"Some debate remains over the context and clarity of Joe Torre's reported remarks concerning a potential move to center field for either Derek Jeter or Alex Rodriguez, but Yankees GM Brian Cashman made it very clear yesterday that - regardless of what Torre did or did not say - neither of the Yanks' superstars is going anywhere."
Joe Torre talks crazy and Sam Borden notices.
So does a guy at Newsday and a guy at the Post and even a guy at the Star-Ledger.
Joe Torre is confusing and contradictory and this is news? Something got "lost in the translation?"
Where was Sam Borden when Joe Torre said that Tony Womack batted leadoff because he can do some things?
Where was Sam Borden when Joe Torre said ARod had to play third base because it was important to show loyalty to the old-time Yankee players and then, in the next sentence, Joe Torre explained with a straight face that Kenny Lofton was starting in centerfield instead of Bernie Williams?
Where was Sam Borden when Joe Torre said he doesn't have to explain his decisions?
Where was Sam Borden when Joe Torre pitched Alan Embree against Paul Konerko?
Where was Sam Borden when Vladimir Guerrero hit a grand slam off of Kevin Brown and Joe Torre said the homerun wasn't really the problem because, if the bases weren't loaded, the homerun wouldn't have been a grand slam?
You have to remember something when you talk to Joe Torre aobut his centerfield options. This is a man who played Tony Womack in centerfield on purpose. Probably had to get Womack's bat in the lineup so he could do some things offensively and he's a veteran and he needs to feel comfortable.
Joe Torre was not misunderstood and his remarks were not taken out of context. Joe Torre just doesn't know what is going on.
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Grampa Gets Confused Easily.
"The Yankees are not considering moving shortstop Derek Jeter or third baseman Alex Rodriguez to center field, general manager Brian Cashman told FOXSports.com Tuesday.
Yankees manager Joe Torre indicated that the team was considering the idea in a story by Reuters on Monday, saying, 'We've thought about it. We just haven't made a commitment to that. We haven't broached it with the shortstops.'
...
To which Cashman responded, 'Not true at all.' "
Yankees manager Joe Torre indicated that the team was considering the idea in a story by Reuters on Monday, saying, 'We've thought about it. We just haven't made a commitment to that. We haven't broached it with the shortstops.'
...
To which Cashman responded, 'Not true at all.' "
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Mike Lupica finally criticizes Cameron-for-Nady deal.
Psyche!
Instead, Mike Lupica praises the presumed pending arrival of Billy Wagner. Since Wagner is lefthanded, it's totally relevant to bring up every lefthanded reliever ever:
"Once it was McGraw at Shea and then it was Jesse Orosco, even in the days when he was on a team with Roger McDowell, then Johnny Franco. None of them could throw fastballs the way Billy Wagner can. The Braves don't have anybody like Wagner, haven't had anybody like him since John Rocker was, well, still on his rocker."
Ha ha ha! When Rocker was still on his rocker!
"If the Mets get Wagner away from the Phillies, the Phillies probably have to go after B.J. Ryan to replace him."
If the Phillies lose their lefthanded closer, then they'll have to replace him with another lefthanded closer. Everybody wants a lefthanded closer. Everybody needs a lefthanded closer. Everybody loves lefthanded closers.
Lefthanded closers, lefthanded closers, lefthanded closers.
Lefthanded closers won every World Series game in the past twenty years.
Lefthanded closers are way cooler than righthanded closers.
Instead, Mike Lupica praises the presumed pending arrival of Billy Wagner. Since Wagner is lefthanded, it's totally relevant to bring up every lefthanded reliever ever:
"Once it was McGraw at Shea and then it was Jesse Orosco, even in the days when he was on a team with Roger McDowell, then Johnny Franco. None of them could throw fastballs the way Billy Wagner can. The Braves don't have anybody like Wagner, haven't had anybody like him since John Rocker was, well, still on his rocker."
Ha ha ha! When Rocker was still on his rocker!
"If the Mets get Wagner away from the Phillies, the Phillies probably have to go after B.J. Ryan to replace him."
If the Phillies lose their lefthanded closer, then they'll have to replace him with another lefthanded closer. Everybody wants a lefthanded closer. Everybody needs a lefthanded closer. Everybody loves lefthanded closers.
Lefthanded closers, lefthanded closers, lefthanded closers.
Lefthanded closers won every World Series game in the past twenty years.
Lefthanded closers are way cooler than righthanded closers.
Sunday, November 20, 2005
Mike Lupica Doesn't Like Good Baseball Players.
Playa hate much?
Mike Lupica doesn't like Brian Giles, Mike Lupica describes Barry Bonds as baseball's worst nightmare, and Mike Lupica still doesn't like Alex Rodriguez:
Seems to me if you are the first Yankee to win the MVP in twenty years, you've got nothing to apologize about.
.321 48 130. There's no problem with ARod.
ARod's ALDS was bad and Game 5 was also bad. ARod probably felt genuinely upset about his performance and also took a proactive offensive posture in the interview room in an attempt to deflect the impending criticism. Much of which is, you know, "unfair."
Still, I don't care too much about the interview room. A guy who hits .321 48 130 can answer in haiku or spend his time making balloon animals for all I care.
Alex Belth over at Bronx Banter explained the phenomenon better than I could. He said that guys like Lupica focus on what ARod has failed to accomplish rather than what he has accomplished.
ARod accomplished a lot this season. It was a downright historic season. The Yankees would have undoubtedly missed the playoffs without ARod's historic season. Under normal conditions, that "what-if" success story boosts one's MVP status.
