"Here is where the Yankees have some flexibility to change the personality of their team:
Leadoff.
Center field.
First base.
I will say this again: If there is any way in this world to move either Giambi or Sheffield, now is the time to do it."
(Uh, does Sheffield lead off? Or play center field? Or play first base? No, I didn't think so. Just double-checking.)
Funny Lupica should say "any way in this world," because there probably isn't any way in this world. Maybe Mars doesn't have no-trade clauses and maybe Jupiter doesn't have five-and-ten free agency rules, but the Yankees play on Earth.
But what about the warped reasoning of Lupica's Impossible Dream?
He wants to get rid of Gary Sheffield or Jason Giambi. Sheffield is one of the best hitters on the planet and Giambi's resurgence certainly offers hope for 2006. If Giambi can't quite ever get back to MVP caliber, then at least he'll keep on walkin'.
Lupica somehow wants to make a trade for a first baseman or right fielder (assuming he wants to replace the guy he just traded), and a center fielder, and an effective leadoff hitter.
Hmmm. Nope. I can't think of how this could be worked out, either.
Jeez, Lupica, if you're going to propose some kind of bizarre trade, at least give one plausible example with real-life players. There are 29 teams with whom the Yankees can make a trade and many of them possess centerfielders and leadoff men. Make a proposal that would make sense in exchange for Gary Sheffield or Jason Giambi.
Heck, I'll make this easier on everybody with my own modest proposal: The Yankees acquire a CF/leadoff hitter without trading Gary Sheffield or Jason Giambi.
Sunday, October 30, 2005
The Art of the Lie.
While discussing the White Sox World Series victory on ESPN's "The Sports Reporters" this morning, King Liar tried to slide the following, ummm, "misleading statement" past the doting viewing public: "Of the past five World Series Champions, only one has spent over $100 million on payroll."
My first reaction is that this should not be a surprise.
"Only one"? Well, there are only a few teams in the entire league that spend that much money on payroll. Even if those teams have an obvious advantage, it should be just as obvious that those few teams can't win the World Series every single year.
In 2004, for example, only the Red Sox and the Yankees had a payroll of $100+ million. Both the Red Sox and the Yankees are in the same league. Only one team can win the World Series in any given year. Therefore, I can pretty much guarantee that at least one $100+ million team will not win the World Series every single year for the rest of MLB's existence.
It's should not really come as a surprise to anyone that the White Sox could win the World Series while spending "only" $75 million on payroll.
Okay, so I disagree with the substantive relevance of Lupica's assertion. But why am I claiming that Lupica is lying?
Because when Lupica states that "no team since 2000 has spent $100 million and won the World Series," the listener naturally assumes that the team that won the World Series in 2000 spent $100 million.
That would be the Yankees, if you need your memory refreshed. They beat the Mets that year.
Except the listener would be wrong. The Yankees did not spend $100 million in 2000. Only one team has ever spent $100+ million and won the World Series in the same year. That team was the 2004 Red Sox.
It's not your fault if you inferred that the 2000 Yankees had spent $100 million. You were lied to by Mike Lupica.
Technically, what he is saying is correct. "Only one World Series champion since 2000 has spent $100 million on payroll." In fact, only one World Series champion since 1903 has spent $100 million on payroll -- and that team wasn't the Yankees.
Now, if Lupica wants to ridicule the Yankees for spending $100+ million and not winning the World Series -- and he seldom misses the opportunity -- it's a different issue altogether. There's no reason to exaggerate, there's no need to lie.
So why is Lupica misleading the public and suggesting that the 2000 Yankees spent $100+ million? (In fact, a casual listener would probably infer that the Torre-era Yankees made a habit of spending $100 million because, since they stopped winning the title, only one team has been able to duplicate their achievement.)
I think it's simply because Lupica is such a natural born liar that he doesn't know the difference.
My first reaction is that this should not be a surprise.
"Only one"? Well, there are only a few teams in the entire league that spend that much money on payroll. Even if those teams have an obvious advantage, it should be just as obvious that those few teams can't win the World Series every single year.
In 2004, for example, only the Red Sox and the Yankees had a payroll of $100+ million. Both the Red Sox and the Yankees are in the same league. Only one team can win the World Series in any given year. Therefore, I can pretty much guarantee that at least one $100+ million team will not win the World Series every single year for the rest of MLB's existence.
It's should not really come as a surprise to anyone that the White Sox could win the World Series while spending "only" $75 million on payroll.
Okay, so I disagree with the substantive relevance of Lupica's assertion. But why am I claiming that Lupica is lying?
Because when Lupica states that "no team since 2000 has spent $100 million and won the World Series," the listener naturally assumes that the team that won the World Series in 2000 spent $100 million.
That would be the Yankees, if you need your memory refreshed. They beat the Mets that year.
Except the listener would be wrong. The Yankees did not spend $100 million in 2000. Only one team has ever spent $100+ million and won the World Series in the same year. That team was the 2004 Red Sox.
It's not your fault if you inferred that the 2000 Yankees had spent $100 million. You were lied to by Mike Lupica.
Technically, what he is saying is correct. "Only one World Series champion since 2000 has spent $100 million on payroll." In fact, only one World Series champion since 1903 has spent $100 million on payroll -- and that team wasn't the Yankees.
Now, if Lupica wants to ridicule the Yankees for spending $100+ million and not winning the World Series -- and he seldom misses the opportunity -- it's a different issue altogether. There's no reason to exaggerate, there's no need to lie.
So why is Lupica misleading the public and suggesting that the 2000 Yankees spent $100+ million? (In fact, a casual listener would probably infer that the Torre-era Yankees made a habit of spending $100 million because, since they stopped winning the title, only one team has been able to duplicate their achievement.)
I think it's simply because Lupica is such a natural born liar that he doesn't know the difference.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
The Curse of Carlos Beltran.
Let's review.
The Astros made it further in the postseason in the 2005 season, without Carlos Beltran, than they did in the 2004 season, with Carlos Beltran.
They also made it a lot further in the 2005 season, without Carlos Beltran, than the Mets did in the 2005 season, with Carlos Beltran.
Somehow, Joel Sherman interprets this information and concludes that the Astros are cursed:
"It is not just that Houston failed to re-sign its offensive star from last postseason. It is that the Astros revolved their entire offseason around retaining Beltran, though they knew his agent, Scott Boras, almost always takes star-level players deep into the winter before signing them. When that tactic ended in Beltran signing with the Mets on Jan. 9, Houston was left without viable alternatives.
...
In the end, The Curse of Carlos Beltran caught up to the Astros."
The only curses are coming from Mets fans, sitting in the bleachers, tired of watching their $100 million man bat .260.
The Astros made it further in the postseason in the 2005 season, without Carlos Beltran, than they did in the 2004 season, with Carlos Beltran.
They also made it a lot further in the 2005 season, without Carlos Beltran, than the Mets did in the 2005 season, with Carlos Beltran.
Somehow, Joel Sherman interprets this information and concludes that the Astros are cursed:
"It is not just that Houston failed to re-sign its offensive star from last postseason. It is that the Astros revolved their entire offseason around retaining Beltran, though they knew his agent, Scott Boras, almost always takes star-level players deep into the winter before signing them. When that tactic ended in Beltran signing with the Mets on Jan. 9, Houston was left without viable alternatives.
...
In the end, The Curse of Carlos Beltran caught up to the Astros."
The only curses are coming from Mets fans, sitting in the bleachers, tired of watching their $100 million man bat .260.
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
.240 Hitter Runs His Mouth.
Under normal circumstances, I'd be giddy if a player ripped the Mets brass.
But this guy?:
But this guy?:
"The New York Mets have an option on Doug Mientkiewicz that would pay the first baseman $4 million next season.
'I don't [know] why they would pick up my option, but if they do, I might quit,' he said. 'I'm serious. I don't want to be back there.'
...'I always thought Minnesota was a great place to play. After a year with the Mets, an organization that doesn't have a clue, I know that for sure.' "
Smallball Small Part of Postseason.
Yet another game-winning homerun in the playoffs followed by yet another essay which concludes that homeruns are relatively unimportant.
The White Sox are not a small ball team The White Sox hit 200 homeruns in the 2005 regular season. That didn't lead the league, it was fourth in the league. But they hit one more than the Red Sox and I'll betcha didn't know that.
The White Sox also stole a lot of bases in the 2005 regular season, 157 to be exact, which was third in the American League.
