Caller Unable to Get Through to Sports Radio Talk Show.

"In terms of critical questions of our times, it ranks right up there with this one: Who gets down the line quicker, The Flash or Superman?"

I say Flash. Because if he's not fast, then why is he called Flash in the first place?

Wait a second ... what the heck is Bob Raissman even talking about? Who would win a race between Flash and Superman?

Ummm, better get back to baseball.


Bob Raissman's investigative reporting has uncovered two shocking aspects of talk radio:

(1) A talk show host who has an opinion.

A talk show host. On the radio. Expressing his opinion, by talking:

"Kay didn't wait for an answer. His mind was made up. His agenda was set. Speaking directly into his ESPN-1050 Joy Stick, Kay launched into a tirade defending A-Rod. The talkie wasn't spewing. He was proselytizing.

...

'Yankee fans should be so appreciative to have a guy like Alex Rodriguez on their team. Do you know how good he is? Do you realize what a player he is, the things he's accomplished already before the age of 30? And you sit there in judgment of him,'Kay said in a disgusted tone. 'He's not good enough for you yet. And you blame him for the Red Sox series. Nonsense. I've never heard such pap - mindless pap.' "

What next? Newspaper columnists expressing their opinions?

Next thing you know, newspapers will have editorials and entire sections devoted to opinions.

(Incidentally, this is one of the few times I find myself agreeing with Michael Kay.)

But Raissman brings up a valid complaint. If talk show hosts are allowed to express their opinions on their own show, then our society is probably doomed.

This whole time, you were wondering what Bob Raissman was getting so worked up about. Well, I'll tell you what he's getting so worked up about. How's about Western Civilization as we know it?

You still don't see? Let me lay it out for you, crystal clear.

First, radio talk show hosts express their opinions. Next thing you know? Chaos. Anarchy. The Statue of Liberty buried in a beach in a post-apocalyptic Earth where apes have evolved and use humans as slaves.

But Raissman is not done. If you're not angry yet, Raissman is about to put you over the top.

I can not verify if this actually occurred but Raissman documents an instance where:

(2) A caller to a radio talk show did not get on the air.

I've heard about some shocking things in my life. Investigative reporters have uncovered the Watergate scandal, the secret Iran-Contra arms deals, telephone psychics who can not really foresee the future, and used car dealers who aren't truthful.

Similarly, the Reilly/Kay Affair has shaken the foundations of my belief system.

Be forewarned, dear reader: You may need a stomach of steel to read about Peter B. Reilly's ordeal at the hands of Al Yankzeera:

"On Wednesday, Peter B. Reilly, a Daily News reader, attempted calling Kay to say this kind of 'marketing crass' does 'not endear' Rodriguez to fans. Reilly got through to ESPN-1050, advised the screener of his topic, and was told he would be up next. Suddenly, Reilly was disconnected.

'I called back a few minutes later, and when I again told the screener the nature of my comment, he brusquely said: "We're not going to get into that today," and hung up on me,' Reilly said."

Jeez, Peter B. Reilly, just how brusque was he? Was the Evil Screener downright brusque? Or was this Al Yankzeera agent merely terse?

Because I'm thinking of writing a letter to my Congressman to ensure this never happens again to a taxpaying citizen of the U.S. of A.

Down with Al Yankzeera!

Throw a shutout next time, will ya?

Larry Brooks has obviously lost his mind. Kevin Brown give up three runs in seven innings and the offense scores one lousy run.

Who to blame for the loss? Kevin Brown. That makes sense!

(Is this guy Larry Brooks new? I kinda like him. In a very short period of time, he's quickly moving up into Olney/Rocca/Lupica territory of Bad Sportswriting. Where have you been all my blog, Larry Brooks?) :

"And [Brown] was much better. But not good enough to provide enough of a lift to a Yankee team still unable to establish a positive tone to the season. Brown allowed three runs in seven innings while retiring the final 11 batters he faced, which might have been good enough under other circumstances. But it wasn't last night, not when he surrendered two runs in the third and another in the fourth to allow the Angels to take a 3-0 lead in a game they'd win 3-1."


If one watched the game, one might argue that the three runs Brown allowed were actually kind of "soft." Maybe one solid hit in the bunch. Even on that Garret Anderson double, the baserunner had stopped at third base until Sheffieled picked up the ball and threw it to nobody.

(When I saw a throw to an unoccupied second base, I thought that Alfonso Soriano was back on the team.)

Guerrero's RBI single counts, but it was just a groundball to third base that caught ARod out of position because the baserunner was attempting to steal third base. Tough to pin that on Brown's pitching, if your goal is a thoughtful analysis of Brown's pitching.

But all that's not really particularly relevant. One could easily argue the contrary, that the Angels hit a few at'em balls and Brown still didn't look too sharp until the last few innings.

In any case, if one is analyzing last night's game and looking for Yankee worries, the starting pitching is probably the last place to look:

"Where is the pitcher in pinstripes who's going to hand over a 1-0 lead to the bullpen in the eighth if that's what it takes? Where is the pitcher who is going to grow larger in the Bronx?"

Where is the pitcher who's going to throw shutouts every time? There is no such pitcher. Never has been, never will be. Andy Pettitte couldn't do it, Roger Clemens couldn't do it, Whitey Ford couldn't do it.

Difference is, if David Cone was on the mound and Brooks viewed Cone as a sympathetic figure, Brooks would blame the teammates for the lack of offensive support, rather than blaming the pitcher for giving up a whole three runs.