The post-MVP conference call can not change what ARod accomplished on the field. If that's the best criticism Lupica can come up with then, yeah, his criticism is unfair.
There's always a fantastic tension in a Mike Lupica column. It's real-time lying and it's actually quite fascinating.
While Lupica is defending himself against indirect accusations that he has been unfair in his criticisms of Alex Rodriguez, he's unfairly criticizing Alex Rodriguez at the same time.
"I've recently been accused of gossiping, but I never gossip about anyone. For example, I never told anyone that Sally made out with Tommy after the basketball game last Friday. So please stop saying that I'm a gossip."
Mike Lupica doesn't like Brian Giles, Mike Lupica describes Barry Bonds as baseball's worst nightmare, and Mike Lupica still doesn't like Alex Rodriguez:
"There is the amazing notion around that Alex Rodriguez received unfair criticism this week for winning the MVP award.
Not around here he didn't.
More than anything, A-Rod received criticism for suggesting - on the same day he won the MVP from David Ortiz - that 'even if I win three World Series (the criticism) will never be over.'
As if nothing he ever does in that area will be enough."
Again, I think ARod is just making a truthful observation. ARod does not run away from the criticism, he just kind of laughs it off, and rightly so.
Besides, don't make me go through the archives of two years of "Shootin' From The Lip." Not only would that cause my brain to hemorrhage, but it would reveal endless criticisms of ARod for his play on the field and his actions off the field.
Seems to me if you are the first Yankee to win the MVP in twenty years, you've got nothing to apologize about.
"He is the one who wanted to talk about the postseason then.
The answer to that is the same as it was a few days ago:
Play in just one Series, then we'll talk."
Liar, liar, pants on fire.
Alex Rodriguez will still be criticized by Mike Lupica even after he plays in his first World Series. I don't know much, but I can guarantee that. Alex Rodriguez could hit four homeruns in his first World Series game and Lupica would point out (1) it's only game one, and (2) the Yankees didn't need all four homeruns because it was a blowout victory.
Maybe it's not for me to judge what's "fair," but Lupica-esque criticism of ARod also seem quite stupid and ignorant. We all know that the MVP voting occurs before the postseason, so why are we talking about the ALDS? We also should all realize that plenty of great baseball players miss out on the World Series.
ARod has been with the Yankees two whole seasons. It shouldn't be surprising that the Yankees missed the World Series two whole seasons in a row. The criticism reveals itself as "unfair" largely because it's not similarly applied to, say, Hideki Matsui and Don Mattingly.
"The problem with A-Rod in areas like this isn't that he's too polished, which is something we hear all the time.
The problem is that he's too needy.
Maybe that's why he feels the need to remind us how much time he spent in front of his locker after Game 5, blaming himself for everything except oil prices."
.321 48 130. There's no problem with ARod.
ARod's ALDS was bad and Game 5 was also bad. ARod probably felt genuinely upset about his performance and also took a proactive offensive posture in the interview room in an attempt to deflect the impending criticism. Much of which is, you know, "unfair."
Still, I don't care too much about the interview room. A guy who hits .321 48 130 can answer in haiku or spend his time making balloon animals for all I care.
Alex Belth over at Bronx Banter explained the phenomenon better than I could. He said that guys like Lupica focus on what ARod has failed to accomplish rather than what he has accomplished.
ARod accomplished a lot this season. It was a downright historic season. The Yankees would have undoubtedly missed the playoffs without ARod's historic season. Under normal conditions, that "what-if" success story boosts one's MVP status.
The post-MVP conference call can not change what ARod accomplished on the field. If that's the best criticism Lupica can come up with then, yeah, his criticism is unfair.
There's always a fantastic tension in a Mike Lupica column. It's real-time lying and it's actually quite fascinating.
While Lupica is defending himself against indirect accusations that he has been unfair in his criticisms of Alex Rodriguez, he's unfairly criticizing Alex Rodriguez at the same time.
"I've recently been accused of gossiping, but I never gossip about anyone. For example, I never told anyone that Sally made out with Tommy after the basketball game last Friday. So please stop saying that I'm a gossip."
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Newsflash: Red Sox Did Not Win World Series.
Wow-za!
Just when I thought the anti-ARod sentiment couldn't get any more goofy.
If I had me a truck, I could drive it right through the hole in Ian O'Connor's logic. Vroom!
"ARod must not win the MVP for a last-place team, because that team is in last place. Furthermore, ARod must not win the MVP for a first-place team":
"But Rodriguez is no more the MVP of the American League now, as a first-place third baseman with the Yankees, than he was as a last-place shortstop with the Rangers, who finished 25 games off the pace in 2003 — or one game for every $10 million that Tom Hicks guaranteed A-Rod, with a couple million to spare."
Right. Except he was the MVP in 2003, so he doesn't have to be more MVP in order to be the 2005 MVP.
In 2005, ARod's team finished in first place, even though they had the exact same record as Boston.
In an attempt to apply the O'Connor Formula, the Yankees were 0 games up for every $252 million that Tom Hicks guaranteed ARod, with $0 left over.
It's tough to divide by zero, however, so I'm confused. I'm not sure if the Yankees won by 0 games for every $252 million, infinity games for every $252 million, or just undefined games for every $252 million.
You can play all sorts of math tricks. Paradoxes and whatnot. The ancient mathematicians didn't even know about zero, much less how to divide by zero. Which probably made it impossible for them to determine whether or not a highly-paid shortstop for a last-place team should be the MVP.
Ian, if you have a runner who's 100 feet ahead of you, right? Assume the other runner is stationary. It doesn't have to be another runner, but let's go with a runner.