So while they clearly didn't rely on small ball, it's fair to say they have a "balanced attack." The much-coveted "versatile lineup."
Of course, no team's lineup was more "versatile" than Tampa Bay's with its 150+ homeruns and 150+ stolen bases. Except Tampa Bay sucks, so let's not talk about them. They're the smallball failure that nobody is trying to emulate.
"There is a general perception floating about that these teams have brought honor back to little ball. That a willingness to sacrifice, steal a base and emphasize defense has created the World Series match-up. So perhaps Gashouse Gang baseball will soon be back in vogue."
The White Sox are storming through the postseason by relying on power, not speed and sac bunting. Eighteen homeruns in eleven games, with only seven stolen bases.
Homeruns are good. I'm not sure why so many baseball observers dislike homeruns so much.
The White Sox are not a small ball team The White Sox hit 200 homeruns in the 2005 regular season. That didn't lead the league, it was fourth in the league. But they hit one more than the Red Sox and I'll betcha didn't know that.
The White Sox also stole a lot of bases in the 2005 regular season, 157 to be exact, which was third in the American League.
So while they clearly didn't rely on small ball, it's fair to say they have a "balanced attack." The much-coveted "versatile lineup."
Of course, no team's lineup was more "versatile" than Tampa Bay's with its 150+ homeruns and 150+ stolen bases. Except Tampa Bay sucks, so let's not talk about them. They're the smallball failure that nobody is trying to emulate.
"There is a general perception floating about that these teams have brought honor back to little ball. That a willingness to sacrifice, steal a base and emphasize defense has created the World Series match-up. So perhaps Gashouse Gang baseball will soon be back in vogue."
The White Sox are storming through the postseason by relying on power, not speed and sac bunting. Eighteen homeruns in eleven games, with only seven stolen bases.
Homeruns are good. I'm not sure why so many baseball observers dislike homeruns so much.
Roy Oswalt Effectively Executes His Game Plan.
''After we got a 4-0 lead, I was going to make 'em hit the ball," Oswalt said.
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Ken Davidoff Risks His Sportswriter's License.
Most NY writers criticize Steinbrenner for setting unrealistic goals and, at the same time, label the season a complete failure if the Yankees don't win the World Series.
Most NY writers claim the Yankees need a younger, more athletic team and then claim that signing the old and slow Hideki Matsui is a priority.
Do I agree that '05 was their best season since '01? Well, no. But at least they made the playoffs and caught the Red Sox after I'd personally given up on them.
Davidoff reminds any spoiled Yankee fan willing to listen that the Yankees did, in fact, have a pretty good season overall in 2005 and their roster moves provided some hope for the future:
"From their horribly rated farm system, the Yankees found a frontline starting pitcher, Chien-Ming Wang, and a starting second baseman, Robinson Cano. That's a successful year for any organization. The Yankees need to take more chances on homegrown guys, regardless of what Baseball America or competing organizations think of them.
From Shawn Chacon and Aaron Small, the Yanks saw the value of low-risk acquisitions. Incredible, isn't it, that the team spent something like 100 times more to invest in Carl 'Why smile when you can scowl?' Pavano than they did to land the season-saving Small?"
With Kevin Brown and Bernie Williams off the payroll, they're instantly even more young and more athletic.
Most NY writers claim the Yankees need a younger, more athletic team and then claim that signing the old and slow Hideki Matsui is a priority.
Do I agree that '05 was their best season since '01? Well, no. But at least they made the playoffs and caught the Red Sox after I'd personally given up on them.
Davidoff reminds any spoiled Yankee fan willing to listen that the Yankees did, in fact, have a pretty good season overall in 2005 and their roster moves provided some hope for the future:
"From their horribly rated farm system, the Yankees found a frontline starting pitcher, Chien-Ming Wang, and a starting second baseman, Robinson Cano. That's a successful year for any organization. The Yankees need to take more chances on homegrown guys, regardless of what Baseball America or competing organizations think of them.
From Shawn Chacon and Aaron Small, the Yanks saw the value of low-risk acquisitions. Incredible, isn't it, that the team spent something like 100 times more to invest in Carl 'Why smile when you can scowl?' Pavano than they did to land the season-saving Small?"
With Kevin Brown and Bernie Williams off the payroll, they're instantly even more young and more athletic.
Monday, October 24, 2005
The Curse of Matsui.
Mark Feisand is forced to explain to so-called Yankee fans why holding on to the AL MVP is a good idea:
"As for trading him, I don't know why the Yankees would ever consider that. And if they did, it wouldn't matter, as he has a no-trade clause. I'm surprised at the number of e-mails I received saying that the Yanks should trade A-Rod. The 'What have you done for me lately?' attitude is overwhelming."
Can so-called Yankee fans truly be that ignorant? Feisand provides a small sample from his e-mail inbox, which is probably a representative sample:
"I believe the Yankees have a curse now, and it is called Alex Rodriguez. Since Alex has been with the team, they have seriously faltered in the playoffs. He is 4-for-32 in his last 9 playoff games and has not performed in the clutch. What is your take on A-Rod's inability to perform when it really counts? Also, would the Yankees be better off trading him for pitching, if that is a possibility? His contract is insane, and he is falling well short of expectations. -- Tony W.
I do not believe Alex Rodriguez should be named MVP this year. Until he can improve his performance in the postseason, he should be overlooked. Has he ever come through when the Yanks really needed him? -- Russ J., Melbourne, Fl."
Feisand dignifies the question by pointing out that there's no curse:
"For starters, there is no curse. Five years without a title can hardly be considered a curse when you think about all of the franchises out there that have never won or have not won for many years."
There's also no green cheese on the moon and Mikey from the Life cereal commercial didn't die from eating pop rocks after drinking soda pop.
But there's an even more fundamental error in the logic of the esteemed Tony W.
The Yankees have "seriously faltered" in the playoffs for five straight seasons. Alex Rodriguez has only been with the team for the last two.
I reckon Tony W. is quite the thinkin' feller. Before the Curse of ARod, it was the Curse of Tino. (Or maybe even Mike Lupica's quizzical Curse of the Bam-Boonie.) But now that Tino is back on the team and the Yankees still "faltered in the playoffs," it must be the Curse of Something Else.
Dear Tony W. and Russ J.:
Has Alex Rodriguez ever come through when the Yanks really needed him? Yes.
Has he been clutch? Yes.
Has he performed when it really counts? Yes.
Should the Yankees trade him for pitching? Ummm, no.
I have one more rule of conduct for you two so-called fans: You don't get to cheer when ARod goes deep three times in a World Serires game.
Also, please stop calling talk radio and asking why the Yankees "traded" Andy Pettitte.
"As for trading him, I don't know why the Yankees would ever consider that. And if they did, it wouldn't matter, as he has a no-trade clause. I'm surprised at the number of e-mails I received saying that the Yanks should trade A-Rod. The 'What have you done for me lately?' attitude is overwhelming."
Can so-called Yankee fans truly be that ignorant? Feisand provides a small sample from his e-mail inbox, which is probably a representative sample:
"I believe the Yankees have a curse now, and it is called Alex Rodriguez. Since Alex has been with the team, they have seriously faltered in the playoffs. He is 4-for-32 in his last 9 playoff games and has not performed in the clutch. What is your take on A-Rod's inability to perform when it really counts? Also, would the Yankees be better off trading him for pitching, if that is a possibility? His contract is insane, and he is falling well short of expectations. -- Tony W.
I do not believe Alex Rodriguez should be named MVP this year. Until he can improve his performance in the postseason, he should be overlooked. Has he ever come through when the Yanks really needed him? -- Russ J., Melbourne, Fl."
Feisand dignifies the question by pointing out that there's no curse:
"For starters, there is no curse. Five years without a title can hardly be considered a curse when you think about all of the franchises out there that have never won or have not won for many years."
There's also no green cheese on the moon and Mikey from the Life cereal commercial didn't die from eating pop rocks after drinking soda pop.
But there's an even more fundamental error in the logic of the esteemed Tony W.
The Yankees have "seriously faltered" in the playoffs for five straight seasons. Alex Rodriguez has only been with the team for the last two.
I reckon Tony W. is quite the thinkin' feller. Before the Curse of ARod, it was the Curse of Tino. (Or maybe even Mike Lupica's quizzical Curse of the Bam-Boonie.) But now that Tino is back on the team and the Yankees still "faltered in the playoffs," it must be the Curse of Something Else.
Dear Tony W. and Russ J.:
Has Alex Rodriguez ever come through when the Yanks really needed him? Yes.
