact same article, the exact same author has concluded that 5 1/2 games is small for one team, but 7 games is insurmountable for another team.
Mathematically speaking, this is absurd. If 5 1/2 is really "mere," then 7 is just 1 1/2 games more than "mere." Yet, nobody in Cleveland seems to be printing playoff tickets.
I understand that the Red Sox are better-equipped than the Indians to make a run in September, but realistically speaking, both teams are already sunk in their division races.
Trending is lazy. Eveybody believes what they see with their own eyes. Everybody believes the latest data and it override mounds of contradictory pre-existing data. Everybody extrapolates rather than providing a thoughtful and logical analysis.
This is flawed thinking with the Yankees, however, because the latest data is the worst-possible data you can find.
Consider last week an outlier.
Bad week for the Yankees.
You'd think the fans and writers in New York had never seen a slump before. (At the moment I am writing this, 54% of the respondents to the admittedly unscientific Daily News poll think the Red Sox will win the AL East.)
Joel Sherman actually questions if the Yankees can even make the playoffs this season.
Funny thing is, most of these Doomsday articles also include the proper historical perspective that suggests that this type of ebb and flow, slump and streak, getting-Red-Sox-fans-hopes-up occurs every season.
For instance, in the exact same article, Sherman talks all the Yankee fans down from the bridge because "from Sept. 15-Oct. 1, the Yanks lost 14-of-17 games and barely held on to what had been an eight-game lead on Boston, winning the division by 21/2 games. The Yanks righted themselves in October 2000 to win a third straight title, and fourth in five years."
A bad week is a bad week. In the big picture, the Yankees will almost certainly still get 100 wins and the AL East title. While they lost 5 games off the lead in a week, they've only lost 2 games off the lead since July. Five games is a huge lead with only 40 games to play.
Not make the playoffs? I think a more likely scenario is that the Yankees crank it up against lousy September competition and then Joel Sherman will write an article that warns that the team isn't playoff-tested enough because the lead is too big.
But even if the Yankees do somehow manage to eke out a playoff spot, it doesn't even matter. They can't beat the Angels, they can't beat the Twins, and we already know that they can't beat the Red Sox.
A perfect Felz scenario is that the Angels find a way to beat the Red Sox by one game in the AL wild card. I'll remember how happy the Red Sox were when the Angels swept the Yankees in August. Even when the Yankees get swept, it winds up hurting the Red Sox.
I don't know for sure, baseball is a funny sport. Worst-case is that the Yankees' switch has been turned off for the rest of the season. Worst-case is that they suddenly become a sub-.500 team for six weeks and miss the playoffs entirely. I can't say it's impossible, it just seems wildly unlikely.
But what if this is truly the beginning of the end? Is there some specific person we can blame for the bad week? For the recent slide? For an expensive team of all stars whoese entire season is suddenly in peril?
Joe Gergen pulls no punches proclaiming his disdain for poor Esteban Loaiza.
No word yet if Lawrence Rocca has changed his mind about the importance of John Olerud's calming presence in the clubhouse and no-maintenance professionalism.
As for ARod the Choker, he's going to hit .625 and 5 homeruns in one upcoming weekend against Boston, in sharp contrast to his 1-for-17 in Fenway in September. Bill Madden will then be forced to write another unflattering article about Columbus Clipper Shane Spencer.
Joel Sherman actually questions if the Yankees can even make the playoffs this season.
Funny thing is, most of these Doomsday articles also include the proper historical perspective that suggests that this type of ebb and flow, slump and streak, getting-Red-Sox-fans-hopes-up occurs every season.
For instance, in the exact same article, Sherman talks all the Yankee fans down from the bridge because "from Sept. 15-Oct. 1, the Yanks lost 14-of-17 games and barely held on to what had been an eight-game lead on Boston, winning the division by 21/2 games. The Yanks righted themselves in October 2000 to win a third straight title, and fourth in five years."
A bad week is a bad week. In the big picture, the Yankees will almost certainly still get 100 wins and the AL East title. While they lost 5 games off the lead in a week, they've only lost 2 games off the lead since July. Five games is a huge lead with only 40 games to play.
Not make the playoffs? I think a more likely scenario is that the Yankees crank it up against lousy September competition and then Joel Sherman will write an article that warns that the team isn't playoff-tested enough because the lead is too big.
But even if the Yankees do somehow manage to eke out a playoff spot, it doesn't even matter. They can't beat the Angels, they can't beat the Twins, and we already know that they can't beat the Red Sox.
A perfect Felz scenario is that the Angels find a way to beat the Red Sox by one game in the AL wild card. I'll remember how happy the Red Sox were when the Angels swept the Yankees in August. Even when the Yankees get swept, it winds up hurting the Red Sox.
I don't know for sure, baseball is a funny sport. Worst-case is that the Yankees' switch has been turned off for the rest of the season. Worst-case is that they suddenly become a sub-.500 team for six weeks and miss the playoffs entirely. I can't say it's impossible, it just seems wildly unlikely.
But what if this is truly the beginning of the end? Is there some specific person we can blame for the bad week? For the recent slide? For an expensive team of all stars whoese entire season is suddenly in peril?
Joe Gergen pulls no punches proclaiming his disdain for poor Esteban Loaiza.
No word yet if Lawrence Rocca has changed his mind about the importance of John Olerud's calming presence in the clubhouse and no-maintenance professionalism.
As for ARod the Choker, he's going to hit .625 and 5 homeruns in one upcoming weekend against Boston, in sharp contrast to his 1-for-17 in Fenway in September. Bill Madden will then be forced to write another unflattering article about Columbus Clipper Shane Spencer.
Friday, August 20, 2004
Can a Yankee win rookie of the year? Can a Japanese Yankee?
While pondering whether or not Sheffield would actually win the AL MVP, my mind started digging up a long-buried controversy regarding last year's AL rookie of the year.
The George might sound a bit defensive and go a bit overboard when he claims that two "misguided writers" had perpetrated "a great injustice," but I also remembered something that the clown named Jim Souhan of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune had to say during his Fifteen Minutes:
"When Mr. Steinbrenner spends multiple millions to lure an MVP-caliber player from a major professional league, he should be embarrassed that such a high-profile player is vying for the rookie of the year award, and not the American League MVP award."
I wonder if The George should still be embarrassed now?
.303, 24 hr, 85 rbis, 83 runs, .396 ob%, .531 slugging%, pretty good left fielder.
Not the AL MVP, I'm sure, but top ten in the MVP vote sounds reasonable. That is nothing to be embarrassed about. Almost makes Hideki Matsui look like a bargain, compared to tons of other outfielders.
If you doubt the possibility of anti-Yankee voting by the sportswriters, you only need to review recent AL rookie of the year votes:
2000 was Sasaki.
2001 was Ichiro almost unanimously.
By 2003, the representatives of the Major League Baseball Writer's Association of America have somehow concluded that their "regard for Japanese baseball is too high ... to consider Matsui a rookie ... it's an injustice to the other players who are rookies."
I also concede that I'm presenting the information a little bit unfairly. One clown from Cleveland refused to vote for Ichiro in 2001, instead picking hometown favorite C.C. Sabathia. Even though he picked Ichiro for MVP. So Ichiro was the best player in the AL, but not the best rookie in the AL.
So this controversy didn't suddenly appear with Hideki Matsui and there are probably some other inconsistencies which are not attributable to Yankee-Hatin'.
Plus, the same voters don't vote every year, so there's going to be variations just because of that.
On balance, I think the anti-Yankee bias is quite evident in this particular case ... especially when certain sportswriters use their vote as a vehicle for calling out Steinbrenner in the press.
The George might sound a bit defensive and go a bit overboard when he claims that two "misguided writers" had perpetrated "a great injustice," but I also remembered something that the clown named Jim Souhan of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune had to say during his Fifteen Minutes:
"When Mr. Steinbrenner spends multiple millions to lure an MVP-caliber player from a major professional league, he should be embarrassed that such a high-profile player is vying for the rookie of the year award, and not the American League MVP award."
I wonder if The George should still be embarrassed now?
.303, 24 hr, 85 rbis, 83 runs, .396 ob%, .531 slugging%, pretty good left fielder.
Not the AL MVP, I'm sure, but top ten in the MVP vote sounds reasonable. That is nothing to be embarrassed about. Almost makes Hideki Matsui look like a bargain, compared to tons of other outfielders.
If you doubt the possibility of anti-Yankee voting by the sportswriters, you only need to review recent AL rookie of the year votes:
2000 was Sasaki.
2001 was Ichiro almost unanimously.
By 2003, the representatives of the Major League Baseball Writer's Association of America have somehow concluded that their "regard for Japanese baseball is too high ... to consider Matsui a rookie ... it's an injustice to the other players who are rookies."
I also concede that I'm presenting the information a little bit unfairly. One clown from Cleveland refused to vote for Ichiro in 2001, instead picking hometown favorite C.C. Sabathia. Even though he picked Ichiro for MVP. So Ichiro was the best player in the AL, but not the best rookie in the AL.
So this controversy didn't suddenly appear with Hideki Matsui and there are probably some other inconsistencies which are not attributable to Yankee-Hatin'.
Plus, the same voters don't vote every year, so there's going to be variations just because of that.
On balance, I think the anti-Yankee bias is quite evident in this particular case ... especially when certain sportswriters use their vote as a vehicle for calling out Steinbrenner in the press.