If the Yankee 2005 starting rotation was Johan Santana, Randy Johnson, Jason Schmidt, Roger Clemens, and Pedro Martinez, they're still going to lose almost every game in which they score one lousy run.


Larry Brooks is not this stupid. Larry Brooks is a liar. He had an article written before the game was even played. He was going to rip Kevin Brown regardless of how well Brown pitched.

Last night was not a discouraging game, pitching-wise. As Johnette Howard reports, it was an encouraging game, pitching-wise. Brown looked sharp, Groom once again looked sharp, Gordon once again looked sharp.

Over at the Daily News, Lisa Olson accurately describes Brown as a tough-luck loser in last night's game.

Hey, it happens. It happens all the time in baseball. Nobody's crying a river for Kevin Brown, nobody's nominating him for the Cy Young Award, nobody's forgetting about Game Seven of the ALCS.

But last year's ALCS has nothing to do with last night's game. Brooks is trying to pin last night's loss on Brown, and he can not.

Ha ha on Larry Brooks. You were out-written by two girls.

Dire Yankee pre-season predictions come true.

An elderly pitching staff with injuries to their number one starter and number two starter.

Plus, a washed-up closer with an era of 7.20.

ARod gets uppity.

Alex Rodriguez basically equalled Carlos Beltran's season in one game.

But Mike Lupica would like to remind you that Reggie Jackson's three-homerun game in the World Series was more impressive. (Even Lupica begrudgingly admits that ARod's three-homerun game exciting.)

Also, the Daily News forgets about ARod's postseason domination of the Twins last year; only the Red Sox count.


Now, if this guy is so tortured by the prospects of covering the Yankee game, maybe he should get a new job.

Because sportswriters have to write about sports. They're paid to write about sports. Supposedly a service to the readership, an audience of sports fans.

Even though sportswriters just seem to be consumed with writing about writing about sports, instead of just writing about sports.

Larry Brooks sounds bored out of his mind unless a player hits 3 homeruns in a game or strikes out 20 batters.

Well said.

I'm a month late with the link, but anybody who rips Lupica is okay in my book.

Andy Phillips is no Lou Gehrig.

"Let's not jump the gun just yet by sending white smoke billowing from the top of Yankee Stadium to anoint Andy Phillips as some kind of pinstriped savior. While this young man has pumped some much needed life into a so far lethargic offense, it's still too soon to determine if he is Lou Gehrig or merely another Kevin Maas."

The Yankee offense is certainly inconsistent -- most offenses are -- but I don't know if it's fair to claim it's lethargic. They are averaging 5.5 runs per game and are third in the league in runs scored.

No matter.

The beauty of Phil Pepe is not in the boring details.

The beauty of Phil Pepe is that he reminds everybody that, after fourteen career at-bats, it's too early to compare Andy Phillips to Lou Gehrig. (It is also too early to compare Phillips to Pope Benedict XVI.)

You know what? Let's go ahead and jump the gun and put Phil Pepe's proposition to the test:

Andy Phillips: 10 games; 14 at-bats; .286 ba; 2 hrs; 6 rbis; 4 runs.

Lou Gehrig: 2,164 games; 8,001 at-bats; .340 ba; 493 hrs; 1,995 rbis; 1,888 runs.

What other criteria may we use? The baseball-reference.com HOF monitor is not the be-all and end-all statistic, but I think it's a pretty good way to compare careers. Let's see what b-r.com has to say:

Andy Phillips: HOF Monitor of nothing. I guess he hasn't played enough games yet to qualify. But I did find out that his first name is George.

Lou Gehrig: HOF Monitor of 352, which is the seventh-highest of all-time.


My conclusion is that Phil Pepe is right again. It is, in fact, still too soon to determine if Andy Phillips will be as good as Lou Gehrig.

Somebody has to "fill the hole" in the pitching staff ... get it?

Whenever David Wells pitches, the headlines either proclaim "all's wells" or "all's not wells."

Whenever Jaret Wright pitches, the headlines either proclaim "all's wright" or "all's not wright."

Very clever.

But I shudder to think what the headlines will read when Chien-Ming Wang pitches for the Yankees this Saturday.


As for the content of George King's article, I would like to point out that filling in for Jaret Wright should not be too difficult. If Wang can manage an era of 9.14, he'd be pitching better than Wright.

Also, let me ask you a question, loyal reader: Do you know a single person who believed the Yankees would go post to wire in the AL East this year and cruise through October?

I think the Yankees are still slight favorites to win the World Series in 2005, but nobody thought the Red Sox were just going to disappear.

George King remembers differently. He knows many of these imaginary prognosticators:

"After last year's ALCS meltdown against the Red Sox, the Yankees made rebuilding their rotation the No. 1 offseason priority. The price tag for Randy Johnson ($57 million), Carl Pavano ($40 million) and Jaret Wright ($21 million) totaled $118 million and had many believing the Yankees would go post to wire in the AL East and cruise through October."

Look, the Yankees have played poorly through 19 games. The Yankees will always have higher expectations due to their payroll and, to some extent, their history of success.

But now King is not only judging the Yankees against unrealistic expectations ... he's judging them against imaginary expectations.

You are what your record says you are.

"Bill Parcells used to tell me all the time that you are what your record says you are in sports."

True enough. The Yankees had a lousy 7-11 record after 18 games (and now, they have a lousy 8-11 record after 19 games).

As Lupica cleverly points out, 7-11 is also the name of a popular convenience store. Ha ha ha! That's hilarious!