Before you can reach that runner, you'd have to travel half the distance to the runner, right? Ian? Right?
Okay, so you travel 50 feet and then you'd have 50 feet to go.
But before you can travel 50 feet, you have to travel half that, which is 25 feet. Before you travel 25 feet, you have to travel half that, which is 12.5 feet.
Ian, how long does this go on? How many midpoints are there?
Dude, there are infinite midpoints. You can never reach the other runner.
Did I just blow your mind?
Or check this one out. Check it out, check it out, check it out!
I can totally prove that .99999 ... is the same as 1.
Okay, what is the rule when you divide a number by 9? You repeat that number forever.
1/9 = .1111 ...
2/9 = .2222 ...
Ian, you with me so far?
Alright.
So, what is 9/9? It's 1. That's easy enough.
But I also said that any number you divide by 9, you repeat that number forever. Therefore, 9/9 is .99999 ...
That may not prove that ARod deserves the AL MVP, but the Yankees finished 16 games ahead of Texas this season, or one game for every $15 million that Tom Hicks guaranteed ARod, with several million to spare.
That does not signify anything coherent, but I just wanted to make a pointless reference to ARod's salary. Which is $252 million, in case you forgot. Which means he shouldn't win the MVP. Because he makes so much money and, two years ago, his team came in last place.
Okay, let's say you rent a hotel room with two friends. The hotel room costs $30, so you each pay $10. Then, the manager refunds $5 and tells the bellhop to refund the money. Rather than divide by 3, the bellhop gives each customer $1 and pockets the $2.
Each of the three customers have now paid $9. $9 x 3 = $27. $27 + $2 that the bellhop pocketed = $29.
Ian, what happened to the other dollar?
"David Ortiz should've won the award, even if he doesn't play the field. You didn't need to weigh the numbers to know Ortiz made more dramatic contributions to the Red Sox than Rodriguez made to the Yanks. Two out of every three nights, Ortiz was sending some late-season, late-game ball to the moon. That was good enough for me."
Two out of every three nights?!?!?!
Okay, Ortiz hits a late-season, late-game ball to the moon two out of every three nights?!?!
Why did Ortiz only hit 47 homeruns? If I didn't pay close attention to O'Connor's claim, I'd have assumed Ortiz hit, like, 108 homeruns this season. You know, two homeruns every three nights.
108 homeruns! In one season! That would be, like, a record!
There's an enormous fundamental problem with O'Connor's tack. We're talking about 2005, not 2004 David Ortiz did not win the World Series in 2005. David Ortiz did not win a single playoff game in 2005. When it was "close-and-late" in the playoffs, El Duque struck him out on three pitches.
Is O'Connor seriously favoring David Ortiz in the 2005 AL MVP race because Ortiz hit a homerun off of Paul Quantrill in the 2004 playoffs?
Just when I thought the anti-ARod sentiment couldn't get any more goofy.
If I had me a truck, I could drive it right through the hole in Ian O'Connor's logic. Vroom!
"ARod must not win the MVP for a last-place team, because that team is in last place. Furthermore, ARod must not win the MVP for a first-place team":
"But Rodriguez is no more the MVP of the American League now, as a first-place third baseman with the Yankees, than he was as a last-place shortstop with the Rangers, who finished 25 games off the pace in 2003 — or one game for every $10 million that Tom Hicks guaranteed A-Rod, with a couple million to spare."
Right. Except he was the MVP in 2003, so he doesn't have to be more MVP in order to be the 2005 MVP.
In 2005, ARod's team finished in first place, even though they had the exact same record as Boston.
In an attempt to apply the O'Connor Formula, the Yankees were 0 games up for every $252 million that Tom Hicks guaranteed ARod, with $0 left over.
It's tough to divide by zero, however, so I'm confused. I'm not sure if the Yankees won by 0 games for every $252 million, infinity games for every $252 million, or just undefined games for every $252 million.
You can play all sorts of math tricks. Paradoxes and whatnot. The ancient mathematicians didn't even know about zero, much less how to divide by zero. Which probably made it impossible for them to determine whether or not a highly-paid shortstop for a last-place team should be the MVP.
Ian, if you have a runner who's 100 feet ahead of you, right? Assume the other runner is stationary. It doesn't have to be another runner, but let's go with a runner.
Before you can reach that runner, you'd have to travel half the distance to the runner, right? Ian? Right?
Okay, so you travel 50 feet and then you'd have 50 feet to go.
But before you can travel 50 feet, you have to travel half that, which is 25 feet. Before you travel 25 feet, you have to travel half that, which is 12.5 feet.
Ian, how long does this go on? How many midpoints are there?
Dude, there are infinite midpoints. You can never reach the other runner.
Did I just blow your mind?
Or check this one out. Check it out, check it out, check it out!
I can totally prove that .99999 ... is the same as 1.
Okay, what is the rule when you divide a number by 9? You repeat that number forever.
1/9 = .1111 ...
2/9 = .2222 ...
Ian, you with me so far?
Alright.
So, what is 9/9? It's 1. That's easy enough.
But I also said that any number you divide by 9, you repeat that number forever. Therefore, 9/9 is .99999 ...
That may not prove that ARod deserves the AL MVP, but the Yankees finished 16 games ahead of Texas this season, or one game for every $15 million that Tom Hicks guaranteed ARod, with several million to spare.
That does not signify anything coherent, but I just wanted to make a pointless reference to ARod's salary. Which is $252 million, in case you forgot. Which means he shouldn't win the MVP. Because he makes so much money and, two years ago, his team came in last place.