Has he been clutch? Yes.
Has he performed when it really counts? Yes.
Should the Yankees trade him for pitching? Ummm, no.
I have one more rule of conduct for you two so-called fans: You don't get to cheer when ARod goes deep three times in a World Serires game.
Also, please stop calling talk radio and asking why the Yankees "traded" Andy Pettitte.
Sunday, October 23, 2005
So why did Embree pitch to Konerko?
"Did anyone really think they were going to make Torre look bad?" another Yankee source asked. "Did they really think, after that (Aug. 9) YES question about why Torre let (Alan) Embree pitch to (Paul) Konerko (who hit a ninth inning HR) - that Joe was going to say: 'The hell with it, I just let Embree pitch'?"
Okay. So why did Embree pitch to Konerko? If it's really a dumb, poorly researched question, then Torre (and Raissman) should have no problem providing an intelligent, well researched rejoinder.
"How dare a reporter ask Joe Torre a tough question. He's Joe Torre."
To quote Torre, "I worry about trying to make moves to win a game, as opposed to how to explain it." Which is actually pretty close to, "The hell with it, I just let Embree pitch."
"The sad thing here is despite all the happy talk concerning Torre's meeting with Steinbrenner in Tampa, where the manager brought up the YES fiasco, bet the ranch these "pointed" questions will continue coming Torre's way in 2006 too."
What a tragedy that a reporter would have the nerve to ask Joe Torre "pointed" questions. how sad. What's sad is that Torre can't give any adequate answers.
Kimberly Jones does not make Joe Torre look bad. George Steinbrenner does not make Joe Torre look bad. The YES Network does not make Joe Torre look bad. Joe Torre makes Joe Torre look bad.
Okay. So why did Embree pitch to Konerko? If it's really a dumb, poorly researched question, then Torre (and Raissman) should have no problem providing an intelligent, well researched rejoinder.
"How dare a reporter ask Joe Torre a tough question. He's Joe Torre."
To quote Torre, "I worry about trying to make moves to win a game, as opposed to how to explain it." Which is actually pretty close to, "The hell with it, I just let Embree pitch."
"The sad thing here is despite all the happy talk concerning Torre's meeting with Steinbrenner in Tampa, where the manager brought up the YES fiasco, bet the ranch these "pointed" questions will continue coming Torre's way in 2006 too."
What a tragedy that a reporter would have the nerve to ask Joe Torre "pointed" questions. how sad. What's sad is that Torre can't give any adequate answers.
Kimberly Jones does not make Joe Torre look bad. George Steinbrenner does not make Joe Torre look bad. The YES Network does not make Joe Torre look bad. Joe Torre makes Joe Torre look bad.
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
This whole time, I thought it was Clemens who had no soul.
"Yankee fans will be a little jealous, if not confused, should Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte end up pitching in the World Series against Jose Contreras and Orlando Hernandez. It's not a question of whom to root for, but figuring out how the Bombers' pennant-winning Class of 2003 was somehow replaced by soul-less newcomers such as Carl Pavano and Jaret Wright."
I think you meant to say, "the World-Series-Losing Class of 2003."
In your own columns, you didn't seem to keen on the "pennant-winning Class of 2003."
I think you meant to say, "the World-Series-Losing Class of 2003."
In your own columns, you didn't seem to keen on the "pennant-winning Class of 2003."
This happened because Jesus hates you.
Watch your language! You're on national TV and impressionable youngsters might be swayed by your display of vulgarity:
" 'Oh, my gosh,' Andy Pettitte mouthed after the ball rocketed off Pujols' bat, taking all the noise of 43,000 fans with it, over the fence."
Where's your Gosh now?
" 'Oh, my gosh,' Andy Pettitte mouthed after the ball rocketed off Pujols' bat, taking all the noise of 43,000 fans with it, over the fence."
Where's your Gosh now?
Sunday, October 16, 2005
Mets Fan Gloats.
Mike Lupica is shooting from the lip and he's got ARod in his sights:
"Mike Lamb of the Astros, who was going to be the Yankee third baseman in 2004, now has more postseason home runs this season than A-Rod, if you're keeping score at home."
Zing! He got you, ARod!
If you're keeping score at home, Mike Lamb has more postseason home runs this season than Carlos Beltran If you're keeping score at home, NY Mets castoff Al Leiter has more postseason wins this season than Pedro Martinez.
If I were Mike Lamb, I'd expect a call any day from Omar Minaya. I wouldn't be shocked if Omar Minaya overpaid him $50 mill, $60 mill, maybe even $90 mill because of a good week in October.
It wouldn't be the first time.
"Mike Lamb of the Astros, who was going to be the Yankee third baseman in 2004, now has more postseason home runs this season than A-Rod, if you're keeping score at home."
Zing! He got you, ARod!
If you're keeping score at home, Mike Lamb has more postseason home runs this season than Carlos Beltran If you're keeping score at home, NY Mets castoff Al Leiter has more postseason wins this season than Pedro Martinez.
If I were Mike Lamb, I'd expect a call any day from Omar Minaya. I wouldn't be shocked if Omar Minaya overpaid him $50 mill, $60 mill, maybe even $90 mill because of a good week in October.
It wouldn't be the first time.
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Yankees "stuck" with AL MVP.
Alex Rodriguez had enough big hits this season and has perfomed well enough in the postseason throughout his career that you'd think he'd be immune to this kind of over-the-top nonsense:
"That's the way one American League executive summarized A-Rod's disturbingly uneven performance: good enough for MVP-like numbers in the regular season, but an abysmal failure in October, just like Winfield. 'George is stuck with him,' is what the executive said of Rodriguez.
Five more years, $131 million, to be exact. Steinbrenner is already looking for someone to hold accountable for the way the third baseman has melted since Game 3 of last year's AL Championship Series. In his last 32 postseason at-bats, Rodriguez has four hits, no home runs and no RBI. The trauma was so great, A-Rod never boarded the Yankees' charter flight home Monday night; he stayed in California, according to a friend, to wind down, chill out, sort through the empty at-bats, including the double play grounder in the ninth inning of Game 5 that ruined the Yankees' season.
There'll be some revisionist whispering that it's Torre's fault -that, somehow, he didn't get in A-Rod's face often enough, as if suddenly that was Rodriguez's missing medicine."
Speaking of revisionism, the Yankees do not, "to be exact," owe ARod $131 million over the next five years. The Rangers are picking up about $45 million of that.
Oh, and a double play grounder in the ninth inning of Game 5 can hardly ruin the Yankees' season. That's not even possible. The season lasted 167 games and would have been a complete flop without ARod's production.
"That's the way one American League executive summarized A-Rod's disturbingly uneven performance: good enough for MVP-like numbers in the regular season, but an abysmal failure in October, just like Winfield. 'George is stuck with him,' is what the executive said of Rodriguez.
Five more years, $131 million, to be exact. Steinbrenner is already looking for someone to hold accountable for the way the third baseman has melted since Game 3 of last year's AL Championship Series. In his last 32 postseason at-bats, Rodriguez has four hits, no home runs and no RBI. The trauma was so great, A-Rod never boarded the Yankees' charter flight home Monday night; he stayed in California, according to a friend, to wind down, chill out, sort through the empty at-bats, including the double play grounder in the ninth inning of Game 5 that ruined the Yankees' season.
There'll be some revisionist whispering that it's Torre's fault -that, somehow, he didn't get in A-Rod's face often enough, as if suddenly that was Rodriguez's missing medicine."
Speaking of revisionism, the Yankees do not, "to be exact," owe ARod $131 million over the next five years. The Rangers are picking up about $45 million of that.
Oh, and a double play grounder in the ninth inning of Game 5 can hardly ruin the Yankees' season. That's not even possible. The season lasted 167 games and would have been a complete flop without ARod's production.
Pettitte just wasn't himself.
"On Wednesday, Houston starting pitcher Andy Pettitte was hurt during batting practice before the NL championship series opener.
He pitched, but wasn't himself in a 5-3 loss to St. Louis.
...
Pettitte was going through a traditional batting practice exercise of running the bases when a hard liner struck him on the inside of the right knee. Pettitte, also on the mend from a 24-hour flu over the weekend, made no excuses, but his manager figured the swollen knee was a factor in the worst showing in four months for one of baseball's best October pitchers."
How condescending to the St. Louis Cardinals lineup.
He pitched, but wasn't himself in a 5-3 loss to St. Louis.
...