But the Mets are only 10-9 after 19 games. They don't get any extra credit for rebounding after starting the season 0-5. Why don't they get extra credit? Because you are what your record says you are.

As of this afternoon, after the decrepit Yankees managed to beat the Texas Whippersnappers, the Mets are a whole two games better than the Yankees.

The $100 mill Metropolitans just lost to the Washington Expos while playing at Shea. This Is Not Acceptable!

(On a similar note, the $130 mill world champs just lost two out of three to Tampa Bay which Is Not Acceptable!)

The Mets have a slightly better record than the Yankees, but it's not much better. Unless, of course, you live in Lupica Land:

"The Mets are a much better story and a much better team right now. We already know how they can come back, because they got rocked with that 0-5 start. Since then they have won 10 of 13."

I don't know if the Mets are a much better story than the Yankees. Perhaps they are. Perhaps all 29 other teams are better stories than the Yankees. I don't really care either way.

As Lupica and others try to push this Battle for New York down our throats, they seem to miss the fundamental attribute of being a fan: Fans are not impartial observers.

Lupica envisions millions of Metro NYC area baseball fans sitting down on a Sunday afternoon and flipping the channel looking for the most entertaining baseball game or the best storyline. It just doesn't work that way.

I'm watching the Yankees. Because I'm a Yankee fan. Duh.

"Pedro's pitching this way and Carlos Beltran and Doug Mientkiewicz are playing the way they are, and I guess that begs a question:

How's Omar Minaya looking these days?"

Umm, well, since you are what your record says you are, he looks like the GM of a 10-9 team who have the highest payroll in the NL.

Shrug.

John Donovan's Mysteries of the Universe.

Another sportswriter refuses to believe what he sees with his own eyes:

"We don't know, and we never will, whether the fan was trying to punch Sheffield with that weird elbow-cocked swing, whether he was trying to grab the ball but decided to bail out, whether he was just trying to distract Sheffield, or whether he was simply going spastic during an exciting and critical part of the ballgame. We just don't know."

One way we can find out is to ask the fan. Maybe even under oath.

I mean, if scientists can unravel the mysteries of unpopped popcorn, there is at least hope that, one day, We will know the Truth.

Though I like Donovan's whole "going spastic" theory. Perhaps Donovan would like to testify in court about what it's like to be subject to spontaneous episodes of "going spastic." Just happened to "go spastic" while a Yankee right fielder was nearby, your Honor.


Oh, and if "the very last thing [he's] trying to do is draw out the public debate on what happened between Gary Sheffield and a fan in Fenway Park last week," then ... I dunno ... call me crazy, but maybe he shouldn't write a whole entire article about it and stuff.

Then post that article on the Internet.

Since public debating is the last thing he wants to do.

I'll say.

Toronto's pitching line through three innings this morning:

Toronto

D. Bush: IP: 2.0, H: 7, R: 7, ER: 7

B. League: IP: 1.0, H: 2, R: 2, ER: 2

Mike Lupica Puts Anti-Yankee Behavior In Perspective.

"There have been nearly 60 games played between the Yankees and Red Sox over the past two seasons and one month. Before you even talk about some of the most intense games in baseball history, it is worth mentioning that this rivalry, reconstituted under the new Red Sox management, has included some of the most intense April games ever played.

And in all of those games, there have been two significant incidents involving players and fans."

Of all the astonishing misrepresentations of the truth that Mike Lupica has misrepresented, this has to be the most astonsishing and the most misrepresented.

Lupica is actually defending Boston fan behavior because there have been only two fan-player incidents in the past 60 games.

For one thing, Lupica is ignoring the fans who trashed the field in the 1999 ALCS -- despicable behavior which was repeated at Yankee Stadium last season -- and the constant anti-Yankee sentiment that flourishes at Fenway Park.

It's just a fact. Maybe Lupica sits in the press box, but I usually sit in the bleachers ... and try to keep a low profile.

"Bobby Murcer said on YES that he thought the guy was definitely taking a swing at Sheffield. Justice got hysterical on the postgame show, as if this had somehow happened at Fenway Park at Auburn Hills. Only Michael Kay provided some reasoned thought to the proceedings, basically saying that he wasn't going to say the fan was swinging at Sheffield because he didn't know that.

Neither do we."

Neither do who?

I saw the replay 100 times, I only needed to see it once. Man swings arm, arm hits other man in head. For Lupica and Kay, that's not enough proof that he was swinging at Sheffield. In fact, the fan in the stands was probably just randomly swinging his arm, and Sheffield was inconsiderate enough to hit him in the fist with his head.

But that's not how the world works. If you "accidentally" hit a grown man in the face, you might "accidentally" get a pair of cleats in your groin. I'm not saying I purposely kicked him, your Honor, I was just sort of swinging my foot and he moved his groin into the path of my kick.

Funny how these "fan-player incidents" have occurred twice in the past 30-or-so games the Yankee have played at Fenway (since we're talking about fan behavior at Fenway, how's about we cut Lupica's "games played" number in half? You know, like a truthful person would do).

So in the past 30-or-so games that the Yankees have played have Fenway, there have been only two fights between Yankee players and the fans.

What is everybody getting so worked up about? Fenway isn't dangerous.

But I'm trying to think of any other incident in my lifetime where a Yankee player got into a fight with a fan. I remember the KC fans getting out of hand with Chuck Knoblauch, but the worst thing that happened was throwing hot dog wrappers on the field.