Okay, let's say you rent a hotel room with two friends. The hotel room costs $30, so you each pay $10. Then, the manager refunds $5 and tells the bellhop to refund the money. Rather than divide by 3, the bellhop gives each customer $1 and pockets the $2.
Each of the three customers have now paid $9. $9 x 3 = $27. $27 + $2 that the bellhop pocketed = $29.
Ian, what happened to the other dollar?
"David Ortiz should've won the award, even if he doesn't play the field. You didn't need to weigh the numbers to know Ortiz made more dramatic contributions to the Red Sox than Rodriguez made to the Yanks. Two out of every three nights, Ortiz was sending some late-season, late-game ball to the moon. That was good enough for me."
Two out of every three nights?!?!?!
Okay, Ortiz hits a late-season, late-game ball to the moon two out of every three nights?!?!
Why did Ortiz only hit 47 homeruns? If I didn't pay close attention to O'Connor's claim, I'd have assumed Ortiz hit, like, 108 homeruns this season. You know, two homeruns every three nights.
108 homeruns! In one season! That would be, like, a record!
There's an enormous fundamental problem with O'Connor's tack. We're talking about 2005, not 2004 David Ortiz did not win the World Series in 2005. David Ortiz did not win a single playoff game in 2005. When it was "close-and-late" in the playoffs, El Duque struck him out on three pitches.
Is O'Connor seriously favoring David Ortiz in the 2005 AL MVP race because Ortiz hit a homerun off of Paul Quantrill in the 2004 playoffs?
Steroids End Now.
"There will always be a steroid era of baseball as surely as there was a dead ball era once. But steroids in baseball end now. They end because in three years, the sport has gone from having no drug policy to having the toughest in major American sports."
Steroids end now because Mike Lupica said so.
I think it may be time for my first blog poll. Maybe I can get it on ESPN's Sports Nation.
What's the largest thing?
a) Grand Canyon.
b) The galaxy.
c) Mike Lupica's Stupidity.
d) Mike Lupica's Arrogance.
I mean, I'm not even sure if this steroid agreement has been ratified, much less enforced, much less enforced over an extended period of time, much less challenged in court, much less expanded to include steroid analogs, much less addressing the decades of improvement in cheating and chicanery, which move in lock step with every improvement in testing.
But Mike Lupica claims the steroid era ends now.
Hey, if Mike Lupica says something, people listen. Like Tony Womack is going to be a fan favorite in New York and the Rangers are going to be better without Alex Rodriguez.
As for myself, if I were Andy Phillips, I still might be willing to risk a 50-game suspension.
Think about it. I know the world only pays attention to Barry Bonds and Jason Giambi, but most of the steroids users who've been caught have been terrible players. A 50-game suspension doesn't hurt Randy Velarde too much. He was sitting on the bench, anyway. He has little to lose and, potentially, $millions to gain. Especially if he can just get to that sweet free agency.
But the steroid era ends now.
Steroids end now because Mike Lupica said so.
I think it may be time for my first blog poll. Maybe I can get it on ESPN's Sports Nation.
What's the largest thing?
a) Grand Canyon.
b) The galaxy.
c) Mike Lupica's Stupidity.
d) Mike Lupica's Arrogance.
I mean, I'm not even sure if this steroid agreement has been ratified, much less enforced, much less enforced over an extended period of time, much less challenged in court, much less expanded to include steroid analogs, much less addressing the decades of improvement in cheating and chicanery, which move in lock step with every improvement in testing.
But Mike Lupica claims the steroid era ends now.
Hey, if Mike Lupica says something, people listen. Like Tony Womack is going to be a fan favorite in New York and the Rangers are going to be better without Alex Rodriguez.
As for myself, if I were Andy Phillips, I still might be willing to risk a 50-game suspension.
Think about it. I know the world only pays attention to Barry Bonds and Jason Giambi, but most of the steroids users who've been caught have been terrible players. A 50-game suspension doesn't hurt Randy Velarde too much. He was sitting on the bench, anyway. He has little to lose and, potentially, $millions to gain. Especially if he can just get to that sweet free agency.
But the steroid era ends now.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
2005 NL MVP.
Thanks to all my friends who participated in my polls, even the person who voted for Scott Rolen.
I'm all for fielding. I think fielding is good. Speed is also a good thing, I suppose.
Having said that, I'd like to point out that Jose Reyes had an on-base percentage of .300. He's Tony Womack at shortstop. In the entire universe of major league ballplayers, he's one of the handful of players you'd most want up with the game on the line ... if you're on the opposing team.
Somehow, he received a fourth-place vote in my poll and a tenth-place vote in the writers' poll.
Now, I realize he scored 99 runs and that's pretty good. It's among the top ten in the league, that's true.
However, that statistic does not prove that Jose Reyes adds a lot of value to a baseball team. It proves that just about anybody can score 99 runs if they bat leadoff on a professional baseball team.
I feel compelled to point out that I have no recollection of the existence of Scott Eyre, who received one tenth-place vote. Then, when I looked up Scott Eyre's stats, I found out that he was 2-2 with 0 saves.
Other than the top three, the NL MVP results were all over the map:
I'm all for fielding. I think fielding is good. Speed is also a good thing, I suppose.
Having said that, I'd like to point out that Jose Reyes had an on-base percentage of .300. He's Tony Womack at shortstop. In the entire universe of major league ballplayers, he's one of the handful of players you'd most want up with the game on the line ... if you're on the opposing team.
Somehow, he received a fourth-place vote in my poll and a tenth-place vote in the writers' poll.