Pettitte was going through a traditional batting practice exercise of running the bases when a hard liner struck him on the inside of the right knee. Pettitte, also on the mend from a 24-hour flu over the weekend, made no excuses, but his manager figured the swollen knee was a factor in the worst showing in four months for one of baseball's best October pitchers."
How condescending to the St. Louis Cardinals lineup.
The Premier Postseason Pitcher Who Isn't.
What have I heard or read in the past week regarding Andy Pettitte?
-- The Yankees traded Andy Pettitte.
-- Dan Graziano, a man who is paid money to comment on baseball, incorrectly claims that the Yankees didn't match the Astros' offer.
-- Mike Lupica claiming that Pettitte is the pitcher's version of Derek Jeter and Steinbrenner ought to cry every time Pettitte wins a big game for another team.
-- The announcers on Fox last night describing Pettitte as one of the "premier postseason pitchers of his era."
-- This guy sums up the idiocy pretty well, going into the Wayback Machine and blaming Steinbrenner for the '05 ALDS loss, instead of anybody on the current roster, because Steinbrenner didn't sign Pettitte after the '03 season:
"The Yankees failed to offer Pettitte a contract extension, then low-balled him over concerns with his elbow, and ultimately lost him when he signed a three-year, $31.5-million deal with Houston. Here's what they let go: a left-handed pitcher with a 14-8 record in the postseason, the second-most playoff wins in baseball history."
Funny interpretation right there. In fact, the Yankees offered Pettitte three-year, $39 million, which hardly sounds like a low-ball offer. It's more than the Astros offered, though the differences are less pronounced when state taxes are taken into account.
While Pettitte has the second-most playoff wins in baseball history, he also has the third-most losses in baseball history. This while being surrounded by some of the most successful playoff teams in baseball history (i.e., the '96 - '00 Yankees).
Why did Pettitte leave the Yankees? Maybe he felt disrespected, maybe he wanted to go to Houston with Clemens, maybe he hated playing in NY. It's his right to do what he wants. It's the American Way. Far be it for a Yankee fan to hassle a baseball player for jumping ship and playing for another team.
But let's not lie about the Yankee cash money offer and let's not lie about Pettitte's postseason record.
Andrew Eugene is now 14-9 in the postseason with an ERA over 4.00. Pretty good postseason numbers, no doubt. However, his postseason winning% and ERA are noticeably worse than his regular season numbers.
Clowns like Lupica gloat excessively every time Pettitte wins a game. They try to rub Steinbrenner's nose in it. But don't expect a Lupica column after Pettitte's postseason tank job last night. Lupica is an intellectual coward.
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
The Disconnect.
Often playing hurt in his two seasons with the Yankees, Gary Sheffield hit 70 homeruns and drove in 244 runs.
Last year, Gary Sheffield was second in the AL MVP voting. This year, Gary Sheffield boosted his clutch reputation by hitting .364 with RISP. Every Yankee fan loves Gary Sheffield.
The sportswriters who cover the team?
Joel Sherman thinks Sheffield's a sourpuss and suggests a trade with Toronto. Jon Heyman, whose personal dislike for Sheffield is well-documented and purt near obsessive, suggests trading Sheffield to Boston.
Good thinkin', guys. You make Dan Graziano sound like John Schuerholz.
Last year, Gary Sheffield was second in the AL MVP voting. This year, Gary Sheffield boosted his clutch reputation by hitting .364 with RISP. Every Yankee fan loves Gary Sheffield.
The sportswriters who cover the team?
Joel Sherman thinks Sheffield's a sourpuss and suggests a trade with Toronto. Jon Heyman, whose personal dislike for Sheffield is well-documented and purt near obsessive, suggests trading Sheffield to Boston.
Good thinkin', guys. You make Dan Graziano sound like John Schuerholz.
And the #1 reason the Yankees haven't won the World Series in five years ...
... Randy Johnson.
This analysis from the man who, according to the headline, is "New York's premier sports columnist."
I know Unit tanked in game three of the ALDS. It was terrible and it probably cost the Yankees a chance at the ALCS. But that was only one game in 2005. ARod and Unit can shoulder the blame for '05, but they can't be responsible for the whole $1 bill when they weren't even here.
Randy Johnson practically beat the Yankees all by himself in 2001, while pitching for Arizona. Johnson won three games in the World Series (3-0, 1.04 ERA). I think he even had an RBI single off of Andrew Eugene (0-2, 10.00 ERA) in game six.
(No, I just looked it up and my memory was wrong. The RBI single was off of Jay Witasick, not Andrew Eugene.)
So, yeah, I guess I have to agree with Lupica. Randy Johnson really is a major reason the Yankees haven't won the World Series since 2000.
Maybe "New York's premier sports columnist" also wonders why the Mets have spent $400 mill or so in the past five seasons and can barely get out of last place.
Nope:
"The idea that this is always going to be a Yankee town ignores the way things were 20 years ago, when it was the Mets who were on top and were the hottest ticket going.
...
Steinbrenner had the run of the town for a long time. He just broke records in attendance. That's not how he keeps score."
Whether you decide to keep score by attendance or by performance on the baseball field, the Yankees are beating the Mets by a wide margin.
Twenty years ago the Mets were on top? That's all you've got? Seriously?
Half the Yankee fans weren't even alive then. Does Lupica think all of these Yankee fans are just wistfully looking towards Shea, waiting for a chance to change their allegiances?
The entire premise doesn't even make sense. Was Steinbrenner hurt somehow in 2000 when the Mets played the Yankees in the World Series? Or did Steinbrenner profit immensely?
The Yankees just broke that all-time American League attendance record and have a new Yankee Stadium on the way. No matter how crazy or illogical you think Steinbrenner is, the guy is making boucoup cash.
Damn right that's how Steinbrenner keeps score. That, and the size of his wife's jugs. What else matters?
How's Wilpon keeping score? On lonely nights, does he pop the the grainy Mookie grounder into the Betamax and hope his $100 mill team can play .500?
This analysis from the man who, according to the headline, is "New York's premier sports columnist."
I know Unit tanked in game three of the ALDS. It was terrible and it probably cost the Yankees a chance at the ALCS. But that was only one game in 2005. ARod and Unit can shoulder the blame for '05, but they can't be responsible for the whole $1 bill when they weren't even here.
Randy Johnson practically beat the Yankees all by himself in 2001, while pitching for Arizona. Johnson won three games in the World Series (3-0, 1.04 ERA). I think he even had an RBI single off of Andrew Eugene (0-2, 10.00 ERA) in game six.
(No, I just looked it up and my memory was wrong. The RBI single was off of Jay Witasick, not Andrew Eugene.)
So, yeah, I guess I have to agree with Lupica. Randy Johnson really is a major reason the Yankees haven't won the World Series since 2000.
Maybe "New York's premier sports columnist" also wonders why the Mets have spent $400 mill or so in the past five seasons and can barely get out of last place.
Nope:
"The idea that this is always going to be a Yankee town ignores the way things were 20 years ago, when it was the Mets who were on top and were the hottest ticket going.
...
Steinbrenner had the run of the town for a long time. He just broke records in attendance. That's not how he keeps score."
Whether you decide to keep score by attendance or by performance on the baseball field, the Yankees are beating the Mets by a wide margin.
Twenty years ago the Mets were on top? That's all you've got? Seriously?
Half the Yankee fans weren't even alive then. Does Lupica think all of these Yankee fans are just wistfully looking towards Shea, waiting for a chance to change their allegiances?
The entire premise doesn't even make sense. Was Steinbrenner hurt somehow in 2000 when the Mets played the Yankees in the World Series? Or did Steinbrenner profit immensely?
The Yankees just broke that all-time American League attendance record and have a new Yankee Stadium on the way. No matter how crazy or illogical you think Steinbrenner is, the guy is making boucoup cash.
Damn right that's how Steinbrenner keeps score. That, and the size of his wife's jugs. What else matters?
How's Wilpon keeping score? On lonely nights, does he pop the the grainy Mookie grounder into the Betamax and hope his $100 mill team can play .500?
Monday, October 10, 2005
Eureka!
The Yankees won three straight championships between the years of 1998 and 2000. They won nine straight playoff series during that time. Winning is good and losing is bad.
Using this limited information, I think I've figured something out:
When the Yankees win in the playoffs in 2005, it's just like when they used to win in the playoffs. Because they won. Like they used to win.
When the Yankees don't win in the playoffs in 2005, it's unlike when they used to win in the playoffs. Because they didn't win. Like they used to win.