Can a Yankee win the MVP?
Even at this point -- even after Sheffield won the Fox Sports Cell Phone poll last Saturday (though at least a few worthy candidates were not even included) -- even after that guy at the anchor desk sitting next to that chick said it should be Sheffield -- even with Torre and Jeter and ARod spreading the gospel -- I still don't think it's going to happen.
If Sheffield does win the MVP, it would signal another shift in the jagged rationale of the voters:
1) Sheffield is a Yankee.
2) Sheffield is disliked by the press (at least prior to this season).
3) The Yankees win too many games, so Sheffield fails the all-important test, "Where would the team be without him?" The Yankees would still be in first place without Sheffield. But, then again, Ichiro won when his team won 116 games and ARod won when his team came in last place. So that rationale seems kind of dumb. Kind of arbitrary. Maybe they made it up so they wouldn't have to give the MVP to a Yankee in 1998.
I would also be forced to officially apologize to Mark M. of New Haven, Connecticut whose money I was so willing to take because I thought he was a sucka. Turns out, Felz might be the sucka. I'd gladly apologize to Mark M. if Sheff was actually awarded the MVP.
Sheffield would be the first Yankee to win it since Rickey in 1985 with his 146 runs scored, 80 stolen bases in 90 attempts, .314 batting average, 24 homeruns, 28 doubles, 5 triples, 99 walks, .419 on-base percentage, .516 slugging percentage ... wait a second, that's not right. I meant to say, the first Yankee to win the MVP since Mattingly in 1985. Not Rickey. What was I thinking?
For me personally? The obvious choice at this point is Miguel Tejada. But Sheffield might be second, which ain't too shabby. I haven't given it too much thought. Plus, there's still six weeks to go, and almost anyone can still win the MVP if they hit 30 homeruns in September and lead their team to a wild card.
At the very least, I am pleased that Typical Yankee Fan attitude towards Sheffield has universally turned for the better. The Daily News is also no longer publishing cartoons of Sheffield as a crybaby in diapers.
If Sheffield does win the MVP, it would signal another shift in the jagged rationale of the voters:
1) Sheffield is a Yankee.
2) Sheffield is disliked by the press (at least prior to this season).
3) The Yankees win too many games, so Sheffield fails the all-important test, "Where would the team be without him?" The Yankees would still be in first place without Sheffield. But, then again, Ichiro won when his team won 116 games and ARod won when his team came in last place. So that rationale seems kind of dumb. Kind of arbitrary. Maybe they made it up so they wouldn't have to give the MVP to a Yankee in 1998.
I would also be forced to officially apologize to Mark M. of New Haven, Connecticut whose money I was so willing to take because I thought he was a sucka. Turns out, Felz might be the sucka. I'd gladly apologize to Mark M. if Sheff was actually awarded the MVP.
Sheffield would be the first Yankee to win it since Rickey in 1985 with his 146 runs scored, 80 stolen bases in 90 attempts, .314 batting average, 24 homeruns, 28 doubles, 5 triples, 99 walks, .419 on-base percentage, .516 slugging percentage ... wait a second, that's not right. I meant to say, the first Yankee to win the MVP since Mattingly in 1985. Not Rickey. What was I thinking?
For me personally? The obvious choice at this point is Miguel Tejada. But Sheffield might be second, which ain't too shabby. I haven't given it too much thought. Plus, there's still six weeks to go, and almost anyone can still win the MVP if they hit 30 homeruns in September and lead their team to a wild card.
At the very least, I am pleased that Typical Yankee Fan attitude towards Sheffield has universally turned for the better. The Daily News is also no longer publishing cartoons of Sheffield as a crybaby in diapers.
Thursday, August 19, 2004
The Red Sox try to buy a wild card.
That's weird. Even though Lupica is obsessed with the Yankee payroll -- it's almost impossible to find an article where he doesn't mention Yankee payroll, even an article about the Olympics -- what does he think of Theo Espstein as his $130 million payroll team battles for the wild card with teams with half the salary?
Epstein isn't a lapdog with deep pockets. Epstein is a "tough, smart kid who builds a Red Sox team that can win a World Series for the first time since 1918."
Epstein's $130 mill team is not underachieving at all. They didn't blow an early 4 1/2-game lead against the Yankees and inexplicably play about .500 for three months. They're survivors. "They might not make October. But if they do, if they somehow survive the long haul in the American League, ask yourself a question: Who's built better this time for the short run?"
Neither I nor Lupica can be sure who will win the AL wild card. But I do know that the A's, Rangers, Angels, White Sox, Indians, and Twins will also have to "somehow survive the long haul in the American League" -- probably a lot like that movie where the plane crashed and they had to eat dead people -- except the other wild card contenders will have to do it with a lot less cash than the Red Sox.
While the fat cat Yankees probably get pedicures and eat caviar in their limousines during their post-game rides back to their Park Place penthouses.
I'm not even sure what his point is regarding the "short run."
Okay, I'm asking myself, as instructed: "Who is built better this time for the short run?" Since Lupica leaves the question unanswered, he obviously thinks the answer is Boston and that he has proven his case. Huh?
With the Yankee improved lineup, improved defense, good-enough starting pitching, and improved bullpen ... I'd have to pick the Yankees.
The assumption is that Pedro and Schilling (and Foulke) will crush the Yankees. (Oh, and don't forget the unhittable Scott Williamson, who was "supposed to be their Flash Gordon," just without the 1.78 ERA and .163 BA against, I can only assume ... despite an excellent 21 whole innings to start the season.) The Yankees instantly fall behind 2-zip and then they're doomed.
Could happen, I don't know, let's play the games. Schilling gives up just as many gopher balls -- well, almost as many -- as the disappointing Javier Vazquez. Schilling's season ERA is 3.60, not 0.01. A few ill-timed hanging curves to ARod could end up in Monument Park and Lupica's whole theory is shot to heck right away.
How much baseball does one have to watch before one concludes that baseball is unpredictable in the short run? It's predictable in the long run, but completely unpredictable in the short run. In the short run, Ty Wigginton outplays Alex Rodriguez over the weekend and the Mets sweep the Yankees.
Lupica might want to review last year's ALCS when he gets a chance. Just about every game was won by the team that was the "underdog" based on the starting pitching matchup, at least in my estimation of which team was the "underdog."
Did Lupica think the Sox would beat Pettitte in game six with Burkett on the mound? Guess what? They did. But they lost all the games that Pedro started. That's the short run for ya.
Yankees have done well against Pedro over the years, they scored seven runs off of Schilling the last time they faced him. That's Jose Contreras territory, but nobody seemed worried. The Yankee lineup is a lot tougher this season (even though Lupica is, ummm, "exaggerating" a wee bit when he claims the 2004 Yankee lineup was "supposed to be the most powerful lineup ever assembled.")
Besides, after what I just saw, how are the Red Sox even going to get past Radke and Santana?
Epstein isn't a lapdog with deep pockets. Epstein is a "tough, smart kid who builds a Red Sox team that can win a World Series for the first time since 1918."
Epstein's $130 mill team is not underachieving at all. They didn't blow an early 4 1/2-game lead against the Yankees and inexplicably play about .500 for three months. They're survivors. "They might not make October. But if they do, if they somehow survive the long haul in the American League, ask yourself a question: Who's built better this time for the short run?"
Neither I nor Lupica can be sure who will win the AL wild card. But I do know that the A's, Rangers, Angels, White Sox, Indians, and Twins will also have to "somehow survive the long haul in the American League" -- probably a lot like that movie where the plane crashed and they had to eat dead people -- except the other wild card contenders will have to do it with a lot less cash than the Red Sox.
While the fat cat Yankees probably get pedicures and eat caviar in their limousines during their post-game rides back to their Park Place penthouses.
I'm not even sure what his point is regarding the "short run."
Okay, I'm asking myself, as instructed: "Who is built better this time for the short run?" Since Lupica leaves the question unanswered, he obviously thinks the answer is Boston and that he has proven his case. Huh?
With the Yankee improved lineup, improved defense, good-enough starting pitching, and improved bullpen ... I'd have to pick the Yankees.
The assumption is that Pedro and Schilling (and Foulke) will crush the Yankees. (Oh, and don't forget the unhittable Scott Williamson, who was "supposed to be their Flash Gordon," just without the 1.78 ERA and .163 BA against, I can only assume ... despite an excellent 21 whole innings to start the season.) The Yankees instantly fall behind 2-zip and then they're doomed.
Could happen, I don't know, let's play the games. Schilling gives up just as many gopher balls -- well, almost as many -- as the disappointing Javier Vazquez. Schilling's season ERA is 3.60, not 0.01. A few ill-timed hanging curves to ARod could end up in Monument Park and Lupica's whole theory is shot to heck right away.
How much baseball does one have to watch before one concludes that baseball is unpredictable in the short run? It's predictable in the long run, but completely unpredictable in the short run. In the short run, Ty Wigginton outplays Alex Rodriguez over the weekend and the Mets sweep the Yankees.
Lupica might want to review last year's ALCS when he gets a chance. Just about every game was won by the team that was the "underdog" based on the starting pitching matchup, at least in my estimation of which team was the "underdog."
Did Lupica think the Sox would beat Pettitte in game six with Burkett on the mound? Guess what? They did. But they lost all the games that Pedro started. That's the short run for ya.