Now, I realize he scored 99 runs and that's pretty good. It's among the top ten in the league, that's true.
However, that statistic does not prove that Jose Reyes adds a lot of value to a baseball team. It proves that just about anybody can score 99 runs if they bat leadoff on a professional baseball team.
I feel compelled to point out that I have no recollection of the existence of Scott Eyre, who received one tenth-place vote. Then, when I looked up Scott Eyre's stats, I found out that he was 2-2 with 0 saves.
Other than the top three, the NL MVP results were all over the map:
| Them | Us | |||
| Albert Pujols | 378 | Albert Pujols | 39 | |
| Andruw Jones | 351 | Andruw Jones | 30 | |
| Derrek Lee | 263 | Derrek Lee | 27 | |
| Morgan Ensberg | 150 | Carlos Lee | 4 | |
| Miguel Cabrera | 146 | Scott Rolen | 3 | |
| Carlos Delgado | 84 | Jimmy Rollins | 3 | |
| Pat Burrell | 65 | Bobby Abreu | 2 | |
| Chris Carpenter | 52 | Jason Bay | 2 | |
| Brian Giles | 48 | Miguel Cabrera | 2 | |
| Jimmy Rollins | 45 | Roger Clemens | 2 | |
| Dontrelle Willis | 42 | Ken Griffey Jr. | 2 | |
| Scott Podsednik | 15 | Carlos Delgado | 1 | |
| Jason Bay | 41 | Morgan Ensberg | 1 | |
| Chase Utley | 22 | Jose Reyes | 1 | |
| Lance Berkman | 21 | |||
| Bobby Abreu | 21 | |||
| Chad Cordero | 21 | |||
| Trevor Hoffman | 19 | |||
| Carlos Lee | 19 | |||
| Jeff Kent | 18 | |||
| David Wright | 18 | |||
| David Eckstein | 15 | |||
| Roger Clemens | 8 | |||
| Roy Oswalt | 6 | |||
| Ken Griffey Jr. | 5 | |||
| Andy Pettitte | 5 | |||
| Jim Edmonds | 3 | |||
| Cliff Floyd | 3 | |||
| Marcus Giles | 3 | |||
| Adam Dunn | 3 | |||
| Scott Eyre | 1 | |||
| Brad Lidge | 1 | |||
| Jose Reyes | 1 |
MVP Award Means Nothing to Mike Vaccaro.
All I ask for from Mike Vaccaro is consistency.
1) No more articles discussing the MVP, since it doesn't matter. (If personal awards don't matter around here, why is Vaccaro getting so riled up because Mariano Rivera didn't win the Cy Young? Hmmmmm?)
2) Apply the same logic to Carlos Beltran.
3) Apply the same logic to Don Mattingly.
4) Please, please, apply the same logic to Golden Boy's dubious Golden Glove award. (Why does he feel so "gratified" when his team didn't win the World Series?)
Of course Yankee fans would trade an MVP award for a Championship ring. ARod said the same thing and I absolutely believe he was earnest. Every player would gladly trade an MVP award for a Championship ring, though most players would never receive one MVP vote in their wildest dreams.
"So far, in two seasons, his two signature October moments are these: slapping the ball out of Bronson Arroyo's mitt in 2004 and grounding into the ninth-inning double play that all but turned the lights out on 2005."
You remember what you want to remember.
I remember ARod singlehandedly beating the Twins. I remember the winning run in that series where ARod doubled, stole third, and scored on a wild pitch. I remember his game-tying double in the bottom of the 12th inning in game 2 when the Yankees were down 1-0 in the series. I remember the ball he hit off Wakefield in game 4 of the 2004 ALCS, the one that went onto the street, got thrown back into Fenway, and then Damon angrily threw it back onto the street.
I suppose ARod started getting Playoff Nervous after that at-bat. Or maybe, just maybe, he slumped, like the rest of the team. Or maybe, just maybe, the opposing pitchers deserve some credit.
That's baseball. It's a humbling sport. MVPs slump, too.
The playoffs matter the most. I agree with that. It seems obvious to me that most so-called fans only pay attention when the Yankees are in the playoffs or when they play the Red Sox or the Mets.
But if the regular season means nothing, and if individual awards mean nothing, then maybe Vaccaro should stop wasting his time between April and October.
You've convinced me, Mike Vaccaro. The regular season means nothing. Therefore, I can stop reading your column.
1) No more articles discussing the MVP, since it doesn't matter. (If personal awards don't matter around here, why is Vaccaro getting so riled up because Mariano Rivera didn't win the Cy Young? Hmmmmm?)
2) Apply the same logic to Carlos Beltran.
3) Apply the same logic to Don Mattingly.
4) Please, please, apply the same logic to Golden Boy's dubious Golden Glove award. (Why does he feel so "gratified" when his team didn't win the World Series?)
Of course Yankee fans would trade an MVP award for a Championship ring. ARod said the same thing and I absolutely believe he was earnest. Every player would gladly trade an MVP award for a Championship ring, though most players would never receive one MVP vote in their wildest dreams.
"So far, in two seasons, his two signature October moments are these: slapping the ball out of Bronson Arroyo's mitt in 2004 and grounding into the ninth-inning double play that all but turned the lights out on 2005."
You remember what you want to remember.
I remember ARod singlehandedly beating the Twins. I remember the winning run in that series where ARod doubled, stole third, and scored on a wild pitch. I remember his game-tying double in the bottom of the 12th inning in game 2 when the Yankees were down 1-0 in the series. I remember the ball he hit off Wakefield in game 4 of the 2004 ALCS, the one that went onto the street, got thrown back into Fenway, and then Damon angrily threw it back onto the street.