I figured that out all by myself. I'm a genius!
Using this limited information, I think I've figured something out:
When the Yankees win in the playoffs in 2005, it's just like when they used to win in the playoffs. Because they won. Like they used to win.
When the Yankees don't win in the playoffs in 2005, it's unlike when they used to win in the playoffs. Because they didn't win. Like they used to win.
I figured that out all by myself. I'm a genius!
It was a fielder's choice ground ball to the third baseman.
I'm not quite sure why Jeter gets praise for an 0-for-4 night, but Steve Politi's analysis is more pointless nostalgia than anything else.
I believe Tom Verducci's analysis is literally beyond the realm of physical possibilities:
"Ruben Sierra took off on a green-light steal attempt on the pitch to Jeter. When Jeter saw Sierra break, he thought to himself, 'They can't turn a double play now. A grounder scores the run.' So he swung at the pitch and hit the chopper to Figgins. Great quick thinking in the heat of battle by Jeter."
In half-a-second, with his attention being diverted by Ruben Sierra running from first base, Derek Jeter thought to himself, "They can't turn a double play now. A grounder scores the run."
Well, a fly ball definitely scores the run, and a ground ball barely scored the run. Therefore, I'd say that was some awful quick thinking in the heat of battle by Jeter.
Of course, in the time it takes the Jeter to start his swing, he wasn't thinking to himself, "They can't turn a double play now. A grounder scores the run."
More likely, in the split-second it takes Jeter to start his swing, he was thinking, "Th ..."
I believe Tom Verducci's analysis is literally beyond the realm of physical possibilities:
"Ruben Sierra took off on a green-light steal attempt on the pitch to Jeter. When Jeter saw Sierra break, he thought to himself, 'They can't turn a double play now. A grounder scores the run.' So he swung at the pitch and hit the chopper to Figgins. Great quick thinking in the heat of battle by Jeter."
In half-a-second, with his attention being diverted by Ruben Sierra running from first base, Derek Jeter thought to himself, "They can't turn a double play now. A grounder scores the run."
Well, a fly ball definitely scores the run, and a ground ball barely scored the run. Therefore, I'd say that was some awful quick thinking in the heat of battle by Jeter.
Of course, in the time it takes the Jeter to start his swing, he wasn't thinking to himself, "They can't turn a double play now. A grounder scores the run."
More likely, in the split-second it takes Jeter to start his swing, he was thinking, "Th ..."
Sunday, October 09, 2005
Because Dan Graziano knows from irrational.
"This is something you're not supposed to say about Joe Torre in October. Something that shouldn't even be possible for a guy who's managed 113 playoff games and who, each morning, can open his top drawer and choose from four World Series rings.
But here it is:
Joe Torre is being outmanaged."
Duh. Ya think?
But why aren't you "supposed to say" this?
Just say it. You see it happening in front of you. Speaking the truth makes you feel better, doesn't it? Was that really so hard, Dan Graziano?
"If the Yankees lose to the Angels tonight, and their season ends -- for the fifth year in a row -- without a World Series title, people are going to look at Torre. The fans, who have become increasingly eager in recent years to call talk radio shows and rip Torre's decisions, will be taking a look. The team's irrational owner, whose hatred of his manager is only exacerbated by the $13.1 million he still owes him over the next two seasons, will be taking a look."
Torre has managed the Yankees for ten years. Steinbrenner signed Torre to a multi-year contract and has paid him tens of millions of dollars. This is the fifth year in a row where the Yankees won't win the World Series (insert appropriate disclaimer here).
But Graziano wants us to believe that Steinbrenner has a seething hatred of Joe Torre.
I wish my boss hated me that much.
"But is it right? Does it make any sense? Is there any other town in which a manager who won the World Series in four of his first five years would ever have to sweat his job again as long as he lived? Is there any other owner in sports under whom it could happen?"
I would hope so. That's just rational.
"Torre actually has done his best managing job in years -- patiently steering a leaky Yankee roster through a stormy season, winning the division for the eighth year in a row after all looked lost."
All of the Yankee problems this season were self-imposed and largely due to lackluster play and awful roster decisions.
The injuries to Brown, Pavano, and Wright were nothing more than blessings in disguise. The trials and tribulations the Yankees faced this season that were no different than any other team or any other season. Heck, this is one of the few seasons where nobody got cancer and nobody stole Derek Jeter's stuff from the clubhouse.
Even if the Yankees lose in the first round, Torre has largely redeemed himself by making the playoffs. But this team tanked the first half of the season and Torre let it happen.
"Four, possibly five seasons without a title certainly haven't helped Steinbrenner's opinion of Torre. Neither has watching Jack McKeon, Terry Francona and Mike Scioscia outmaneuver him in the last three postseasons."
According to Graziano, Torre is being outmanaged this year in the playoffs. Further, Torre was "outmaneuvered" by McKeon, Francona, and Scioscia in the last three postseasons.
No argument from me.
So, if that's the case, then explain to me why it's "irrational" to suggest that he should be fired.
But here it is:
Joe Torre is being outmanaged."
Duh. Ya think?
But why aren't you "supposed to say" this?
Just say it. You see it happening in front of you. Speaking the truth makes you feel better, doesn't it? Was that really so hard, Dan Graziano?
"If the Yankees lose to the Angels tonight, and their season ends -- for the fifth year in a row -- without a World Series title, people are going to look at Torre. The fans, who have become increasingly eager in recent years to call talk radio shows and rip Torre's decisions, will be taking a look. The team's irrational owner, whose hatred of his manager is only exacerbated by the $13.1 million he still owes him over the next two seasons, will be taking a look."
Torre has managed the Yankees for ten years. Steinbrenner signed Torre to a multi-year contract and has paid him tens of millions of dollars. This is the fifth year in a row where the Yankees won't win the World Series (insert appropriate disclaimer here).
But Graziano wants us to believe that Steinbrenner has a seething hatred of Joe Torre.
I wish my boss hated me that much.
"But is it right? Does it make any sense? Is there any other town in which a manager who won the World Series in four of his first five years would ever have to sweat his job again as long as he lived? Is there any other owner in sports under whom it could happen?"
I would hope so. That's just rational.
"Torre actually has done his best managing job in years -- patiently steering a leaky Yankee roster through a stormy season, winning the division for the eighth year in a row after all looked lost."
All of the Yankee problems this season were self-imposed and largely due to lackluster play and awful roster decisions.
The injuries to Brown, Pavano, and Wright were nothing more than blessings in disguise. The trials and tribulations the Yankees faced this season that were no different than any other team or any other season. Heck, this is one of the few seasons where nobody got cancer and nobody stole Derek Jeter's stuff from the clubhouse.
Even if the Yankees lose in the first round, Torre has largely redeemed himself by making the playoffs. But this team tanked the first half of the season and Torre let it happen.
"Four, possibly five seasons without a title certainly haven't helped Steinbrenner's opinion of Torre. Neither has watching Jack McKeon, Terry Francona and Mike Scioscia outmaneuver him in the last three postseasons."
According to Graziano, Torre is being outmanaged this year in the playoffs. Further, Torre was "outmaneuvered" by McKeon, Francona, and Scioscia in the last three postseasons.
No argument from me.
So, if that's the case, then explain to me why it's "irrational" to suggest that he should be fired.
Friday, October 07, 2005
You don't have to run faster than the bear ...
... you just have to run faster than your slowest friend.
While Steve Politi and Mike Vaccaro try to alarm Yankees fans with Randy Johnson's Division Series record, I can't help but wonder if they bothered checking Paul Byrd's Division Series record.
I bothered checking. 0-1, 6.35 era.
What does it mean? Nothing.
Rendering his entire article pointless, Politi issues the following disclaimer:
"True, past results have no bearing on how Johnson will pitch tonight at Yankee Stadium, and no one can question him as a postseason performer. Johnson may have struggled to get victories in this round, but he has been nearly unhittable in the League Championship Series and World Series, boasting a 5-1 record."
Despite Mike Vaccaro's stringent guidelines, ("Eight innings of Randy Johnson, one inning of Mariano Rivera. We know Rivera will do his part if given the chance. It's Johnson's duty to make sure he is"), this is simply not the formula for success.
The formula for success is to pitch one run better than Paul Byrd.
While Steve Politi and Mike Vaccaro try to alarm Yankees fans with Randy Johnson's Division Series record, I can't help but wonder if they bothered checking Paul Byrd's Division Series record.