Yankees have done well against Pedro over the years, they scored seven runs off of Schilling the last time they faced him. That's Jose Contreras territory, but nobody seemed worried. The Yankee lineup is a lot tougher this season (even though Lupica is, ummm, "exaggerating" a wee bit when he claims the 2004 Yankee lineup was "supposed to be the most powerful lineup ever assembled.")
Besides, after what I just saw, how are the Red Sox even going to get past Radke and Santana?
Wednesday, August 18, 2004
Fun With Archives, Part 2.
Mike Lupica on December 12, 2003: "George doesn't know Astro
from his elbow."
Mike Lupica on December 14, 2003: "Steinbrenner, gutless as always, sent Cashman out to talk about Pettitte walking away from the Yankees the other day.
The owner? The one who likes to think of himself as George Patton instead of George Steinbrenner? He somehow managed to spend the day hiding under his desk, dictating press releases.
And some Yankee fans will tell themselves it is all right, as long as the team wins between 95 and 100 games a year. They will tell themselves it is all right to root for Kevin Brown, and Kenny Lofton.
They will continue to believe that somehow the pinstripes make everyone noble, that the end always justifies the means.
But smart ones know differently. They don't believe the pathetic conspiracy theories put out there about Pettitte in the media by Steinbrenner's lap dogs. They don't believe that the Yankees didn't sign Pettitte because of concerns about his elbow.
They were Torre's Yankees, and even Yankee haters liked them. They are back to being Steinbrenner's Yankees. Bring them all in now, Brown and Lofton and Sheffield. Pay whatever is necessary and then peddle them to the fans as the Yankees. Keep selling that oldtime religion. Yankee fans, smart ones, know way better."
It's at least a little ironic that a weasel like Lupica would feel comfortable calling another man "gutless" (in this case, George Steinbrenner). Oddly, I've never seen any comeuppance from Lupica regarding Pettitte's elbow. I guess I'll just have to do it for him.
Or, as Lupica would write:
"And.
I'll.
Just have to.
Do it.
For him."
Fanball Staff may not be correct when they claim that they "wouldn't be surprised to hear that season ending surgery is needed," but they're probably a lot closer to the truth than gutless Lupica.
Also, I will take this opportunity to proudly proclaim that I must be a stupid Yankee fan. While I certainly don't believe that wearing the pinstripes makes anybody "noble" -- including Paul O'Neill, Don Mattingly, Andy Pettitte, etc. -- I feel quite comfortable rooting for the likes of Kevin Brown and Kenny Lofton. I'll even root for MVP Candidate Gary Sheffield, though Lupica thinks he's not a "Torre Yankee."
I guess Sheffield is the type of player that real Yankee-Haters actually hate (God bless him for that). As opposed to Andy Pettitte. Even real Yankee-Haters liked Andy Pettitte. Which would make them very devout Yankee-Haters in the first place. Lupica understands, Lupica knows way better. Because he's smart.
As long as the Yankees win between 95 and 100 games each year (unlike some teams I can think of), then I want to sing from the mountain tops. Testify with me, fellow stupid Yankee fans. Everything is alright!
from his elbow."
Mike Lupica on December 14, 2003: "Steinbrenner, gutless as always, sent Cashman out to talk about Pettitte walking away from the Yankees the other day.
The owner? The one who likes to think of himself as George Patton instead of George Steinbrenner? He somehow managed to spend the day hiding under his desk, dictating press releases.
And some Yankee fans will tell themselves it is all right, as long as the team wins between 95 and 100 games a year. They will tell themselves it is all right to root for Kevin Brown, and Kenny Lofton.
They will continue to believe that somehow the pinstripes make everyone noble, that the end always justifies the means.
But smart ones know differently. They don't believe the pathetic conspiracy theories put out there about Pettitte in the media by Steinbrenner's lap dogs. They don't believe that the Yankees didn't sign Pettitte because of concerns about his elbow.
They were Torre's Yankees, and even Yankee haters liked them. They are back to being Steinbrenner's Yankees. Bring them all in now, Brown and Lofton and Sheffield. Pay whatever is necessary and then peddle them to the fans as the Yankees. Keep selling that oldtime religion. Yankee fans, smart ones, know way better."
It's at least a little ironic that a weasel like Lupica would feel comfortable calling another man "gutless" (in this case, George Steinbrenner). Oddly, I've never seen any comeuppance from Lupica regarding Pettitte's elbow. I guess I'll just have to do it for him.
Or, as Lupica would write:
"And.
I'll.
Just have to.
Do it.
For him."
Fanball Staff may not be correct when they claim that they "wouldn't be surprised to hear that season ending surgery is needed," but they're probably a lot closer to the truth than gutless Lupica.
Also, I will take this opportunity to proudly proclaim that I must be a stupid Yankee fan. While I certainly don't believe that wearing the pinstripes makes anybody "noble" -- including Paul O'Neill, Don Mattingly, Andy Pettitte, etc. -- I feel quite comfortable rooting for the likes of Kevin Brown and Kenny Lofton. I'll even root for MVP Candidate Gary Sheffield, though Lupica thinks he's not a "Torre Yankee."
I guess Sheffield is the type of player that real Yankee-Haters actually hate (God bless him for that). As opposed to Andy Pettitte. Even real Yankee-Haters liked Andy Pettitte. Which would make them very devout Yankee-Haters in the first place. Lupica understands, Lupica knows way better. Because he's smart.
As long as the Yankees win between 95 and 100 games each year (unlike some teams I can think of), then I want to sing from the mountain tops. Testify with me, fellow stupid Yankee fans. Everything is alright!
Tuesday, August 17, 2004
Another catalytic event to wake up the Red Sox.
Cowboy up, y'all!
This time, it's a collision with the second baseman (Doug Mintkayvich, of all people) while playing the last-place Blue Jays.
The Red Sox are still probably the favorites to win the freakin' wild card, but I thought they were a sure thing until they traded away Nomar. Cabrera hasn't hit well nor fielded well, and they're seriously playing Mintkayvich at second base.
But the Yankees should worry because have a bad bench.
(The Yankees bench is fine, Felz adds parenthetically. This guy at the Pinstriped Bible missed the story. Cashman obsesses about the bench, he doesn't ignore it. Think about it. This offseason, Cashman brilliantly improved three areas on the cheap: Bench, bullpen, infield defense. Imagine how great the bench would be if Travis Lee didn't get hurt.
But, again, sometimes the economics don't allow a strong bench. Even if the Yankees were willing to spend lots of money -- $5 million -- for a backup catcher. What catcher is good enough to make $5 mill and also willing to play backup to Posada? It makes no sense.
The only market for bench players are (1) pre-free-agency youngsters (Crosby, Posada ca. 1997), (2) lousy players (Bush, Dellucci), or (3) on-the-downside veterans who are willing to accept the role (Strawberry, Sierra, Raines).
Maybe you get lucky -- Bush hit .380 in 1998 -- but even if the Yankees were willing to spend tons of money to acquire a truly outstanding bench ... there aren't too many outstanding players who want to sit on the Yankees' bench.
Does this still qualify as parenthetical? That's a big parenthetical.)
The Red Sox are easy to hate with all that dirty uniform underdog Cowboy Up nonsense that they love to perpetuate, but they don't have a monopoly on the idea that fighting will have a "residual effect" on the team's play.
This time, it's a collision with the second baseman (Doug Mintkayvich, of all people) while playing the last-place Blue Jays.
The Red Sox are still probably the favorites to win the freakin' wild card, but I thought they were a sure thing until they traded away Nomar. Cabrera hasn't hit well nor fielded well, and they're seriously playing Mintkayvich at second base.
But the Yankees should worry because have a bad bench.
(The Yankees bench is fine, Felz adds parenthetically. This guy at the Pinstriped Bible missed the story. Cashman obsesses about the bench, he doesn't ignore it. Think about it. This offseason, Cashman brilliantly improved three areas on the cheap: Bench, bullpen, infield defense. Imagine how great the bench would be if Travis Lee didn't get hurt.
But, again, sometimes the economics don't allow a strong bench. Even if the Yankees were willing to spend lots of money -- $5 million -- for a backup catcher. What catcher is good enough to make $5 mill and also willing to play backup to Posada? It makes no sense.
The only market for bench players are (1) pre-free-agency youngsters (Crosby, Posada ca. 1997), (2) lousy players (Bush, Dellucci), or (3) on-the-downside veterans who are willing to accept the role (Strawberry, Sierra, Raines).
Maybe you get lucky -- Bush hit .380 in 1998 -- but even if the Yankees were willing to spend tons of money to acquire a truly outstanding bench ... there aren't too many outstanding players who want to sit on the Yankees' bench.
Does this still qualify as parenthetical? That's a big parenthetical.)
The Red Sox are easy to hate with all that dirty uniform underdog Cowboy Up nonsense that they love to perpetuate, but they don't have a monopoly on the idea that fighting will have a "residual effect" on the team's play.
Mets Captain plays once in 18 games.
For laughs, imagine Joe Torre stating the following about Derek Jeter: "Howe said he is just looking to get Franco 'in a good spot.' But, he added, it has become a 'Catch-22 because it is tough to stay sharp when you are not pitching, but we have played so many tight games that it is tough for me to find a place to use him.' "
Monday, August 16, 2004
The Hall of Fame doesn't necessarily need a DH.
I agree with Ken Rosenthal. I apologize. I promise it won't happen too often.