I suppose ARod started getting Playoff Nervous after that at-bat. Or maybe, just maybe, he slumped, like the rest of the team. Or maybe, just maybe, the opposing pitchers deserve some credit.
That's baseball. It's a humbling sport. MVPs slump, too.
The playoffs matter the most. I agree with that. It seems obvious to me that most so-called fans only pay attention when the Yankees are in the playoffs or when they play the Red Sox or the Mets.
But if the regular season means nothing, and if individual awards mean nothing, then maybe Vaccaro should stop wasting his time between April and October.
You've convinced me, Mike Vaccaro. The regular season means nothing. Therefore, I can stop reading your column.
Mike Lupica Doesn't Like Alex Rodriguez.
A celebration of the first Yankee MVP in 20 years!
I think it's hilarious when ARod speaks the truth and Lupica mocks him for speaking it.
Example #1:
" 'We can win three World Series, with me it's never going to be over,' Rodriguez said yesterday. 'I think my benchmark is so high that no matter what I do, it's never going to be enough, and I understand that.'
What a guy."
Example #2:
" 'Maybe when I retire is when the critics and all that kind of stuff will end,' he said yesterday.
Puh-leeze."
But is ARod wrong?
You can't have it both ways, Lupica. You can't spend half your ink ripping Alex Rodriguez and then not own up to it.
Lupica is a constant critic of Alex Rodriguez. Lupica is constantly bringing up the '98 Yankees. There is little doubt in my mind that, if Alex Rodriguez wins three rings while playing for the Yankees, Lupica's first column will point out that Tino has four rings and Jeter has seven rings.
In other words, the benchmark is high and this stuff won't end until ARod retires. Just like he said.
"He isn't the only star Yankee who let his team down in the games I am talking about. No one in this city has ever thought of putting all of this on Rodriguez.
But it is hardly unreasonable to suggest that there were plenty of times over the past two postseasons when one swing from him, one Papi-like swing, could have changed everything for the Yankees."
Huh?
No one in this city is putting all of this on Rodriguez, except in this article which you are reading right now, where I'm putting all of of this on Rodriguez. No one in this city is putting all of this on Rodriguez, except for me, everytime I write one of my scintillating "Shootin' From the Lip" columns.
Lupica, at least be a man and stick with your guns. Don't back down just because ARod calls you out.
"The voters for the MVP award judge the candidates only on what they do during the regular season, not during the playoffs. Good thing. The last big postseason swing A-Rod made for the Yankees was a home run swing in Game 4 against the Red Sox, 2004 ALCS."
This is a curious statement by Lupica. Not the first time I've heard this idea bandied about. But let's think about this a little more carefully.
Does Lupica think that Ortiz's one postseason RBI would have propelled him into first place?
Or perhaps Vlad Guerrero's 1-for-ALCS would have propelled him all the way into first place?
In the American League, the only player who really helped his MVP candidacy significantly in the playoffs was Paul Konerko.
Who else? Jeter and Manny helped their causes somewhat. But it seems to me that nobody would have soared past ARod all the way into first place.
So, yeah, it's a good thing that the MVP voters don't include the playoffs while judging the MVP candidates. If they had, Paul Konerko probably would have finished ahead of Travis Hafner.
I think it's hilarious when ARod speaks the truth and Lupica mocks him for speaking it.
Example #1:
" 'We can win three World Series, with me it's never going to be over,' Rodriguez said yesterday. 'I think my benchmark is so high that no matter what I do, it's never going to be enough, and I understand that.'
What a guy."
Example #2:
" 'Maybe when I retire is when the critics and all that kind of stuff will end,' he said yesterday.
Puh-leeze."
But is ARod wrong?
You can't have it both ways, Lupica. You can't spend half your ink ripping Alex Rodriguez and then not own up to it.
Lupica is a constant critic of Alex Rodriguez. Lupica is constantly bringing up the '98 Yankees. There is little doubt in my mind that, if Alex Rodriguez wins three rings while playing for the Yankees, Lupica's first column will point out that Tino has four rings and Jeter has seven rings.
In other words, the benchmark is high and this stuff won't end until ARod retires. Just like he said.
"He isn't the only star Yankee who let his team down in the games I am talking about. No one in this city has ever thought of putting all of this on Rodriguez.
But it is hardly unreasonable to suggest that there were plenty of times over the past two postseasons when one swing from him, one Papi-like swing, could have changed everything for the Yankees."
Huh?
No one in this city is putting all of this on Rodriguez, except in this article which you are reading right now, where I'm putting all of of this on Rodriguez. No one in this city is putting all of this on Rodriguez, except for me, everytime I write one of my scintillating "Shootin' From the Lip" columns.
Lupica, at least be a man and stick with your guns. Don't back down just because ARod calls you out.
"The voters for the MVP award judge the candidates only on what they do during the regular season, not during the playoffs. Good thing. The last big postseason swing A-Rod made for the Yankees was a home run swing in Game 4 against the Red Sox, 2004 ALCS."
This is a curious statement by Lupica. Not the first time I've heard this idea bandied about. But let's think about this a little more carefully.
Does Lupica think that Ortiz's one postseason RBI would have propelled him into first place?
Or perhaps Vlad Guerrero's 1-for-ALCS would have propelled him all the way into first place?
In the American League, the only player who really helped his MVP candidacy significantly in the playoffs was Paul Konerko.