Thousands upon thousands of road games and a grand total of zero fan-player incidents, yet Lupica sees nothing particularly unusual if it occurs twice in thirty games.


"House was plain stupid to reach down into the field of play, whatever his reasons. The way even charming children are stupid to reach down with their gloves when a fly ball is still catchable, say, in a big Yankee-Oriole playoff game."

Lupica has truly reached a new low.

He has the nerve to compare a fan -- a teenage fan -- reaching for a ball in play to a grown man hitting a player in the face. Very convincing argument. It's totally the same thing.

"Whatever his reasons"? His "reasons" were to smack Gary Sheffield.

Another Hero of the Bleachers. His punishment should be five minutes alone with Gary Sheffield in a dark alley.

"This was like some sports version of 'Rashomon' in the end: Everybody saw something different. Or what they wanted to see."

I'm not sure what Mike Lupica saw. It must be difficult for him to watch the television while his head's in the sand.

When the going gets tough, the tough get going.

"Enough is enough. I am bitterly disappointed as I'm sure all Yankee fans are by the lack of performance by our team,'' Steinbrenner said in a statement issued immediately after the game.

"It is unbelievable to me that the highest-paid team in baseball would start the season in such a deep funk. They are not playing like true Yankees. They have the talent to win and they are not winning. I expect Joe Torre, his complete coaching staff and the team to turn this around.''


Look at the bright side, Yankee fans:

1) The Devil Rays lost, so the Yankees are not alone in last place.
2) The Mets lost, keeping the Yankees within striking distance in the Battle for New York. Phew! The Mets lost! I feel so much better now.

Bob Raissman's Myopic Outrage.

The Yankees Entertainment & Sports Network decided not to broadcast the Red Sox Opening Day banner-raising ceremony. I don't know why this would surprise or offend anyone. I also don't know why the Yankee reaction to the Red Sox Championship is almost as big a story as the Red Sox Championship.

"In case anyone in the Yankee organization forgets, everybody - all subscribers - whether they be in Time Warner Cable's 2.4 million home universe or Cablevision's three million homes, had their cable bills jacked up so YES could be on basic cable. Not everyone in that total universe is a baseball fan. Some are Yankee fans. Some just want to see quality baseball aired in an objective fashion."

Is Raissman serious? Is Raissman seriously suggesting that there are some people watching YES to see "quality baseball aired in an objective fashion"?

(I guess the "quality baseball" is coming from the Yankee opponent, since the Yankees are aging, boring, and corporate.)

Even if this is true -- and I can't imagine who these non-objective observers of baseball are -- these people are certainly not the Yankee target audience.

"By making YES a one-sided network, the suits in charge have only themselves to blame for making this a content issue. And for anyone who is saying, 'If you are not a Yankee fan don't watch YES,' I say this: 'If I'm getting a biased broadcast that doesn't totally cover all elements of a Yankee game, why should I be forced to subsidize it?'

If YES is programmed and produced only for diehard Yankee fans, put it on a premium cable tier and let anyone who wants to subscribe pay $50 a month to watch Yankee games. Let's see how Yankee brass likes that? [sic] Let's see how some vocal Yankee fans - who are now being financially carried by all of us - like footing the TV bill alone and having their monthly YES rate jacked up every season.

The same holds true for any other regional sports network - like MSG or FSNY - that has decided to offer only home cooking on each and every telecast. And the same will hold true for the new Mets Network. If Fred Wilpon won't guarantee objective coverage that takes all baseball fans into account, put the Mets Network on a premium tier, too."

I don't really think it's a bad idea. Make everything premium tier or even pay-per-view. But the logic is kind of strained.

Because if Raissman wants to punish journalistic bias, he's just getting started. Every program is biased. Every sports program, every news program, every entertainment program.

I don't pay attention to closely to the Mets, but I hear replays of Gary Cohen radio calls. If the Mets get a sac fly in the third inning, he sounds like they won the World Series. If Braden Looper gives up a game-tying homerun, Cohen sounds like somebody just ran over his dog.

Cease and desist, Gary Cohen! Some of us just want to listen to quality baseball in an objective environment.

Not everybody is a sports fan, so they shouldn't pay for ESPN. Not everybody is an Ashlee Simpson fan, so they shouldn't pay for MTV. Not everybody cares about Alexander the Great, so they shouldn't pay for the History Channel. Not everybody is a book-burning lunatic living in the Dark Ages, so they shouldn't pay for Fox News.

At leat YES is upfront about it. Their bias is right there in the name of the network. If Raissman really wants to eliminate all biased media, or put all biased programming on a premier tier, then he'll either be staring at a blank screen or paying a heckuva lot of cash for his cable.

Last in the NL East, first in our hearts.

Even though both NY teams are tied for last place in their division after nine games, it's a first-place tie in the Battle for New York!

Kevin Kernan picks his favorite:

"YANKEE FANS won't want to hear this, but right now, the Mets are the most interesting show in New York."

I don't want to hear this! I don't want to hear this!

I'm not listening, I'm not listening!

"Mary had a little lamb, little lamb, little lamb. La la la la la. Kevin Kernan is talking but I can't hear him, I can't hear him!"


"The Mets have added speed, Pedro Martinez, defense, athleticism and personality. They are a blend of youth and veterans with youngsters Reyes, 21; David Wright, 22; and Carlos Beltran, a young superstar at 27. With this win, combined with the Yankees' 8-5 loss to the Red Sox, the Mets have the same record as the aging, corporate Bombers: 4-5. Not bad, considering Willie Randolph's club started the season with five straight losses."