Though he kind of hedges his bet with this conclusion: "To me, Martinez is a Hall of Famer -- he was the best at his position during the time he played, and he also deserves credit for helping save the Mariners franchise. His numbers, though, are short."
I suppose it's true that Edgar Martinez is the best DH of all time. Molitor spent a lot of time at DH and he's in the Hall of Fame, blah blah blah. There aren't too many other full-time DHs who jump out at you. Harold Baines, Chili Davis, Cliff Johnson ...
But I can't understand the concept that Edgar gets more credit for being a DH, not less credit. Sure, match him up against DHs and his offensive numbers are probably the best. But can't we at least match him up against first basemen or other positions where defense is de-emphasized?
Stick with the big scoreboard stats that everybody knows and loves.
Edgar is .312, 306, 1247.
If he is allowed in the Hall of Fame, who else gets to go?
Will Clark .303, 284, 1205.
Don Mattingly .307, 222, 1099.
Cecil Cooper (unfairly got zero HOF votes) .298, 241, 1125.
What do you say to Greg Luzinski if Edgar Martinez makes the Hall of Hame? When Greg says, "I hit .276, 307, 1128. I'm not saying I was Ozzie Smith out there, but I shouldn't get penalized for actually playing in the field."
Or what about Baines and Chili? Lower batting averages, but more overall production in their careers. Would Harold Baines be given the same HOF consideration if he had played DH full-time instead of contributing in the outfield for half his career? That makes no sense.
So I guess I disagree with Ken Rosenthal after all. Phew.
Though he kind of hedges his bet with this conclusion: "To me, Martinez is a Hall of Famer -- he was the best at his position during the time he played, and he also deserves credit for helping save the Mariners franchise. His numbers, though, are short."
I suppose it's true that Edgar Martinez is the best DH of all time. Molitor spent a lot of time at DH and he's in the Hall of Fame, blah blah blah. There aren't too many other full-time DHs who jump out at you. Harold Baines, Chili Davis, Cliff Johnson ...
But I can't understand the concept that Edgar gets more credit for being a DH, not less credit. Sure, match him up against DHs and his offensive numbers are probably the best. But can't we at least match him up against first basemen or other positions where defense is de-emphasized?
Stick with the big scoreboard stats that everybody knows and loves.
Edgar is .312, 306, 1247.
If he is allowed in the Hall of Fame, who else gets to go?
Will Clark .303, 284, 1205.
Don Mattingly .307, 222, 1099.
Cecil Cooper (unfairly got zero HOF votes) .298, 241, 1125.
What do you say to Greg Luzinski if Edgar Martinez makes the Hall of Hame? When Greg says, "I hit .276, 307, 1128. I'm not saying I was Ozzie Smith out there, but I shouldn't get penalized for actually playing in the field."
Or what about Baines and Chili? Lower batting averages, but more overall production in their careers. Would Harold Baines be given the same HOF consideration if he had played DH full-time instead of contributing in the outfield for half his career? That makes no sense.
So I guess I disagree with Ken Rosenthal after all. Phew.
Buster Olney writes a book.
Guess what? It's anti-Yankee and anti-Steinbrenner.
After reading his insightful baseball articles on ESPN, who'd have thunk it?
I know it's just the publisher's notes, but it still has to crack you up: "With unparalleled knowledge of the game, he also advances a compelling argument that the philosophy that made the Yankees great was inherently unsustainable and ultimately harmful to the sport."
As for the "unparalleled knowledge of the game," all you have to do is read his articles to see that his baseball knowledge is, at the very least, ummm, "paralleled." I knew more about the game when I was ten years old. I don't have the time or energy to go back through the ESPN archives and link to all the stupid Olney articles. Just pick any of them and it's likely to demonstrate very little of that "unparalleled knowledge."
Whatever Yankees greatness was "unsustainable," maybe Olney should at least wait until they win less than 100 games in a season. Ask the Diamondbacks or Mariners about unsustainable greatness, the Yankees are cruising to their third straight 100-win season, thank you very much. I don't know why the 2001 team wasn't great when then came within 2 outs of a fourth-straight title. I also thought last year's team was great -- 103 wins, beating the Twins and Red Sox, missing another title by just two games. I also think the 2004 team is pretty great, easily the best record in the league and about to become the first Yankee team ever to win 100 games for three straight seasons. So I suppose it depends on what you mean by "great" and by "sustainable." Unless Olney would only have been satisfied with seven straight World Series titles.
As for the "harmful to the sport" stuff, his next article is probably going to be how Baseball is Back ten years after The Strike. I don't know how attendance records = Harm, but maybe you'll have to read the book and let me know. Probably because of the decline in Productive Outs, or something. Maybe the lack of Clubhouse Chemistry that is sweeping through major-league baseball like a cancer.
Am I the only person who thinks this kind of hurts this man's questionable credibility? When he writes that the Yankees are in trouble, is he trying to sell books? Or is his opinion merely clouded by his anti-Steinbrenner bias? Eventually, the Yankees will have a disappointing season and lose the AL East. Then Olney will proclaim victory because he's been predicting it for ten straight seasons.
But perhaps the most damning indictment is the following praise, found at amazon.com: "A wonderful story about money, power, and baseball that will keep you reading until the bottom of the 9th." That effusive praise is by none other than Mr. "Summer of '98" Himself, Mike Lupica.
Why don't they get a real journalist to review his book? At least KJ got less one-star reviews than Lupica.
After reading his insightful baseball articles on ESPN, who'd have thunk it?
I know it's just the publisher's notes, but it still has to crack you up: "With unparalleled knowledge of the game, he also advances a compelling argument that the philosophy that made the Yankees great was inherently unsustainable and ultimately harmful to the sport."
As for the "unparalleled knowledge of the game," all you have to do is read his articles to see that his baseball knowledge is, at the very least, ummm, "paralleled." I knew more about the game when I was ten years old. I don't have the time or energy to go back through the ESPN archives and link to all the stupid Olney articles. Just pick any of them and it's likely to demonstrate very little of that "unparalleled knowledge."
Whatever Yankees greatness was "unsustainable," maybe Olney should at least wait until they win less than 100 games in a season. Ask the Diamondbacks or Mariners about unsustainable greatness, the Yankees are cruising to their third straight 100-win season, thank you very much. I don't know why the 2001 team wasn't great when then came within 2 outs of a fourth-straight title. I also thought last year's team was great -- 103 wins, beating the Twins and Red Sox, missing another title by just two games. I also think the 2004 team is pretty great, easily the best record in the league and about to become the first Yankee team ever to win 100 games for three straight seasons. So I suppose it depends on what you mean by "great" and by "sustainable." Unless Olney would only have been satisfied with seven straight World Series titles.
As for the "harmful to the sport" stuff, his next article is probably going to be how Baseball is Back ten years after The Strike. I don't know how attendance records = Harm, but maybe you'll have to read the book and let me know. Probably because of the decline in Productive Outs, or something. Maybe the lack of Clubhouse Chemistry that is sweeping through major-league baseball like a cancer.
Am I the only person who thinks this kind of hurts this man's questionable credibility? When he writes that the Yankees are in trouble, is he trying to sell books? Or is his opinion merely clouded by his anti-Steinbrenner bias? Eventually, the Yankees will have a disappointing season and lose the AL East. Then Olney will proclaim victory because he's been predicting it for ten straight seasons.
But perhaps the most damning indictment is the following praise, found at amazon.com: "A wonderful story about money, power, and baseball that will keep you reading until the bottom of the 9th." That effusive praise is by none other than Mr. "Summer of '98" Himself, Mike Lupica.
Why don't they get a real journalist to review his book? At least KJ got less one-star reviews than Lupica.
Friday, August 13, 2004
Klapisch comes correct.
"The Yankees are sympathetic to an old friend's troubles. George Steinbrenner sent Pettitte a gift after the left-hander reached his 150th career victory on May 4 against the Pirates. And there was a warm telephone conversation with general manager Brian Cashman after Pettitte received his American League championship ring and a letter in the mail.
If there were any leftover hard feelings from last winter's negotiations with the Yankees, Pettitte seems to have absorbed them. But his damaged elbow vindicates members of the front office who urged Steinbrenner to think carefully before re-signing Pettitte. The Yankees ultimately offered him three years for $39 million, but they hesitated just long enough to allow the Astros to swoop down and pluck one of the Bombers most dependable lefties of the Joe Torre era."
I'm not saying Steinbrenner and "Yankee MVP" Cashman are angels from Heaven who never make mistakes. Contrary to common sentiment, they wanted Pettitte back. 3-year, $39 mill ain't chickenfeed. Pettitte may get healthy and live up to his contract in Houston in the long run.
But the Yankees specifically voiced concerns about the 4th year, especially after Pettitte refused to be examined by their doctors. Clemens, Lupica, and others pointedly and publicly mocked the Yankees for questioning the health of Pettitte's elbow. Damn right the members of the front office are vindicated.
No "George of the Bungle" cartoons anymore. How about a Daily News cartoon of Pettitte crawling back to George on his knees with his left elbow hanging from a frayed tendon? Classy.
Please also note how crazy Steinbrenner is acting towards Pettitte. Sending him gifts. How stubborn and mean and stupid and childish. Because that's Steinbrenner, we swear, that's Steinbrenner's personality.
Steinbrenner kept his mouth shut as Pettitte and Clemens jumped ship. Wished them well.