Who else? Jeter and Manny helped their causes somewhat. But it seems to me that nobody would have soared past ARod all the way into first place.
So, yeah, it's a good thing that the MVP voters don't include the playoffs while judging the MVP candidates. If they had, Paul Konerko probably would have finished ahead of Travis Hafner.
Monday, November 14, 2005
2005 AL MVP.
| Them | Us | |||
| Alex Rodriguez | 331 | Alex Rodriguez | 66 | |
| David Ortiz | 307 | David Ortiz | 44 | |
| Vladimir Guerrero | 196 | Manny Ramirez | 19 | |
| Manny Ramirez | 156 | Vladimir Guerrero | 10 | |
| Travis Hafner | 151 | Travis Hafner | 7 | |
| Paul Konerko | 128 | Michael Young | 5 | |
| Mark Teixeira | 106 | Mark Teixeira | 3 | |
| Gary Sheffield | 84 | Mariano Rivera | 2 | |
| Mariano Rivera | 59 | Gary Sheffield | 2 | |
| Derek Jeter | 23 | Miguel Tejada | 2 | |
| Michael Young | 20 | Paul Konerko | 1 | |
| Scott Podsednik | 15 | Scot Shields | 1 | |
| Johnny Damon | 12 | Ichiro Suzuki | 1 | |
| Hideki Matsui | 8 | |||
| Richie Sexson | 7 | |||
| Miguel Tejada | 7 | |||
| Chone Figgins | 6 | |||
| Victor Martinez | 5 | |||
| Jason Giambi | 5 | |||
| Brian Roberts | 5 | |||
| Jason Varitek | 4 | |||
| Eric Chavez | 4 | |||
| Huston Street | 3 | |||
| Bartolo Colon | 3 | |||
| Grady Sizemore | 3 | |||
| Bob Wickman | 2 | |||
| Jorge Cantu | 1 | |||
| Jose Contreras | 1 |
Eric Wilbur's Fuzzy Math.
Look, we've been through this 100,000 times, but I'm forced to question the core of Eric Wilbur's argument:
"In late-inning, close-game situations (seventh inning or later with the batting team ahead by one, tied or having the tying run on base, at bat or on deck), Ortiz came through with far greater efficiency than Rodriguez this past season, batting .346, driving in 33 runs, 11 home runs, and -- get this -- an .846 slugging percentage, almost double A-Rod’s in the same category. Rodriguez, meanwhile, drove in 12 and hit four home runs in late, close games for the Yankees.
Not to place too much emphasis on one set of numbers, but what that tells you is that when the game was on the line, when his team needed him the most, Ortiz came through at a rate about triple that of the Yankees third baseman. Triple."
Not to place too much emphasis on one set of numbers, but let's place too much emphasis on one set of numbers.
"Rate" is an interesting word.
When Wilbur says "rate," he only means homerun rate, which is a very ridiculous argument. I mean, Eric Wilbur is saying that a batter can only "come through" when he hits a homerun. Ortiz wins 11 to 4.
I can not find the actual close-and-late statistics, but I believe Ortiz was 27-for-78 and Alex Rodriguez was 22-for-75.
Which means Ortiz hit .346 in this particular cross-section and Rodriguez hit .293. That's a "rate." While I may not be too familiar with Eric Wilbur's artihmetic, I damn sure know that .346 is not "about triple" of .293.
Over the course of 162 games, Ortiz had 5 more "clutch" hits. (Not my definition of "clutch," Wilbur's definition of "clutch.") Big whoop. It doesn't seem like that big of a deal when the numbers are examined in detail.
I'm also left to wonder what Ortiz was doing in the first six innings. What was Ortiz's batting average when the game was close-and-early? Maybe the Yankee games weren't close when they got late because ARod had already given his team a big lead.
" 'We win games that other teams are going to lose because we have David in our lineup,' Red Sox manager Terry Francona said late last season after a game that featured yet more Ortiz heroics.
Most Valuable? Call me crazy, but that virtually defines the term, no?"
Well, gee. I think it's safe to say that the Yankees won many games that other teams would have lost because the Yankees have Alex Rodriguez in their lineup, no?
ARod played all 162 games and added value in all aspects of the game (besides pitching). I happen to think games can be won in the first six innings. I also happen to think games can be won on the field and on the basepaths.
"Far too many voters merely looked at the 'holy trinity' of batting average, home runs, and runs batted in, saw Rodriguez led in two of the categories, and checked his name off. Simple as that, yet again demeaning the award of what it was intended to be, handed out to the player who meant the most to his team. Is there any doubt on the Red Sox that was Ortiz?"
Huh?
In this case, the voters seem to have looked at the overall game. Hooray for the voters.
Besides, I could make a very strong case for Manny Ramirez as the most valuable player on the Red Sox. Manny had two less hrs, four less rbis, but played the outfield and even led the AL in outfield assists. I even believe Manny had a better close-and-late average, but don't quote me on that.
"Close-and-late" is something that crawled out of the woodwork when it was time to make a case against Alex Rodriguez.
Anybody remember Vlad's close-and-late average from last year? Didn't think so.
"On the Yankees, was Rodriguez really more valuable than Mariano Rivera? Hell, Aaron Small?"
Yes, and yes.
Just a word of advice, Eric. When you suggest that Aaron Small was a more deserving MVP candidate than ARod, you don't hurt ARod's credibility, you hurt your own credibility.
"In late-inning, close-game situations (seventh inning or later with the batting team ahead by one, tied or having the tying run on base, at bat or on deck), Ortiz came through with far greater efficiency than Rodriguez this past season, batting .346, driving in 33 runs, 11 home runs, and -- get this -- an .846 slugging percentage, almost double A-Rod’s in the same category. Rodriguez, meanwhile, drove in 12 and hit four home runs in late, close games for the Yankees.