Yo busco! Yo quiero!

I can feel it happening right now. I'm becoming a Mets fan. I can't help myself.

True, the Mets have the highest payroll in the National League and they probably won't finish higher than third place in their own division. But they're something about them: They're so athletic. They're so spicy. They're sassy.


"Cliff Floyd missed his second straight game with a pulled ribcage muscle, and Kaz Matsui was out because of a scratched cornea as a result of a contact-lens problem. Evidently, he suffered the injury while sleeping.

Even the Mets' injuries are more interesting."

It's true.

Last night, while Ruben Sierra was batting at Fenway vs. Keith Foulke ... with bases loaded and two outs in the top of the ninth inning ... with the Yankees down by three runs ... I was suddenly bored with the my aging, corporate Favorite Team.

My hand reached for the remote, seemingly with a mind of its own. I switched the channel to MSG Network, on the edge of my seat, hoping for an update on Cliff Floyd's ribcage muscle.

Because rooting for the Yankees is so passe.

You win, Kevin Kernan. You've convinced me and probably tens of millions of other Yankee fans. The Mets are kewl, the Yankees drool.

Let's Go Mets!

Boston writer defends ARod.

Gordon Edes uses facts and thoughtful, fair analysis. Maybe that's why his comments seem so shocking in the world of sportswriting:

"The Texas Rangers, Rodriguez's former team, nicknamed him 'The Cooler,' last season, according to Rosenthal, a subtle shot at how A-Rod cools off whatever team he goes to. But the Yankees, winners of 101 games last season, hardly went into deep freeze with A-Rod in pinstripes, and when the Yankees were ahead of the Sox, three games to none, in the ALCS, A-Rod was a leading candidate to be named MVP of the series.

The interesting thing is that much of the criticism leveled at Rodriguez -- that he is a phony, that he plays too much to the media -- are the very criticisms that have been leveled at Schilling over his career. Both players have experienced the damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't syndrome: Speak your mind, and you're a publicity hound. Shut it down, and you're an arrogant prima donna.

A number of Sox players this spring joined Schilling in taking shots at A-Rod, the most notable being when Trot Nixon called him a 'clown.' Pretty much overlooked in the chorus of barbs was Arroyo's admission that Rodriguez's slap play wasn't so bad after all, and that Arroyo had no doubts some of the Sox players might have tried to do the same if the roles had been reversed."

I'd also like to add that the man who supposedly can't ever get a big hit also practically beat the Twins singlehandedly in the first round of the playoffs last year.

There's no rhyme or reason to baseball. Manny Ramirez had zero rbis in the ALCS last year. He's a clown who can't deliver in big games. Then, the next week, he wins the World Series MVP. This should not surprise you. This is how baseball works.

Yankee Collapse Inevitable! (someday)

Writers like George King usually will turn around and accuse the fans of hitting the Panic Button too early.

The Statistical Genius wastes ink pointing out that the Yankees hit very poorly for two games:

"They are hitting a putrid .212 (14-for-66) overall in the past two games, in which 13 of their 14 hits have been singles. In the clutch, they are a miserable .182 (2-for-11)."


Mike Vaccaro is also technically correct. Someday, the Yankees won't make the playoffs. It's inevitable:

"One of these seasons, believe it or not, the Yankees are going to finish out of the money in the American League. Write it down. It's going to happen. It is. It has always happened, no matter which phase of the Yankee dynasty we're talking about. Eventually it will happen again. This year, next year, 2010. This won't last forever. It really won't."

Did he really say "this year, next year, 2010"? That's his baseball analysis on April 13, 2005? That the Yankees might not make the playoffs in 2010?

Panic! Panic! Call WFAN and yell at Chris Russo! Hurry!

I wonder if King and Vaccaro are confusing the word "inevitable" with the word "impending."


Or maybe a Yankee collapse truly is impending. I think the Yankees a sure shot to make the playoffs in 2005, especially with Steinbrenners' deep pockets. The roster on July 1 will not match the roster on April 1.

But I could be wrong. This team has some holes in the lineup if Bernie and Giambi are really through. The starting rotation has little depth. But nobody's starting staff has a lot of depth, and the Yankees back up their starters with the best bullpen in the big leagues.

I'm also quite sure that some Yankee fans are already panicking. They panic every season.

In any case, even the kookiest fan can't possibly really think game eight is a Must-Win.

During the past ten years, the Yankees have played many big games, many Must-Win games. Some they won, some they lost. Some they even lost with Andy Pettitte, Paul O'Neill, Scott Brosius, and Mister Five Rings Himself, Ramiro Mendoza.

If the last ten years have taught me one thing, it's this: Tonight's game, with Jaret Wright at Fenway vs. Disabled List Curt Schilling, in the early season Battle for Last Place, is not a Must-Win for either team. It's one game out of 162.

Jeez, tough crowd.

Do we have to go through this every April?

This April, it's Rivera; last April, it was Jeter; every previous April, it was Bernie (though this year, he really might not break out of it). Stats shouldn't even be mentioned until the batter has 150 at-bats and the pitcher makes 10 starts.

Yesterday was a bad game for the Yankees (the only team that can't hit Tim Wakefield), but it's still only one game.

The Yankees are suddenly too old and lethargic instead of the Fat Cat Red Sox, the Yankees aren't playing up to their salaries, the Yankees stink and ARod is the #1 stinker of the stinkies.

(The good news is that the Yankees are still clinging to a one-game lead in the Battle for New York.)