In sharp contrast to this supposedly classy organization.
They're family. They're the antidote to the Evil Empire. Running their best players out of town isn't enough, they also need a PR campaign so the fans turn against the player.
Cowboy up, Nomar. Come play 2b for the Yankees next year. Yippie kie yay.
If there were any leftover hard feelings from last winter's negotiations with the Yankees, Pettitte seems to have absorbed them. But his damaged elbow vindicates members of the front office who urged Steinbrenner to think carefully before re-signing Pettitte. The Yankees ultimately offered him three years for $39 million, but they hesitated just long enough to allow the Astros to swoop down and pluck one of the Bombers most dependable lefties of the Joe Torre era."
I'm not saying Steinbrenner and "Yankee MVP" Cashman are angels from Heaven who never make mistakes. Contrary to common sentiment, they wanted Pettitte back. 3-year, $39 mill ain't chickenfeed. Pettitte may get healthy and live up to his contract in Houston in the long run.
But the Yankees specifically voiced concerns about the 4th year, especially after Pettitte refused to be examined by their doctors. Clemens, Lupica, and others pointedly and publicly mocked the Yankees for questioning the health of Pettitte's elbow. Damn right the members of the front office are vindicated.
No "George of the Bungle" cartoons anymore. How about a Daily News cartoon of Pettitte crawling back to George on his knees with his left elbow hanging from a frayed tendon? Classy.
Please also note how crazy Steinbrenner is acting towards Pettitte. Sending him gifts. How stubborn and mean and stupid and childish. Because that's Steinbrenner, we swear, that's Steinbrenner's personality.
Steinbrenner kept his mouth shut as Pettitte and Clemens jumped ship. Wished them well.
In sharp contrast to this supposedly classy organization.
They're family. They're the antidote to the Evil Empire. Running their best players out of town isn't enough, they also need a PR campaign so the fans turn against the player.
Cowboy up, Nomar. Come play 2b for the Yankees next year. Yippie kie yay.
Thursday, August 12, 2004
Lawrence Rocca has no shame.
On August 10th, Lawrence Rocca claims that Jason Giambi is one of the keys to Yankee success in the postseason.
Two days later, Rocca wants Giambi off the team entirely.
I hardly know where to start ripping the second article apart.
Two days later, Rocca wants Giambi off the team entirely.
I hardly know where to start ripping the second article apart.
- Waiver-clearin', .250-hittin' John Olerud is suddenly the Key to Success that Completes the Team. Because of his Intangibles. Hard to believe that columnists like Rocca will push this idea, just banging their heads against the wall, no matter how much proof is piled up year after year after year that intangibles and clubhouse chemistry don't mean squat.
- The meaningless "record without Giambi," without even bothering to compare to "record with Giambi." How vapid can you get? The Yankees could win without Jeter and Rivera, for that matter. One reason is because they continually feast on teams like the last-place Toronto Blue Jays (Rocca's prediction to win this year's World Series, by the way. His Intangible Evaluation Meter must have been off.).
- It's hard to believe that Rocca and others keep insisting that Giambi begged out of a World Series game. He was was benched by Torre, as was Soriano. Soriano came off the bench and struck out. Giambi came off the bench and hit a ninth-inning homerun. In the Best Game Ever, Mister Clutch hit two homeruns off Pedro. But those homeruns probably don't demonstrate a wnning attitude, clutch hitting, flair for the dramatic, leadership, clubhouse chemistry. You know, intangibles.
- What is this notion that Giambi is "suddenly too expensive"? There is no doubt that the Yankees are paying him too much vis a vis the rest of the league and based on his performance, but so what? Since when do the Yankees win titles by spending their money efficiently? It's not your Rotisserie league. If Cashman actually traded Giambi -- which will probably happen sometime next Never-uary -- and only if the Yankees paid a lot of his salary, anyway -- how does Rocca think this will improve the team? Cashman will spend the money on the suddenly-affordable John Olerud? Maybe he can afford to pay Sterling Hitchock $6 mill again to be the mop up man? What kind of long-term strategy is that? Yeah, you wait for the Former MVP to get healthy and see if he can put up those stupid Moneyball stats like 40 homeruns and 100 walks. The exact same stupid Moneyball stats which currently have the Yankees in first place.
- "Now that Giambi is headed for a full recovery from his undisclosed illness -- truly good news for a nice guy -- the time has come to make the harsh admission that the Yankees would be better off without him ... " Well, golly gee, thanks for your approval. Lawrence Rocca has deemed Jason Giambi an official Nice Guy and undisclosed illnesses officially Bad. I'm sure Giambi can now sleep at night because he knows that Lawrence Rocca thinks he's a nice guy and that his recovery from illness is good news. Barry Bonds is very surly with the press, and Eddie Murray wouldn't even talk to the press during his baseball career. I'm not saying that Rocca would specifically wish cancer upon them, but just maybe wish for a slow recovery.
Jason Giambi stops beating his wife.
"The Yankees star said his condition is 'absolutely not' related to steroids.
'And that's about all I can really say about that,' Giambi said."
Giambi added that, while he's no doctor, the tumor could not be related to steroids, because he developed the tumor after he stopped taking steroids.
Wait. What did I just say?
What's a steroid?
I meant to say I plead the fifth. Talk to my lawyer. That was taken out of context. Can't you guys take a joke? Is it hot in here or is it just me?
'And that's about all I can really say about that,' Giambi said."
Giambi added that, while he's no doctor, the tumor could not be related to steroids, because he developed the tumor after he stopped taking steroids.
Wait. What did I just say?
What's a steroid?
I meant to say I plead the fifth. Talk to my lawyer. That was taken out of context. Can't you guys take a joke? Is it hot in here or is it just me?
Look out, Marlins!
After the horror of Derek Jeter's first-inning homerun, the Yankees scored three runs on productive outs and beat the Rangers 4-2.
Don't you know what this means?
It means the Yankees will win the World Series after all!
Don't you know what this means?
It means the Yankees will win the World Series after all!
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
Yankees might not win World Series.
How many times have you read this same article in the past ten seasons? The Yankees are really, really, really worried this time because they have such-and-such record against such-and-such teams and so-and-so is old or so-and-so is unproven in the playoffs.
He forgot to mention that Scott Brosius and Tino Martinez are gone, so they're obviously missing that certain something.
Of course the Yankees might not win the World Series. Winning eleven games in October isn't always easy. Ain't a sure thing in 2004, wasn't a sure thing in 1998. They might not get past the first round, the Cardinals might not get past the first round. The Red Sox and "creaky" Schilling might not even make the playoffs, making the theoretical Nitkowski-Ortiz matchup kind of irrelevant.
The best team doesn't always win. Heck, if you look at recent World Series history, you'd be forced to conclude that the best team usually does not win the World Series.
Torre could literally take the AL All Star team into the playoffs and claim many of the same concerns (they're old, they don't have a dominant lefty out of the bullpen, they don't have Randy Johnson, they might get swept by the A's if Mulder/Zito/Hudson are on their games ... I suppose in this particular scenario, AL All Star Mulder would be facing Oakland A's Mulder in game one, so that's pretty much a wash right there ... ).
It's very weak to merely claim the Yankees might not ... or even will not ... win the World Series. Because I'll say that about every team and I'll be correct 29 times out of 30.
Tell me who is going to win. That's a real prediction. But if you do make a real prediction, you'll probably be wrong. Not "Yankees vs. the Field," because it's just common sense to take the Field.
I feel compelled to vent about something else. Slow day, alright?
Please read the following sentence:
"... the way they could always package an Eric Milton and a Cristian Guzman for a Chuck Knoblauch, or trade a Brandon Claussen for an Aaron Boone, or deal Nick Johnson in a swap for a Vazquez."
Why is he using "a" and "an" to describe people? How did this become so popular in sports journalism?
The Yankees didn't pacakage "an" Eric Milton and "a" Cristian Guzman for "a" Chuck Knoblauch. The Yankees packaged Eric Milton and Cristian Guzman for Chuck Knoblauch!
Remove all the "as" and "ans" and re-read the sentence. There, wasn't that easier?
Eric Milton is not one example of several Eric Miltons. He's not "an" Eric Milton, he's just Eric Milton, God bless his unique little overrated heart. Stop treating these ballplayers like they're objects! They're people .... they're people!
There are exactly two indefinite articles in the English language. One is "a" and the other is "an."
If you say "an Eric Milton," you're saying that there are lots of Eric Miltons, but you can't identify which Eric Milton you are referring to. It could be any Eric Milton. Except there is only one precise Eric Milton to which you are referring, you big dummy. Mrs. Baker would have given me a frowny-face sticker in second grade for that kind of amateur nonsense.
Come on, folks. Let's at least try to put basic middle-school-level journalism into our sports journalism.
Also, yes, I completely understand how this evolved. It starts with a "a player like Nick Johnson," and the shorthand becomes "a Nick Johnson." But that still doesn't make any sense when you're talking about specific players.
He forgot to mention that Scott Brosius and Tino Martinez are gone, so they're obviously missing that certain something.
Of course the Yankees might not win the World Series. Winning eleven games in October isn't always easy. Ain't a sure thing in 2004, wasn't a sure thing in 1998. They might not get past the first round, the Cardinals might not get past the first round. The Red Sox and "creaky" Schilling might not even make the playoffs, making the theoretical Nitkowski-Ortiz matchup kind of irrelevant.