I bothered checking. 0-1, 6.35 era.
What does it mean? Nothing.
Rendering his entire article pointless, Politi issues the following disclaimer:
"True, past results have no bearing on how Johnson will pitch tonight at Yankee Stadium, and no one can question him as a postseason performer. Johnson may have struggled to get victories in this round, but he has been nearly unhittable in the League Championship Series and World Series, boasting a 5-1 record."
Despite Mike Vaccaro's stringent guidelines, ("Eight innings of Randy Johnson, one inning of Mariano Rivera. We know Rivera will do his part if given the chance. It's Johnson's duty to make sure he is"), this is simply not the formula for success.
The formula for success is to pitch one run better than Paul Byrd.
You know what? Just stop talking.
I can't take it anymore.
If you want to start Ruben Sierra at designated hitter instead of Jorge Posada, then start Ruben Sierra at designated hitter instead of Jorge Posada.
If you have some reasoning for it, you may divulge that reasoning if you wish. If you want to keep it a secret, then don't say anything.
There are legit reasons for choosing Sierra over Posada. Perhaps Torre doesn't want to risk putting his backup catcher in the DH spot. If Flaherty gets hurt, then Posada would have to catch, the Yankees would lose their DH, and the pitcher would have to hit.
This could all have been avoided if Torre would just let Posada catch when Johnson is on the mound, but that's another vitriolic vent for another time. I'll wait until after the game for that.
But please stop with these verbal three-card monte games:
"Sierra is likely, Torre said, 'because he's probably the most adept at it. He's had the most experience. You know, he loves the pressure and all that. He certainly would be a consideration. I think he would be the first consideration, and then you work out and match them up from there.'
'But again, we want to get [Sierra] involved because we know what he can bring to the table, especially being a switch-hitter, and they don't have a left-hander coming out of the bullpen. The fact that Ruben has been down this road before, he would probably be the No. 1 guy we would look at.' "
Jorge Posada has more playoff experience than Ruben Sierra.
Bernie Williams has far more playoff experience than Ruben Sierra. Bernie Williams has more playoff experience than any major league baseball player ever.
Tino Martinez has more playoff experience than Ruben Sierra.
Jason Giambi has more playoff experience than Ruben Sierra.
Even Tony Womack has more playoff experience than Ruben Sierra.
I can't figure out what Torre's trying to say. When Torre says Sierra has "the most experience," what is he talking about?
"In the Universe of Ruben Sierra and Andy Phillips, Ruben Sierra has the most playoff experience."
Is Torre talking about non-playoff experience? But then he throws in stuff like "been down this road before" and "likes the pressure," and it sure sounds like he's talking specifically about playoff experience.
Have you ever heard of the concept of "platooning"? It is a common concept in baseball. In general, you try to send up right-handed batters vs. left-handed pitchers, and vice versa. Since switch hitters can bat from both sides of the plate, the manager can be comfortable batting them against either right-handed or left-handed pitchers.
My analysis is a generality. Lots of players break the mold and few switch hitters possess exactly similar skills from both sides of the plate.
So, why am I bringing this up? Because one of the supposed flaws of the Anaheim bullpen is the fact that there are no left-handed pitchers. This allows the opposing manager to stack his team with left-handed hitters without exposing them to the dominating lefty coming out of the bullpen. Whatever. It's a theory.
But Joe Torre actually said Ruben Sierra makes sense as a DH "especially being a switch-hitter, and they don't have a left hander coming out of the bullpen."
Huh?
If they don't have a left hander coming out of the bullpen, then you don't need a switch-hitter. If the Angels had a crop of left handers coming out of the bullpen, then you'd want lots of switch-hitters. When Scioscia drops the lefty hammer down on your lineup, Sierra just needs to bat righty and Torre would not have to remove the helpless lefty and scour the bench for a righty.
Posada is a switch-hitter. Bernie is a switch-hitter. Tino and Giambi both bat lefty. Perfect! The Yankees don't have to worry about lefties coming out of the bullpen! Anybody can be the DH!
So why is Torre choosing Sierra for DH? It can't be his playoff experience and it can't be the fact that he's a switch-hitter.
Maybe it's just because Sierra brings things to the table and has been down this road before.
Fair enough. Better to use vague reasoning than demonstrably untrue reasoning.
If you want to start Ruben Sierra at designated hitter instead of Jorge Posada, then start Ruben Sierra at designated hitter instead of Jorge Posada.
If you have some reasoning for it, you may divulge that reasoning if you wish. If you want to keep it a secret, then don't say anything.
There are legit reasons for choosing Sierra over Posada. Perhaps Torre doesn't want to risk putting his backup catcher in the DH spot. If Flaherty gets hurt, then Posada would have to catch, the Yankees would lose their DH, and the pitcher would have to hit.
This could all have been avoided if Torre would just let Posada catch when Johnson is on the mound, but that's another vitriolic vent for another time. I'll wait until after the game for that.
But please stop with these verbal three-card monte games:
"Sierra is likely, Torre said, 'because he's probably the most adept at it. He's had the most experience. You know, he loves the pressure and all that. He certainly would be a consideration. I think he would be the first consideration, and then you work out and match them up from there.'
'But again, we want to get [Sierra] involved because we know what he can bring to the table, especially being a switch-hitter, and they don't have a left-hander coming out of the bullpen. The fact that Ruben has been down this road before, he would probably be the No. 1 guy we would look at.' "
Jorge Posada has more playoff experience than Ruben Sierra.
Bernie Williams has far more playoff experience than Ruben Sierra. Bernie Williams has more playoff experience than any major league baseball player ever.
Tino Martinez has more playoff experience than Ruben Sierra.
Jason Giambi has more playoff experience than Ruben Sierra.
Even Tony Womack has more playoff experience than Ruben Sierra.
I can't figure out what Torre's trying to say. When Torre says Sierra has "the most experience," what is he talking about?
"In the Universe of Ruben Sierra and Andy Phillips, Ruben Sierra has the most playoff experience."
Is Torre talking about non-playoff experience? But then he throws in stuff like "been down this road before" and "likes the pressure," and it sure sounds like he's talking specifically about playoff experience.
Have you ever heard of the concept of "platooning"? It is a common concept in baseball. In general, you try to send up right-handed batters vs. left-handed pitchers, and vice versa. Since switch hitters can bat from both sides of the plate, the manager can be comfortable batting them against either right-handed or left-handed pitchers.
My analysis is a generality. Lots of players break the mold and few switch hitters possess exactly similar skills from both sides of the plate.
So, why am I bringing this up? Because one of the supposed flaws of the Anaheim bullpen is the fact that there are no left-handed pitchers. This allows the opposing manager to stack his team with left-handed hitters without exposing them to the dominating lefty coming out of the bullpen. Whatever. It's a theory.
But Joe Torre actually said Ruben Sierra makes sense as a DH "especially being a switch-hitter, and they don't have a left hander coming out of the bullpen."
Huh?
If they don't have a left hander coming out of the bullpen, then you don't need a switch-hitter. If the Angels had a crop of left handers coming out of the bullpen, then you'd want lots of switch-hitters. When Scioscia drops the lefty hammer down on your lineup, Sierra just needs to bat righty and Torre would not have to remove the helpless lefty and scour the bench for a righty.
Posada is a switch-hitter. Bernie is a switch-hitter. Tino and Giambi both bat lefty. Perfect! The Yankees don't have to worry about lefties coming out of the bullpen! Anybody can be the DH!
So why is Torre choosing Sierra for DH? It can't be his playoff experience and it can't be the fact that he's a switch-hitter.
Maybe it's just because Sierra brings things to the table and has been down this road before.
Fair enough. Better to use vague reasoning than demonstrably untrue reasoning.
Thursday, October 06, 2005
A follow up question about Robinson Cano ...
... Why was Al Leiter pitching in the eighth inning?
I know your team would have probably lost, anyway, but unless you're a fortune teller, you couldn't have known that. While you can't guarantee victory every game, I think you have an obligation to the fans who stay up until 1:00 in the morning to at least try to optimize your team's chances to win. Don't worry about Friday's game, worry about today's game.
All season long, you've saved Gordon and Rivera for the playoffs. Guess what? Now it's the playoffs! Guess what? New strategy!
But I digress. That follow up question had nothing to do with Robinson Cano. Let me try again.