George King even seems to think that "Seven games hardly make a season, but that's all we have to go on at this point, and it's ugly early."

Exactly the opposite. Baseball is always unpredictable in the short term but evens out in the long run. Always. It's why I know Pat Burrell is not going to lead the NL in RBIs ... even though, after seven games, it's "all I have to go on."

If that's really all you have to go on ... if you're admitting that you're intellectual capacity is that limited ... then maybe you should go back to the Belt Parkway Community College and finish up that course in Creative Thinking.


John Harper chips in with this inane analysis of ARod's contributions to Yankee losses:

"Wednesday

With the Yankees leading 3-2 in the ninth inning and the bases loaded, Manny Ramirez hits a double play ball at Rodriguez, who fumbles it and is unable to get even one out on the play as the tying run scores. The Red Sox go on to score four more runs in the inning and win 7-3.

Friday

With the Yankees threatening to get back into the game in the eighth inning, Rodriguez grounds out with the bases loaded to end the threat, capping an 0-for-5 night - each at-bat with runners on base. The Yanks lose 12-5."

Etc., etc.

(By the way, I looked up the at-bat on Friday night. Harper forgets to mention that the score was already Baltimore 11, Yankees 4. The Yankees load the bases in the bottom of the eighth with two outs, down by seven runs, and Harper thinks that's "threatening to get back into the game." Even if ARod hits a homerun -- not even Babe Ruth hit a homerun every at-bat -- the Yankees lose that game.)

The Yankees lose a game 8-1 ... the Yankees score 1 run on only 6 hits ... and it must be ARod's fault.

It's just a dumb way to look at things. If you go looking for baseball players to fail in individual games, in specific at-bats, you're going to find mostly failure.

Mets fall to 0-5.

Which begs the question: If the Mets are 0-6 for their home opener, will John Leguizamo scalp his tickets?

What is wrong with Keith Foulke?

Bottom 9th: Toronto

- J. Payton in center field

- K. Foulke relieved M. Timlin

- C. Koskie singled to right center

- S. Hillenbrand singled to shortstop, C. Koskie to second

- E. Hinske singled to center, C. Koskie scored, S. Hillenbrand to third

- G. Zaun grounded out to second, S. Hillenbrand scored, E. Hinske to second

- A. Rios flied out to right, E. Hinske to third

- F. Menechino walked

- R. Johnson hit by pitch, F. Menechino to second

- O. Hudson grounded out to second

2 runs, 3 hits, 0 errors

Another bad outing for the once-dominant Keith Foulke and he now has a season ERA of 9.00.

Are his best days behind him?

Are the Toronto batters too familiar with him?

Does he rely on his changeup too much?

Can Boston maintain its air of invincibility at it tries to defend its World Series title?

Mets fall to 0-3.

Don't you know what that means? Yankees are two games up in the Battle for New York.

Yes!

Mariano Rivera R.I.P.

Remember those rumors last month that Mariano had died in a car accident? Turns out, he's really dead after all.

Also, ARod's Yankee career is a bust.

If only ARod had turned that easy 5-4-3 dp ... not only would the Yankees have won the game and gained an early three-game lead on Boston, but two careers would have been saved.

At least the Yankees are keeping the Mets off the back pages, thereby winning the Battle for New York.

Klapisch joins the descent into madness.

From the New York press, I understand the Yankee-centric reporting. But I'm always somewhat amused that nobody says "Foulke loses game after Varitek ties it up." Maybe the Boston 'papers have a Boston-centric headline, but everybody else acts like the Yankees are supposed to win 162 games this season.

It's as if Jason Varitek didn't actually do anything. He gets no credit for being a good hitter and getting a good hit against a good pitcher.

Anyway, let's inject some sanity into the discussion:

"Manager Joe Torre keeps insisting he has an unshakable faith in Rivera. So do the rest of the Yankees. But, clearly, something's wrong."

Rivera did not pitch well yesterday and the Red Sox made him pay. But he also struck out two batters, got the win after he blew the save, and, while they say his control wasn't pinpoint, he didn't walk anybody. He didn't even fall behind in the count.

I didn't watch the game on TV, so I can't say for sure how good his control was. When I saw the replays, the pitch to Varitek looked like a tough pitch to handle.

"The first theory is the most obvious: Rivera is 35 and showing increasing signs of his own mortality. Rivera's velocity is still well above average at 92-94 mph, but he's already experienced a bout of bursitis in his right elbow this spring."

I don't really know what to say. Mariano is always on the DL, his elbow is always tender, Torre is always worried about overworking him, the Yankees always treat him with kid gloves with an eye on October.

Last year, Old Man Rivera had 53 saves and a 1.94 era. He has never had a save% of 100%, he has never had an ERA of 0.00, he always goes through a tough stretch like everybody else who ever played baseball.

Yet, every single time he blows a save, there is a contingent of Yankee fans who worry if his career is over and suggest that he develop a new pitch. Between June and August, he'll convert 24 saves in a row and you won't see one single article about how good he's pitching.

"The other theory is that, even if Rivera was as precise as a surgeon, he'd still be paying the price for overexposure against the Sox. Some of their hitters have accumulated so many career at-bats against Rivera, they've more immunized to the speed, action and location of Rivera's cutter.

How else to explain why Manny Ramirez (29 at-bats) Damon (20), Varitek (18) and David Ortiz (10) can look comfortable against the greatest closer of this generation?"

Bad theory!

Again, give the Red Sox some credit.