The best team doesn't always win. Heck, if you look at recent World Series history, you'd be forced to conclude that the best team usually does not win the World Series.
Torre could literally take the AL All Star team into the playoffs and claim many of the same concerns (they're old, they don't have a dominant lefty out of the bullpen, they don't have Randy Johnson, they might get swept by the A's if Mulder/Zito/Hudson are on their games ... I suppose in this particular scenario, AL All Star Mulder would be facing Oakland A's Mulder in game one, so that's pretty much a wash right there ... ).
It's very weak to merely claim the Yankees might not ... or even will not ... win the World Series. Because I'll say that about every team and I'll be correct 29 times out of 30.
Tell me who is going to win. That's a real prediction. But if you do make a real prediction, you'll probably be wrong. Not "Yankees vs. the Field," because it's just common sense to take the Field.
I feel compelled to vent about something else. Slow day, alright?
Please read the following sentence:
"... the way they could always package an Eric Milton and a Cristian Guzman for a Chuck Knoblauch, or trade a Brandon Claussen for an Aaron Boone, or deal Nick Johnson in a swap for a Vazquez."
Why is he using "a" and "an" to describe people? How did this become so popular in sports journalism?
The Yankees didn't pacakage "an" Eric Milton and "a" Cristian Guzman for "a" Chuck Knoblauch. The Yankees packaged Eric Milton and Cristian Guzman for Chuck Knoblauch!
Remove all the "as" and "ans" and re-read the sentence. There, wasn't that easier?
Eric Milton is not one example of several Eric Miltons. He's not "an" Eric Milton, he's just Eric Milton, God bless his unique little overrated heart. Stop treating these ballplayers like they're objects! They're people .... they're people!
There are exactly two indefinite articles in the English language. One is "a" and the other is "an."
If you say "an Eric Milton," you're saying that there are lots of Eric Miltons, but you can't identify which Eric Milton you are referring to. It could be any Eric Milton. Except there is only one precise Eric Milton to which you are referring, you big dummy. Mrs. Baker would have given me a frowny-face sticker in second grade for that kind of amateur nonsense.
Come on, folks. Let's at least try to put basic middle-school-level journalism into our sports journalism.
Also, yes, I completely understand how this evolved. It starts with a "a player like Nick Johnson," and the shorthand becomes "a Nick Johnson." But that still doesn't make any sense when you're talking about specific players.
Overrated Part II.
Just look at the Home/Away splits.
I assume that GMs (and Joe Buck) can easily access this information if I can.
So what's the big whoop about signing Larry Walker and taking him away from Coors Field?
Of course, now that I said it, Walker drills a homerun off Gagne to put the Cards in the World Series and then hits six in the World Series. But that's a small sample size ...
I assume that GMs (and Joe Buck) can easily access this information if I can.
So what's the big whoop about signing Larry Walker and taking him away from Coors Field?
Of course, now that I said it, Walker drills a homerun off Gagne to put the Cards in the World Series and then hits six in the World Series. But that's a small sample size ...
Overrated.
"Beltran's overall numbers look good (.263, 27 homers, 77 RBI), but with the Astros he is hitting .235 with a .316 on-base percentage in 40 games after going 0 for 4 last night."
With Esteban Loaiza already getting booed after a couple of so-so starts, I'd hate to see the fan reaction if Beltran came to New York as the CF Savior and hit .235 for his first 40 games.
If he does come to NY, I hope he proves me wrong. He'd certainly be an upgrade from the 2004 version of Bernie/Lofton/(Crosby). But I wouldn't expect anywhere near Prime Bernie and Cashman might just decide to spend his money elsewhere.
My other Beltran observation is simply disputing the notion that he's a "young" 27 years old and that his best days are ahead of him. Maybe so, maybe not. For the "maybe not" argument, please reference Edgardo Alfonzo, Nomar Garciaparra, Raul Mondesi, Carlos Baerga, countless others who seemed unstoppable when they were a "young" 27 years old. Even the suddenly-older-than-we-thought Alfonso Soriano.
Not that they're bad players -- some might make the Hall of Fame -- but I just see no reason to think that Beltran is necessarily going to get better as he gets older. Before the Yankees fork over $15 million per year, they should realize they might be getting a player who has already peaked. Most of the Beltran excitement seems to be about his untapped potential, a five-tool player who has put up good numbers already and is about to bust out. Color me skeptical.
With Esteban Loaiza already getting booed after a couple of so-so starts, I'd hate to see the fan reaction if Beltran came to New York as the CF Savior and hit .235 for his first 40 games.
If he does come to NY, I hope he proves me wrong. He'd certainly be an upgrade from the 2004 version of Bernie/Lofton/(Crosby). But I wouldn't expect anywhere near Prime Bernie and Cashman might just decide to spend his money elsewhere.
My other Beltran observation is simply disputing the notion that he's a "young" 27 years old and that his best days are ahead of him. Maybe so, maybe not. For the "maybe not" argument, please reference Edgardo Alfonzo, Nomar Garciaparra, Raul Mondesi, Carlos Baerga, countless others who seemed unstoppable when they were a "young" 27 years old. Even the suddenly-older-than-we-thought Alfonso Soriano.
Not that they're bad players -- some might make the Hall of Fame -- but I just see no reason to think that Beltran is necessarily going to get better as he gets older. Before the Yankees fork over $15 million per year, they should realize they might be getting a player who has already peaked. Most of the Beltran excitement seems to be about his untapped potential, a five-tool player who has put up good numbers already and is about to bust out. Color me skeptical.
The Houston Astros are in town ...
... and they brought Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte with them.
Lawrence Rocca at the Star-Ledger notices that the Astros are disappointing.
Smilin' Steve Serby at the Post apparently is the only person on Earth who thinks the Bronx is Clemens' "home."
Vic Ziegel at the Daily News decides that Clemens is better than Pettitte.
Newsday fails to make it a clean sweep, focusing on Pettitte's elbow , but ignoring Clemens.
As President of the Pettitte-Hater's Club, I won't even bother trying to tarnish his halo. I'll be here all day and it's old news by now. But let's just say the Yankees don't look so stupid questioning the health of his elbow before they guaranteed that fourth year.
Lawrence Rocca at the Star-Ledger notices that the Astros are disappointing.
Smilin' Steve Serby at the Post apparently is the only person on Earth who thinks the Bronx is Clemens' "home."
Vic Ziegel at the Daily News decides that Clemens is better than Pettitte.
Newsday fails to make it a clean sweep, focusing on Pettitte's elbow , but ignoring Clemens.
As President of the Pettitte-Hater's Club, I won't even bother trying to tarnish his halo. I'll be here all day and it's old news by now. But let's just say the Yankees don't look so stupid questioning the health of his elbow before they guaranteed that fourth year.
Tuesday, August 10, 2004
When Fanboys Vote.
First of all, if you're going to vote for the Hall of Fame, don't admit to this oh-so diligent decision-making criteria:
"But in the end, for me, it comes down, as always in these considerations, to a gut feeling."
Because lots of fanboys have a "gut feeling" that Willie Randolph or Mickey Rivers belong in the Hall of Fame.
Secondly, when it's finally time to actually look at the stats, please don't hit us with some flattering combo stat package like this:
"He is one of 17 players in history with at least a .300 batting average, .400 on-base percentage and .500 slugging percentage. Thirteen of the 14 retired players in that category — all but the banned Shoeless Joe Jackson — are in the Hall."
Which completely ignores the Inflated Stats of the era and also doesn't match up Edgar with his peers, which might be the most important criteria.
Do you know where Edgar's .525 career slugging percentage places him on the all-time list? Is it in the top 17? Or top 14? Was he better than Shoeless Joe Jackson?
Try 52nd. Ahead of Kevin Mitchell, but way behind Chipper Jones. Big whoop.
Come on, we know what stats matter. .312, 305, 1244.
You could throw in an impressive 500 doubles, 1200 runs, a ton of walks.
But this was also a guy who basically never played the field. Basically didn't contribute at all to the defensive side. Cracked the top ten in MVP voting only twice, cracked the top five only once. Those wacko MVP voters might not know what they're talking about either, but it does not suggest one of the dominant players of his era.
Edgar had a great career. Just not a HOF career. Even if you had his poster on your wall when you were a kid.
"But in the end, for me, it comes down, as always in these considerations, to a gut feeling."
Because lots of fanboys have a "gut feeling" that Willie Randolph or Mickey Rivers belong in the Hall of Fame.
Secondly, when it's finally time to actually look at the stats, please don't hit us with some flattering combo stat package like this:
"He is one of 17 players in history with at least a .300 batting average, .400 on-base percentage and .500 slugging percentage. Thirteen of the 14 retired players in that category — all but the banned Shoeless Joe Jackson — are in the Hall."
Which completely ignores the Inflated Stats of the era and also doesn't match up Edgar with his peers, which might be the most important criteria.
Do you know where Edgar's .525 career slugging percentage places him on the all-time list? Is it in the top 17? Or top 14? Was he better than Shoeless Joe Jackson?
Try 52nd. Ahead of Kevin Mitchell, but way behind Chipper Jones. Big whoop.
Come on, we know what stats matter. .312, 305, 1244.
You could throw in an impressive 500 doubles, 1200 runs, a ton of walks.