Are you concerned with Cano's poor defensive play at second base, a season-long problem which you've seemingly ignored until people started noticing because it's the first round of the playoffs?:
"There's a certain style that players play with, and he certainly is reminded when he is nonchalant or maybe a style that doesn't fit what we're doing. But I think a lot of that, too, also comes from the lack of knowledge or remembering who was running....I don't know if it's as much nonchalance as much as not paying as much attention as he should."
First of all, nonchalant is the Yankee style for the entire season. Nonchalant is the Yankee style for the entire decade. Nonchalant fits what you're doing. Nonchalant is the Torre Way.
Secondly, what is more nonchalant than not paying attention?
Third, were you angry when Willie Randolph didn't toast your pastrami sub in that commercial? Since you're talking gibberish about baseball, I thought I'd change the subject.
I know your team would have probably lost, anyway, but unless you're a fortune teller, you couldn't have known that. While you can't guarantee victory every game, I think you have an obligation to the fans who stay up until 1:00 in the morning to at least try to optimize your team's chances to win. Don't worry about Friday's game, worry about today's game.
All season long, you've saved Gordon and Rivera for the playoffs. Guess what? Now it's the playoffs! Guess what? New strategy!
But I digress. That follow up question had nothing to do with Robinson Cano. Let me try again.
Are you concerned with Cano's poor defensive play at second base, a season-long problem which you've seemingly ignored until people started noticing because it's the first round of the playoffs?:
"There's a certain style that players play with, and he certainly is reminded when he is nonchalant or maybe a style that doesn't fit what we're doing. But I think a lot of that, too, also comes from the lack of knowledge or remembering who was running....I don't know if it's as much nonchalance as much as not paying as much attention as he should."
First of all, nonchalant is the Yankee style for the entire season. Nonchalant is the Yankee style for the entire decade. Nonchalant fits what you're doing. Nonchalant is the Torre Way.
Secondly, what is more nonchalant than not paying attention?
Third, were you angry when Willie Randolph didn't toast your pastrami sub in that commercial? Since you're talking gibberish about baseball, I thought I'd change the subject.
Lupica's madness on display in real time.
Some lowlights of Mike Lupica's attempts to elucidate the ALDS.
Start with a gratuitous swipe at the MVP of the Americal League:
"The other day in the press box at Fenway Park, I asked four different beat writers for the Yankees who they wanted up at the plate with everything on the line.
Two said Gary Sheffield.
One said Matsui.
One said Jeter.
A-Rod didn’t get a call."
(Did you ask the beat writers after the game, where Jeter was 0-for-5 and Matsui and Sheffield combined to leave 40 runners on base?)
Since we all know Alex Rodriguez is the LVP, you know who's the hero? The backup first baseman who hit .241 and has a .239 career postseason batting average:
"Tino Martinez up now, two outs, two on in the second.
Tino is one of the great heroes of this season, it’s just that his heroics happened almost five months ago.
He didn’t save the season.
And all those home runs didn’t turn the season around, because the Yankees still didn’t start to get really jazzed until July.
But when they could have fallen completely out of things, and kept going the wrong way, Tino had that stretch where it seemed like he hit home run about every other inning.
Yankee fans will always wonder how things might have gone differently the last few years if Tino had never left."
After this pro-Tino warping of historical data, what follows next is a warping of the game you've been watchinn, right there in front of your own eyes, on your television.
It's a literary first. It's real-time revisionist history:
"Three years ago, the Yankees were cruising along in Game 2 of their division series against the Angels. El Duque is pitching brilliantly in relief, the Yankees are going to go ahead 2-0, and that will be that against the Angels.
Only Garret Anderson and Troy Glaus hit those home runs, and the Yankees lost the game and the series.
Last night, Juan Rivera’s home run got the Angels back into it.
Then came A-Rod’s error.
Then the Angels were ahead 4-2."
Three years ago, the Yankees were not "cruising." They held a one-run lead in the eighth inning. Torre made one of the worst bullpen decisions of his career. Not only did he leave El Duque in to give up a homerun to Troy Glaus, he left El Duque in to give up a homerun to Garret Anderson.
Nice matcup, Torre. El Duque vs. Garret Anderson, eighth inning, tie game, Mike Stanton and Mariano Rivera sitting on their hands.
The Angels "hit the homeruns," sure, but there's a little more to the story. It is a particularly curious decision, in retrospect, given Torres' current obsession with lefties out of the 'pen.
Speaking of which, let's please talk about eighth innings and analyze Joe Torre's ability to manage his bullpen.
I want to hear one person, anywhere, tell me why Al Leiter is pitching to Guerrero and Molina in the eighth. Waiting in the bullpen were Mariano Rivera, Tom Gordon, Tanyon Sturtze, Scott Proctor, Aaron Small, and Shawn Chacon. Have I forgotten anybody? Any of them are better choices than Leiter.
This is the eighth inning of a playoff game and the Yankees are only down by two runs. You hope against hope to hold them scoreless and then get the bloop and a blast in the ninth. With ARod batting fourth that inning, it's not all that inconceivable. He did hit 48 homeruns this season. It was the most homeruns by any player in the entire league! So, it's a lot of homeruns!
The only conclusion one can reach is that Torre had given up on this game and was looking ahead to game three. Congratulations, Joe. Once again, your bullpen is rested for the next game.
But it was nice to bring in Proctor after the Molina homerun.
Oh, and what actually happened in last night's game? According to Lupica, here's the game recap:
What the (heck) is a "seventh inning" guy? Is that a new type of pitcher?
Yes, you can use Gordon. You can use Rivera if you have to. It's, like, totally within the rules of major league baseball.
What is the crime? Who cares if it's the seventh inning instead of the eighth or ninth? Scioscia went straight to Shields in the sixth, with the game on the line.
I'm up until 1:15 in the morning watching my manager rest his bullpen in a playoff game.
Start with a gratuitous swipe at the MVP of the Americal League:
"The other day in the press box at Fenway Park, I asked four different beat writers for the Yankees who they wanted up at the plate with everything on the line.
Two said Gary Sheffield.
One said Matsui.
One said Jeter.
A-Rod didn’t get a call."
(Did you ask the beat writers after the game, where Jeter was 0-for-5 and Matsui and Sheffield combined to leave 40 runners on base?)
Since we all know Alex Rodriguez is the LVP, you know who's the hero? The backup first baseman who hit .241 and has a .239 career postseason batting average:
"Tino Martinez up now, two outs, two on in the second.
Tino is one of the great heroes of this season, it’s just that his heroics happened almost five months ago.
He didn’t save the season.
And all those home runs didn’t turn the season around, because the Yankees still didn’t start to get really jazzed until July.
But when they could have fallen completely out of things, and kept going the wrong way, Tino had that stretch where it seemed like he hit home run about every other inning.
Yankee fans will always wonder how things might have gone differently the last few years if Tino had never left."
After this pro-Tino warping of historical data, what follows next is a warping of the game you've been watchinn, right there in front of your own eyes, on your television.
It's a literary first. It's real-time revisionist history:
"Three years ago, the Yankees were cruising along in Game 2 of their division series against the Angels. El Duque is pitching brilliantly in relief, the Yankees are going to go ahead 2-0, and that will be that against the Angels.
Only Garret Anderson and Troy Glaus hit those home runs, and the Yankees lost the game and the series.
Last night, Juan Rivera’s home run got the Angels back into it.
Then came A-Rod’s error.
Then the Angels were ahead 4-2."
Three years ago, the Yankees were not "cruising." They held a one-run lead in the eighth inning. Torre made one of the worst bullpen decisions of his career. Not only did he leave El Duque in to give up a homerun to Troy Glaus, he left El Duque in to give up a homerun to Garret Anderson.
Nice matcup, Torre. El Duque vs. Garret Anderson, eighth inning, tie game, Mike Stanton and Mariano Rivera sitting on their hands.
The Angels "hit the homeruns," sure, but there's a little more to the story. It is a particularly curious decision, in retrospect, given Torres' current obsession with lefties out of the 'pen.
Speaking of which, let's please talk about eighth innings and analyze Joe Torre's ability to manage his bullpen.
I want to hear one person, anywhere, tell me why Al Leiter is pitching to Guerrero and Molina in the eighth. Waiting in the bullpen were Mariano Rivera, Tom Gordon, Tanyon Sturtze, Scott Proctor, Aaron Small, and Shawn Chacon. Have I forgotten anybody? Any of them are better choices than Leiter.
This is the eighth inning of a playoff game and the Yankees are only down by two runs. You hope against hope to hold them scoreless and then get the bloop and a blast in the ninth. With ARod batting fourth that inning, it's not all that inconceivable. He did hit 48 homeruns this season. It was the most homeruns by any player in the entire league! So, it's a lot of homeruns!