Rivera faces the Orioles, Blue Jays, and Devil Rays as often as he faces the Red Sox. Actually, he probably faces those teams more often, since they're easier to beat than Boston.

The Red Sox have a great lineup, one of the best lineups you will ever see in your lifetime. In the long run, every pitcher -- starter, middle relief, or closer -- will have more difficulty vs. the Red Sox.

Also, one should examine the term "blown save" a little more closely. Just be fair about it. Be honest about it.

Anyone with a memory knows that Rivera didn't really "blow" game five of the ALCS last year. Gordon blew game five. Rivera came in to clean up Gordon's mess and somehow managed to keep the Yankees in the game. Against the Boston Red Sox at Fenway. Tough assignment.

Brilliant pitching by Mariano, even if it counts as a debit in the stat sheet. If you're really expecting a closer to strike out three batters in a row every time he pitches, then you're simply deluded.

So what happened yesterday? Not much. Every now and again, even a great pitcher like Mariano is going to walk out to the mound and do his best Braden Looper impression.

Through the looking glass.

The dirtdog Red Sox are 0-2 because they've stopped trying.

Yesterday, the Yankees lost even though they really won.

I actually heard Michael Kay on the radio claim that the Yankee victory was worse than the Mets loss because Mariano Rivera blew the save.

I, for one, am not going to worry for the next six months about the ALCS. Give me a one-run lead vs. Boston (or Anaheim, or Chicago, or Minnesota) in the ninth inning of Game Seven and I'll take my chances. If you want something more worrisome than Mariano Rivera, please pick one of the following:

• Starting pitching depth.
• Centerfield.
• First base.
• Designated hitter.
  

If everybody is going to predict the outcome of the 2005 ALCS based on one game in April (an imaginary 2005 ALCS, I might add), then I submit the following reasons for Yankee optimism:

• Tom Gordon shut down the heart of the Red Sox lineup (six months too late).
• Carl Pavano pitched well against the Red Sox.
• Red Sox closer Keith Foulke lost the game.

Bring on the Cardinals!

Hit .208 again and they'll boo.

Joel Sherman, you had me and then you lost me.

"If you were a parent and participated in the applause — and a scan of the crowd revealed plenty of adults on their feet and side-by-side with children — then please do not whine about players being role models any more."

Right on, Joel Sherman. Please please PLEASE, all the parents in the world, I'm personally BEGGING you. PLEASE do not whine about players being role models any more.

"My hunch is a lot of folks tossed their sense of morality away not because they are merciful, but because Giambi wore a Yankee uniform. That is a pretty weak set of principles, to determine right or wrong by if George Steinbrenner happens to be providing the paycheck."

Sherman is right that Yankee fans apply a different set of rules for Yankee players ... it's the essence of being a fan.

But this does not indicate a weak set of principles. Your moral principles were weak all along if you were looking to the Yankees for moral guidance.

I'm very strong in my principles regarding baseball. Yankees are Good, all other teams are Bad.

"Giambi spent some significant portion of his career cheating and lying about it, and only when faced with the possibility of perjury and jail time did he — under advice from his lawyers — decide the truth would set him free . . . well, of prison, at least."

That sounds about right.

I don't quite understand how Giambi has recast himself as a lovable loser, a stand-up guy, a sympathetic figure. He hit .208 last year, and his health problems probably are a by-product of steroid use.

Boo!

"I hope every parent who has children and stood and cheered Sunday night explained to their offspring why that was a good decision."

I'll do it for them.

"Dear son/daughter,

Baseball is a passion of mine. It's fun and entertaining.

But baseball players are just people, and people make mistakes. Now, I'm cheering for Giambi tonight not so much because I forgive him, it's hardly my role to forgive him. I don't even know him. But I damn sure hope he produces for the Yankees this season.

Now, promise me that you will never look to entertainers or athletes for moral guidance. They may turn out to be good role models, they may not be. There is no reason to think they have above-average intelligence, philosophical training, or any ethical discpline.

Same goes for sportswriters."

Jon Heyman goes schizo on Boomer.

David Wells is a "tubby nightlife lover" and a "Babe Ruth wanna-be."

Sounds like a bad fit for a team that's going to win the World Series because of their character.

Just yesterday, Wells wasn't a "tubby nightlife lover," he was just "one new bona fide idiot, Wells, joining the craziness for added spice."

Wells is probably moping in the locker room, pulling at the petals of a flower: "Heyman loves me, he loves me not. Heyman loves me, he loves me not."

Who can blame Boomer if he's confused? Jon Heyman is a complicated man who can change his mind like the wind changes direction, like the tide changes its intensity. Jon Heyman's insights are as piercing and fickle as Cupid's arrow.

No matter. Any man who can cite Character as the reason the Yankees will fail to win the World Series ... and then go right ahead and pick the Red Sox ... well, his opinion is not too convincing.

I'm sure Damon is focused on the Common Goal while he's not writing a book or making appearances in Jimmy Fallon movies. Yup, they're dirtdogs, alright.

Dan Graziano still doesn't like Jason Giambi.

"When they think about Tino, they think about World Series trophies, monster home runs in the bottom of the ninth inning when all seemed lost. They think about winning. They think about the teams that made them fall in love with their Yankees again -- those Yankee teams that even non-Yankee fans found it hard to hate."

Dan and Tino sittin' in a tree ...

Alex Sanchez blows your mind.

And away we go! It's the new steroid policy!

Even though I had to use a search engine to find the Biggest Story in Baseball ... I guess the Pirates Spring Training game is more important than Saving the Youth of America ... the suspension of Alex Sanchez should blow your mind, man.