But this was also a guy who basically never played the field. Basically didn't contribute at all to the defensive side. Cracked the top ten in MVP voting only twice, cracked the top five only once. Those wacko MVP voters might not know what they're talking about either, but it does not suggest one of the dominant players of his era.
Edgar had a great career. Just not a HOF career. Even if you had his poster on your wall when you were a kid.
Lofton made an error.
It was the first error in baseball history. Steinbrenner will probably fire Joe Torre.
Very amusing quote by Steinbrenner: "And I think he might have caught that (two-run) home run (in the sixth by Gabe Gross). That home run barely got in. Sheffield goes right up after it."
Ummm, no. Sheffield doesn't catch that unless he is standing at the wall before the pitch is thrown.
Mike Lupica pretends to be baffled because the Yankees don't want to talk openly about Jason Giambi's nutsack. Nice to know that his insider access can provide the following exclusive insight:
I asked Cashman yesterday if he knows the location of Giambi's tumor.
"Yes," he said.
"But you aren't saying where it is?"
"No."
Somehow, Lupica stretches that into an entire article.
Lisa Olson has even less to say though she thinks Giambi's nutsack is "baseball's greatest mystery":
"It's interesting that Steinbrenner is more than willing to micro-manage the outfield but won't say a word about Giambi, whom he is paying $120 million. The Yankees said Giambi had a parasite, then a benign tumor, and we must take them at their word even though no doctor has stepped forward to verify either diagnosis. Giambi's inner circle has issued a fatwa on all information, which of course has led to all sorts of crazy speculation. In the summer of BALCO, his Greta Garbo act has turned into baseball's greatest mystery."
It probably is Baseball's Greatest Mystery come to think of it. Other than, "Why is Joe Randa always smiling?"
Then, she demonstrates why women should not be sportswriters:
"Anywhere else, and those marvelous eight-inning games from Kevin Brown, Javier Vazquez, Orlando Hernandez and Jon Lieber wouldn't feel so faded. The midsummer lull finds the Yankees far and above everyone else, but still in search of their owner's unconditional love."
I think the Yankee players are in search of their owner's unconditional money, but they sure don't care about his love.
Very amusing quote by Steinbrenner: "And I think he might have caught that (two-run) home run (in the sixth by Gabe Gross). That home run barely got in. Sheffield goes right up after it."
Ummm, no. Sheffield doesn't catch that unless he is standing at the wall before the pitch is thrown.
Mike Lupica pretends to be baffled because the Yankees don't want to talk openly about Jason Giambi's nutsack. Nice to know that his insider access can provide the following exclusive insight:
I asked Cashman yesterday if he knows the location of Giambi's tumor.
"Yes," he said.
"But you aren't saying where it is?"
"No."
Somehow, Lupica stretches that into an entire article.
Lisa Olson has even less to say though she thinks Giambi's nutsack is "baseball's greatest mystery":
"It's interesting that Steinbrenner is more than willing to micro-manage the outfield but won't say a word about Giambi, whom he is paying $120 million. The Yankees said Giambi had a parasite, then a benign tumor, and we must take them at their word even though no doctor has stepped forward to verify either diagnosis. Giambi's inner circle has issued a fatwa on all information, which of course has led to all sorts of crazy speculation. In the summer of BALCO, his Greta Garbo act has turned into baseball's greatest mystery."
It probably is Baseball's Greatest Mystery come to think of it. Other than, "Why is Joe Randa always smiling?"
Then, she demonstrates why women should not be sportswriters:
"Anywhere else, and those marvelous eight-inning games from Kevin Brown, Javier Vazquez, Orlando Hernandez and Jon Lieber wouldn't feel so faded. The midsummer lull finds the Yankees far and above everyone else, but still in search of their owner's unconditional love."
I think the Yankee players are in search of their owner's unconditional money, but they sure don't care about his love.
Phil Mushnick does not like nouns.
Once again offering insight into his tortured existence, Phil Mushnick attacks all people, places, and things he comes in contact with.
He also doesn't like the way nouns are described (adjectives), actions performed by nouns (verbs), or adjectives used to describe those actions (adverbs).
He also doesn't like the way nouns are described (adjectives), actions performed by nouns (verbs), or adjectives used to describe those actions (adverbs).
Friday, August 06, 2004
Red Sox reach a new Lowe.
See, it's funny. Derek Lowe was last night's pitcher for the Red Sox and his last name is a homonym for "low," which can also be used to describe the Red Sox, who are at their low point for the entire season, 10 1/2 games back of the Yankees. I'll bet the editors at newspapers across the country can't wait to get that one onto the front page. They have not been so excited since Jose Vizcaino had a game-winning hit in the World Series and they could finally write, "Nobody Beats the Viz."
Anyway, I can't figure out which event was more of a catalyst to spark Boston's current surge to overtake the Yankees and win the AL East pennant:
Any more catalysts like that, and Boston won't even win the wild card.
Anyway, I can't figure out which event was more of a catalyst to spark Boston's current surge to overtake the Yankees and win the AL East pennant:
- Varitek's fight with ARod
- Mueller's game-winning homerun off Rivera in the same game.
- Trading away a clubhouse cancer like Nomar.
Any more catalysts like that, and Boston won't even win the wild card.
Big Chokin'.
"Armando, strangely enough, is a huge country music fan. But, despite his love for Kenny Chesney, Armando comes out to rap music. Originally, this season Armando warmed up to the tune of Notorious BIG's 'Big Poppa,' but recently switched the tune to Jay-Z's 'Big Pimpin.' "
Big Chokin' up in NYC
World Series game against theYankeez
Big Chokin' down in Hot-lan-ta
Bobby V. needs a My-lan-ta.
Big Chokin' up in NYC
World Series game against theYankeez
Big Chokin' down in Hot-lan-ta
Bobby V. needs a My-lan-ta.
Joel Sherman breaks the rules, praises Cashman & Steinbrenner.
No "George of the Bungle"? No failed "chemistry" experiment? No struggling with the much-improved Blue Jays, Orioles, and Devil Rays?
Kudos to Joel Sherman for admitting that the Yankees are actually a pretty good team.
If I may expand on Joel Sherman's thoughts, I think it's also pretty obvious by now that Andy Pettitte is a clubhouse cancer. The Yankees win more without him and the Astros win less with him. Can't be a coincidence.
Kudos to Joel Sherman for admitting that the Yankees are actually a pretty good team.
If I may expand on Joel Sherman's thoughts, I think it's also pretty obvious by now that Andy Pettitte is a clubhouse cancer. The Yankees win more without him and the Astros win less with him. Can't be a coincidence.
Thursday, August 05, 2004
Yankee bullpen is good.
Especially with Karsay coming back and Proctor looking like a keeper. The Yankee bullpen could be piled up with five effective pitchers when the playoffs start. Throw El Duque in there and it's the best bullpen you've ever seen.
Still looking for a lefty specialist, this is true, but it seems ridiculous to take a strength like Quantrill, Gordon, and Rivera and make it a problem. They pitch a lot of games. So what? That's because they're so damn good. Hopefully, one of them can remove the current leader for appearances from the Yankee record book. That would be Mike Stanton.
It's sort of like Torre complaining about all the homeruns. Because this supposedly means the offense isn't "versatile" enough. He wasn't complaining, I'd imagine, when Sheffield and ARod won the game with two swings last night.
I don't understand the notion that the Yankee bullpen isn't deep enough. It's "exposed" when the starting pitcher can't go five innings or Torre has to use someone besides Quantrill, Gordon, and Rivera.
I don't think there has ever been a Yankee team that was six deep or seven deep in the bullpen. Bullpens like that just don't exist. If you're a good pitcher, why would you ever agree to be #7 on the depth chart of the Yankees bullpen? You can get more playing time and more money -- maybe even get some saves and earn the big bucks -- playing for another team.
Still looking for a lefty specialist, this is true, but it seems ridiculous to take a strength like Quantrill, Gordon, and Rivera and make it a problem. They pitch a lot of games. So what? That's because they're so damn good. Hopefully, one of them can remove the current leader for appearances from the Yankee record book. That would be Mike Stanton.
It's sort of like Torre complaining about all the homeruns. Because this supposedly means the offense isn't "versatile" enough. He wasn't complaining, I'd imagine, when Sheffield and ARod won the game with two swings last night.
I don't understand the notion that the Yankee bullpen isn't deep enough. It's "exposed" when the starting pitcher can't go five innings or Torre has to use someone besides Quantrill, Gordon, and Rivera.
I don't think there has ever been a Yankee team that was six deep or seven deep in the bullpen. Bullpens like that just don't exist. If you're a good pitcher, why would you ever agree to be #7 on the depth chart of the Yankees bullpen? You can get more playing time and more money -- maybe even get some saves and earn the big bucks -- playing for another team.
Fun with Joe Torre Quotes, Part 2.
Of the homers Rodriguez hit this year, Torre said No. 29 could have the most impact on his season. "I think this will be like that grand slam Giambi hit that first year he was here," he said.
Yes, indeed. That Giambi grand slam against the Twins was quite a turning point in his career. Maybe Torre thinks ARod will soon become a .250 hitter and grow a tumor in his nutsack.
Yes, indeed. That Giambi grand slam against the Twins was quite a turning point in his career. Maybe Torre thinks ARod will soon become a .250 hitter and grow a tumor in his nutsack.
Monday, August 02, 2004
Nomar hates you and there is no Santa Claus.