The only conclusion one can reach is that Torre had given up on this game and was looking ahead to game three. Congratulations, Joe. Once again, your bullpen is rested for the next game.
But it was nice to bring in Proctor after the Molina homerun.
Oh, and what actually happened in last night's game? According to Lupica, here's the game recap:
- Yankees were winning by two runs.
- Rivera hit a homerun.
- ARod made an error.
- The Angels won 5-3.
Dagnabit, that's quite an error. It was a four-run error. Nothing else happened in the whole game.
(1) ARod made an error, and (2) the Yankees lost. It's all ARod's fault.
It couldn't be Torre's fault. Why? Because Torre doesn't have a "seventh-inning guy," whatever that means:
"Maybe if Joe Torre has a 7th inning guy, the way he always had a 7th inning guy when he was winning the World Series, he brings him in now.
But in the 164th game, he still doesn’t have a 7th inning guy he trusts, so he stays with a tired Wang."
Are there actually people who can read this stuff without questioning it?What the (heck) is a "seventh inning" guy? Is that a new type of pitcher?
Yes, you can use Gordon. You can use Rivera if you have to. It's, like, totally within the rules of major league baseball.
What is the crime? Who cares if it's the seventh inning instead of the eighth or ninth? Scioscia went straight to Shields in the sixth, with the game on the line.
I'm up until 1:15 in the morning watching my manager rest his bullpen in a playoff game.
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Angels are the favorites.
The main reason, obviously, is because Randy Johnson only pitches one game in the series. While Torre largely redeemed himself and may have saved his job by making the playoffs, the tank job in the first half of the season still hurts the team's chances in the playoffs.
I know home field advantage isn't that big of a deal, but I can't help but think they'd be playing in the Bronx tonight if only Alan Embree didn't pitch to Paul Konerko.
(Why did Alan Embree pitch to Paul Konerko, again? What was the reasoning behind that? If the Yankees meet the White Sox in the ALCS, can we assume we'll never see that matchup again in a million years?)
Sixteen experts on ESPN.com. Their guesses aren't necessarily any better than yours or mine, but twelve out of sixteen picked the Angels to beat the Yankees.
Somehow, I think Joe Buck will forget this when he tries incessantly to convince you that the Angels are the gritty underdogs who are showing remarkable resilience against the Yankee Aura and Mystique.
I know home field advantage isn't that big of a deal, but I can't help but think they'd be playing in the Bronx tonight if only Alan Embree didn't pitch to Paul Konerko.
(Why did Alan Embree pitch to Paul Konerko, again? What was the reasoning behind that? If the Yankees meet the White Sox in the ALCS, can we assume we'll never see that matchup again in a million years?)
Sixteen experts on ESPN.com. Their guesses aren't necessarily any better than yours or mine, but twelve out of sixteen picked the Angels to beat the Yankees.
Somehow, I think Joe Buck will forget this when he tries incessantly to convince you that the Angels are the gritty underdogs who are showing remarkable resilience against the Yankee Aura and Mystique.
Sunday, October 02, 2005
English major? That's unpossible.
It took two full seasons in a Yankee uniform, but Mike Lupica is finally forced to admit that Alex Rodriguez is pretty good. No longer unfavorably compared to David Wright and Aubrey Huff and Alfonso Soriano, ARod is now favorably compared to Joe Dimaggio. There just doesn't seem to be too much grey area in Mike Lupica's thought patterns. No middle ground somewhere between Aubrey Huff and Michael Jordan.
While explaining the confusing baseball playoff scenarios, Lupica then drops in this gem:
"Dumb. And dumber. I would have told you sooner, but I majored in English."
Uh, huh.
Who gave this guy a degree?
Can they take it back when they read a paragraph-esque structure like that?
"Dumb. And dumber." I'll say.
While explaining the confusing baseball playoff scenarios, Lupica then drops in this gem:
"Dumb. And dumber. I would have told you sooner, but I majored in English."
Uh, huh.
Who gave this guy a degree?
Can they take it back when they read a paragraph-esque structure like that?
"Dumb. And dumber." I'll say.
September to remember.
I recall the Mets players and NY press who claimed that Carlos Beltran could make the fans forget about his subpar season if he had a good September. They were just trying to be helpful. They didn't consider the necessary corollary: If Beltran has a bad September, well, then he just sucks.
Well, the results are in, and Beltran had quite a September. A whopping .270 and 2 homeruns.
As I scrutinize Beltran's monthy splits, I recall a game in April where Alex Rodriguez had 3 homeruns and 10 rbis. (Anaheim's starting pitcher that night was Cy Young candidate Bartolo Colon, no less.)
Since Beltran's most productive month was 3 hrs and 17 rbis, it's fair to say that ARod basically matched a typical Beltran month in one day.
I also wonder how many know-it-alls still think the Yankees should have pursued Beltran instead of Randy Johnson.
Well, the results are in, and Beltran had quite a September. A whopping .270 and 2 homeruns.
As I scrutinize Beltran's monthy splits, I recall a game in April where Alex Rodriguez had 3 homeruns and 10 rbis. (Anaheim's starting pitcher that night was Cy Young candidate Bartolo Colon, no less.)
Since Beltran's most productive month was 3 hrs and 17 rbis, it's fair to say that ARod basically matched a typical Beltran month in one day.
I also wonder how many know-it-alls still think the Yankees should have pursued Beltran instead of Randy Johnson.
Saturday, October 01, 2005
Simpletons discuss the sport of baseball.
If David Ortiz was the MVP on Saturday morning, then Mike Vaccaro must be changing his vote to Alex Rodriguez after Rodriguez goes 4-for-5 with a homer.
Herein lies the problem. If, as Vaccaro states, "there's little doubt that Alex Rodriguez is a better baseball player than David Ortiz," then there's little doubt that Alex Rodriguez is more valuable than David Ortiz. We're talking about their respective abilities to play baseball when we're discussing the MVP award.
Stop thinking so hard. Stop constructing bizarre arguments to tear down Yankee candidates.
Good = value. Better = more value. Best = most value.
Since the Yankees clinched the division on Saturday afternoon, I'm sure Dan Graziano is back on the bandwagon.
But what game was he watching on Friday night? What team has he been watching all season?
While Graziano seems to think Friday night was the worst loss of the season, it seemd kind of par for the course.
"This team that showed up here last night, it had trouble picking up infield grounders. This team made bad judgments and throwing errors. Left runners in scoring position in two crucial innings."
Jason Giambi made a throwing error? The Yankees made mental mistakes? Luis Sojo goofed up?
Shocking.
The Yankees lost 5-3 to the World Champs in their own ballpark. They lost to David Wells, a noted big game pitcher who has won something like 16 of his last 17 at Fenway. The Yankees didn't even give up 17 runs -- they kept it close and only lost by 2.
Graziano apparently couldn't imagine such a scenario, no matter how much "we" strained his brain:
"Looked like some other team. Some nervous team. A team that appears, all of a sudden and for no reason we could have foreseen, worried."
Herein lies the problem. If, as Vaccaro states, "there's little doubt that Alex Rodriguez is a better baseball player than David Ortiz," then there's little doubt that Alex Rodriguez is more valuable than David Ortiz. We're talking about their respective abilities to play baseball when we're discussing the MVP award.
Stop thinking so hard. Stop constructing bizarre arguments to tear down Yankee candidates.
Good = value. Better = more value. Best = most value.
Since the Yankees clinched the division on Saturday afternoon, I'm sure Dan Graziano is back on the bandwagon.
But what game was he watching on Friday night? What team has he been watching all season?
While Graziano seems to think Friday night was the worst loss of the season, it seemd kind of par for the course.
"This team that showed up here last night, it had trouble picking up infield grounders. This team made bad judgments and throwing errors. Left runners in scoring position in two crucial innings."
Jason Giambi made a throwing error? The Yankees made mental mistakes? Luis Sojo goofed up?
Shocking.
The Yankees lost 5-3 to the World Champs in their own ballpark. They lost to David Wells, a noted big game pitcher who has won something like 16 of his last 17 at Fenway. The Yankees didn't even give up 17 runs -- they kept it close and only lost by 2.
Graziano apparently couldn't imagine such a scenario, no matter how much "we" strained his brain:
"Looked like some other team. Some nervous team. A team that appears, all of a sudden and for no reason we could have foreseen, worried."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)