First of all, it raises the possibility of false-positives, and suddenly the protection of the Union doesn't seem so silly.

Secondly, nobody even seems to care about li'l ol' Alex Sanchez. Nobody seems outraged. The old men at the North Dakota VFW are probably more angry about the reception on the Magnavox TV with the rabbit ear antenna.

The lesson for our children? Congressmen don't mind steroid use in players who:

• Don't hit homeruns.
• Aren't good.
• Aren't Yankees.

Injuries are bad.

While Mike Lupica again creates an imaginary world -- this time, the Yankees think they're a "greater healer than Lourdes" -- the reality is that the Yankees are keenly aware that injuries are their biggest danger.

The Daily News is predicting 110 wins and Michael Kay is predicting 108 (110 wins?!?! One hundred and ten?!?!), and I have not heard one single analysis -- GM, coach, player, fan, WFAN caller, columnist, TV personality, Bobby Murcer, Suzyn Waldman -- that didn't bring up the fear of injuries.

I'm even reduced to quoting Joel Sherman, who points out that the Yankees stockpile Replacement pitchers to protect themselves from inevitable injuries:

"The Yankees actually came to believe they had added a level of protection at Columbus with Quadruple-A types such as pitchers Buddy Groom and Aaron Small ... starters Jorge DePaula and Chien-Ming Wang, reliever Scott Proctor ... raised their profile and the organizational belief they could be used as either fill-ins or July trade chips ... Wang would probably be the replacement should Brown be placed on the disabled list."

Point is, why are the Yankees spending so much time and money on the likes of Aaron Small and Chien-Ming Wang if they believe the Pinstripes have Magic Healing Power?


"The Yankees better hope that Randy Johnson, old pitcher, stands up better than old Kevin Brown has."

Well, of course this is true. But they'd also better hope he holds up better than Curt Schilling, Wade Miller, Kerry Wood, Mark Prior, Roy Halladay, David Wells, and Andy Pettitte. This list of pitchers on the DL goes on forever. Pitchers Young and Old; in the AL and in the NL; with histories of injuries and without; ex-Yankees, current Yankees, and future Yankees.


"The Big Unit could win the Cy Young Award going away this season, you bet. Or he could end up on the disabled list. You tell me which is a better bet."

Going on the DL is probably a better bet than "winning the Cy Young going away."

Of course, Unit could end up on the DL briefly and still win the Cy Young, even if it's not a landslide victory. So who wins the bet then? Is "both" the winner? Do I have to choose only one?

I'd say the same thing about Johan Santana, Curt Schilling, Ben Sheets, Roger Clemens, Pedro Martinez, Scott Kazmir, and any other pitcher. They all have a better chance of going on the DL than winning the Cy Young award ... forget about winning the Cy Young going away. Only one pitcher wins the Cy Young award in each league, for Pete's sake. Half the pitchers are going on the DL at some point.

Heck, I'll even go out on a limb and say that Eric Gagne and Curt Schilling have a better chance of going on the DL sometime this season than winning the Cy Young award.

Or maybe the winner is "neither." Unit stays healthy, wins 19 games, strikes out 220 batters, era of 3.25 but comes in fourth in Cy Young voting behind Johan Santana, Mariano Rivera, and Mark Buehrle. Is "neither" a choice?

While contemplating the Inherent Uncertainty of the Universe, one thing's for sure: I sure as heck don't want Weaver and Vazquez back in the rotation.

Could any Yankee fan imagine that nightmare rotation? Mussina, Pavano, Wright, Weaver, Vazquez? Yikes. I'll take my chances with Brown and Unit. I'll take my chances with injured Brown and Unit. I'll take my chances with Brown and Unit in wheelchairs, blindfolded, pitching arm tied behind their back.

Lupica seems to think the Yankees should have just thrown good money after bad, doubling down on Weaver and Vazquez. That's Lupica's idea of "showing patience."

Well, you know what? In this case, patience ain't a virtue. Sometimes, younger ain't better.


My biggest problem with Lupica is not his editorial idiocy. He is entitled to his opinion, even though he displays consistent lack of knowledge regarding the Yankees or baseball in general.

My biggest problem is that he presents these warped facts as though they were the truth, as if everybody was thinking the same way he does.

You'll see when October rolls around and Mariano is healthy. Lupica won't forget about his prediction that Mariano's arm is about to fall off. Instead, he'll say something like "everybody thought Mariano was in trouble this season" or "Mariano was supposed to be injured when October rolled around."

About a week ago, he started his column by saying something like, "The steroid inquiries were supposed to be quick and easy and uneventful." Which planet was that? Not here on Earth.

Oh, now I have to go look it up in the archives. Here it is, from March 27:

"Once, all the finger-pointing about steroids in baseball was supposed to be nothing more than a witch hunt, something out of the distant past, some baseball version of the Salem witch trials."

When? When was the finger-pointing about steroids supposed to be nothing more than a witch hunt? Was this a common sentiment? Can Lupica cite a source? Did Lupica actually feel this way at one time, or is he just making it up entirely? I don't even know what Lupica is talking about.

Even trivial stuff. "If the Yankees win game 3 of the ALCS, then they will sweep"; "ARod is not supposed to bat second." What is Lupica talking about?

It is very typical technique in Lupica World. He says something that is incorrect and, when he's proven incorrect, he just claims that everybody else felt the same way the whole time.

Not me! Not me! I knew you were stupid the whole time!