When you read this story of young, innocent Red Sox fan heartbreak, I hope it gives you some perspective about what's really important in life.
True Happiness can not be found in the pursuit of money, fame, fleeting earthly possessions. No. I have learned True Happiness can only come in the delight you get when Red Sox fans are tortured. The sweet schadenfreude overtaking my entire body.
Hey, you dumb kids, better get used to it.
"Mommy? Did Nomar do something wrong?"
"No, Braeden. Nomar asked to leave Boston because of something you did. Nomar hates you. You did something wrong."
True Happiness can not be found in the pursuit of money, fame, fleeting earthly possessions. No. I have learned True Happiness can only come in the delight you get when Red Sox fans are tortured. The sweet schadenfreude overtaking my entire body.
Hey, you dumb kids, better get used to it.
"Mommy? Did Nomar do something wrong?"
"No, Braeden. Nomar asked to leave Boston because of something you did. Nomar hates you. You did something wrong."
Sunday, August 01, 2004
If the facts disagree with your theory, ignore the facts.
I'm happy. I should be happy. I attended another Yankee victory, the lead is 9 1/2, Nomar is no longer on the Red Sox (a team that is supposed to be built to win this year), Contreras is off the Yankees, and that sleeping giant known as the Red Sox -- supposedly awoken by the catalytic fight between ARod and Varitek -- is apparently asleep once again.
But I also had a triple dose of Lupica today and I feel a Lupica rant coming on.
Two Lupica tenets collided this weekend:
They still don't get it. Lupica, Olney, Rocca, McCarron are just Richie, Ralph Malph, Potsy, and Chachi running around Arnold's because Big Unit isn't playing on the jukebox and Pinky Tuscadero is on the way. What a bunch of nerds. Fonzbrenner is in the bathroom combing his hair in the mirror. Then, he calmly walks out of the bathroom, hits the jukebox in just the right spot -- and the smooth doo wop tunes of Esteban Loiza start playing. Aaaaayyyyy!
If the Yankees were really desperate, they'd have offered Posada or Vazquez (two rumors I heard that literally made me laugh out loud). The Yankees put Robinson Cano on a hook and dangled him in front of the D'Backs. Maybe they'd be dumb enough to take the bait. But Lupica thinks that's a desperation move. We ain't desperate, we're 9 1/2 games up. Aaaaayyyyy!
Lupica may have a point regarding the Yankee farm system. It's light. The Lilly-for-Weaver and Claussen-for-Boone trades were bad. Not so much because Lilly or Claussen are all that necessary to the Yankees, but just because Weaver and Boone were just really, really bad in pinstripes.
However, it's a nonsensical leap of logic to connect these bad trades with the inability to land Unit. Why? Because you end up in scenarios more confusing than chaos theory.
The Yankees used Weaver to acquire Kevin Brown. How can Lupica be so sure the Yankees would have saved Lilly in order to acquire Unit? Maybe they'd have used Lilly to get Kevin Brown. Or maybe they'd have packaged Lilly, Claussen, Nick Johnson, Juan Rivera, and Andy Pettitte for ... for ... Doug Mintkayvich and Orlando Cabrera, since they're so great. Well, they're pretty good at fielding their positions, anyway.
More to the point, even if the Yankee farm system is "cleaned out," at least they put it to good use. That is why the Yankees have a 9 1/2 game lead to help ease the pain. Aaaaayyyyy!
Now, given Lupica's criticism of the Yankee trades, you know he has a good idea about what a GM should do. The Mets, for instance. Nine games out, six games under .500, 4th place. The newly-acquired Benson just gave up 7 runs in 5 innings to the Braves. Yeesh. Might be time to trade the vets and load up on the farm system. Right? Right? RIGHT???
Lupica? Certainly, you don't think the Mets should have "cleaned out their farm system," right? Lupica? What did you do?!
"Kris Benson is 29 and Victor Zambrano, whom they got from the Devil Rays, is 28. Zambrano is a winning pitcher on an ordinary Devil Rays team and has occasionally looked like a total star against the Yankees this season.
The Mets must like him a lot because they gave up the best arm in their whole system - Scott Kazmir - to get him from Lou Piniella.
...
They made two huge moves Friday, not just for the rest of this season, but the foreseeable future.
...
When you believe that, and believe truly, you make the move, and hope against hope that these don't turn out to be the kinds of deals that cleaned out the Yankee farm system.
You make the move."
Ummm, what??? Did Lupica just say the Mets made a good move? By "hoping against hope" that they didn't clean out their farm system? Yes, he really said it.
It is my own fault for watching Lupica on ESPN's Sports Reporters this morning. I knew something he'd say would drive me crazy. I think it took one whole sentence. To paraphrase:
"Steinbrenner made this move just to look busy ... " (Chachi still doesn't get it.)
" ... he traded one cast off player for another cast off ... " (Loaiza won 21 games last season and will almost certainly be better than Contreras. Besides, in this previously-referenced column, in the title, didn't Lupica call Loaiza an All-Star?)
" ... one player who won't start in the playoffs for another who won't start in the playoffs." (Wouldn't surprise me at all if Loaiza passed El Duque and Lieber for the #4 spot in the playoffs. If one of the starters happens to be on the DL, it's quite likely Loaiza would start in the playoffs.)
Okay, that's enough ranting. Conclusion? Lupica is a nerd and Fonzbrenner is a dren.
But I also had a triple dose of Lupica today and I feel a Lupica rant coming on.
Two Lupica tenets collided this weekend:
- The Yankees have the resources to acquire any player they desire.
- The Yankees desperately wanted Randy Johnson.
They still don't get it. Lupica, Olney, Rocca, McCarron are just Richie, Ralph Malph, Potsy, and Chachi running around Arnold's because Big Unit isn't playing on the jukebox and Pinky Tuscadero is on the way. What a bunch of nerds. Fonzbrenner is in the bathroom combing his hair in the mirror. Then, he calmly walks out of the bathroom, hits the jukebox in just the right spot -- and the smooth doo wop tunes of Esteban Loiza start playing. Aaaaayyyyy!
If the Yankees were really desperate, they'd have offered Posada or Vazquez (two rumors I heard that literally made me laugh out loud). The Yankees put Robinson Cano on a hook and dangled him in front of the D'Backs. Maybe they'd be dumb enough to take the bait. But Lupica thinks that's a desperation move. We ain't desperate, we're 9 1/2 games up. Aaaaayyyyy!
Lupica may have a point regarding the Yankee farm system. It's light. The Lilly-for-Weaver and Claussen-for-Boone trades were bad. Not so much because Lilly or Claussen are all that necessary to the Yankees, but just because Weaver and Boone were just really, really bad in pinstripes.
However, it's a nonsensical leap of logic to connect these bad trades with the inability to land Unit. Why? Because you end up in scenarios more confusing than chaos theory.
The Yankees used Weaver to acquire Kevin Brown. How can Lupica be so sure the Yankees would have saved Lilly in order to acquire Unit? Maybe they'd have used Lilly to get Kevin Brown. Or maybe they'd have packaged Lilly, Claussen, Nick Johnson, Juan Rivera, and Andy Pettitte for ... for ... Doug Mintkayvich and Orlando Cabrera, since they're so great. Well, they're pretty good at fielding their positions, anyway.
More to the point, even if the Yankee farm system is "cleaned out," at least they put it to good use. That is why the Yankees have a 9 1/2 game lead to help ease the pain. Aaaaayyyyy!
Now, given Lupica's criticism of the Yankee trades, you know he has a good idea about what a GM should do. The Mets, for instance. Nine games out, six games under .500, 4th place. The newly-acquired Benson just gave up 7 runs in 5 innings to the Braves. Yeesh. Might be time to trade the vets and load up on the farm system. Right? Right? RIGHT???
Lupica? Certainly, you don't think the Mets should have "cleaned out their farm system," right? Lupica? What did you do?!
"Kris Benson is 29 and Victor Zambrano, whom they got from the Devil Rays, is 28. Zambrano is a winning pitcher on an ordinary Devil Rays team and has occasionally looked like a total star against the Yankees this season.
The Mets must like him a lot because they gave up the best arm in their whole system - Scott Kazmir - to get him from Lou Piniella.
...
They made two huge moves Friday, not just for the rest of this season, but the foreseeable future.
...
When you believe that, and believe truly, you make the move, and hope against hope that these don't turn out to be the kinds of deals that cleaned out the Yankee farm system.
You make the move."
Ummm, what??? Did Lupica just say the Mets made a good move? By "hoping against hope" that they didn't clean out their farm system? Yes, he really said it.
It is my own fault for watching Lupica on ESPN's Sports Reporters this morning. I knew something he'd say would drive me crazy. I think it took one whole sentence. To paraphrase:
"Steinbrenner made this move just to look busy ... " (Chachi still doesn't get it.)
" ... he traded one cast off player for another cast off ... " (Loaiza won 21 games last season and will almost certainly be better than Contreras. Besides, in this previously-referenced column, in the title, didn't Lupica call Loaiza an All-Star?)
" ... one player who won't start in the playoffs for another who won't start in the playoffs." (Wouldn't surprise me at all if Loaiza passed El Duque and Lieber for the #4 spot in the playoffs. If one of the starters happens to be on the DL, it's quite likely Loaiza would start in the playoffs.)
Okay, that's enough ranting. Conclusion? Lupica is a nerd and Fonzbrenner is a dren.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)