Not to place too much emphasis on one set of numbers, but what that tells you is that when the game was on the line, when his team needed him the most, Ortiz came through at a rate about triple that of the Yankees third baseman. Triple."
Not to place too much emphasis on one set of numbers, but let's place too much emphasis on one set of numbers.
"Rate" is an interesting word.
When Wilbur says "rate," he only means homerun rate, which is a very ridiculous argument. I mean, Eric Wilbur is saying that a batter can only "come through" when he hits a homerun. Ortiz wins 11 to 4.
I can not find the actual close-and-late statistics, but I believe Ortiz was 27-for-78 and Alex Rodriguez was 22-for-75.
Which means Ortiz hit .346 in this particular cross-section and Rodriguez hit .293. That's a "rate." While I may not be too familiar with Eric Wilbur's artihmetic, I damn sure know that .346 is not "about triple" of .293.
Over the course of 162 games, Ortiz had 5 more "clutch" hits. (Not my definition of "clutch," Wilbur's definition of "clutch.") Big whoop. It doesn't seem like that big of a deal when the numbers are examined in detail.
I'm also left to wonder what Ortiz was doing in the first six innings. What was Ortiz's batting average when the game was close-and-early? Maybe the Yankee games weren't close when they got late because ARod had already given his team a big lead.
" 'We win games that other teams are going to lose because we have David in our lineup,' Red Sox manager Terry Francona said late last season after a game that featured yet more Ortiz heroics.
Most Valuable? Call me crazy, but that virtually defines the term, no?"
Well, gee. I think it's safe to say that the Yankees won many games that other teams would have lost because the Yankees have Alex Rodriguez in their lineup, no?
ARod played all 162 games and added value in all aspects of the game (besides pitching). I happen to think games can be won in the first six innings. I also happen to think games can be won on the field and on the basepaths.
"Far too many voters merely looked at the 'holy trinity' of batting average, home runs, and runs batted in, saw Rodriguez led in two of the categories, and checked his name off. Simple as that, yet again demeaning the award of what it was intended to be, handed out to the player who meant the most to his team. Is there any doubt on the Red Sox that was Ortiz?"
Huh?
In this case, the voters seem to have looked at the overall game. Hooray for the voters.
Besides, I could make a very strong case for Manny Ramirez as the most valuable player on the Red Sox. Manny had two less hrs, four less rbis, but played the outfield and even led the AL in outfield assists. I even believe Manny had a better close-and-late average, but don't quote me on that.
"Close-and-late" is something that crawled out of the woodwork when it was time to make a case against Alex Rodriguez.
Anybody remember Vlad's close-and-late average from last year? Didn't think so.
"On the Yankees, was Rodriguez really more valuable than Mariano Rivera? Hell, Aaron Small?"
Yes, and yes.
Just a word of advice, Eric. When you suggest that Aaron Small was a more deserving MVP candidate than ARod, you don't hurt ARod's credibility, you hurt your own credibility.
Friday, November 11, 2005
Yankees, Mets Doing Nothing.
According to the Daily News, the Yankees are swinging and missing because they failed to sign a mediocre centerfielder.
:-(
But at least the Daily News clarified an issue for Ken Rosenthal:
"Cashman half-jokingly mentioned to Rafael Furcal's agent, Adam Katz, that the free agent shortstop is so quick he'd probably be a great center fielder but clarified that statement to reporters yesterday, saying that the amount of money Furcal will command would be too much to pay for an 'audition' of a player at a position he's never played. 'We're not pursuing him to be a center fielder,' Cashman said."
Meanwhile, the Mets are off and running because they're talking to a mediocre catcher.
:-)
"General Manager Omar Minaya and aide Tony Bernazard were planning on leaving the GM meetings in Indian Wells, Calif., today and going to Yuma, Ariz., to meet face-to-face with free agent catcher Bengie Molina, according to sources at the meetings. It's believed it's more of a 'getting to know you' session. The Mets weren't expected to make an offer yet."
In summary, the Mets Rule and the Yankees Drool.
:-(
But at least the Daily News clarified an issue for Ken Rosenthal:
"Cashman half-jokingly mentioned to Rafael Furcal's agent, Adam Katz, that the free agent shortstop is so quick he'd probably be a great center fielder but clarified that statement to reporters yesterday, saying that the amount of money Furcal will command would be too much to pay for an 'audition' of a player at a position he's never played. 'We're not pursuing him to be a center fielder,' Cashman said."
Meanwhile, the Mets are off and running because they're talking to a mediocre catcher.
:-)
"General Manager Omar Minaya and aide Tony Bernazard were planning on leaving the GM meetings in Indian Wells, Calif., today and going to Yuma, Ariz., to meet face-to-face with free agent catcher Bengie Molina, according to sources at the meetings. It's believed it's more of a 'getting to know you' session. The Mets weren't expected to make an offer yet."
In summary, the Mets Rule and the Yankees Drool.
Cha-ching!
"He went 18-4 for the Astros in 2004, winning his last Cy Young Award, then became a free agent and re-signed with Houston for $18,000,022 -- the final $22 matching his uniform number."
... and the first $18,000,000 matching 1/4th of Houston's payroll.
... and the first $18,000,000 matching 1/4th of Houston's payroll.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
2005 NL Cy Young.
| Them | Us | ||
| Chris Carpenter | 132 | Chris Carpenter | 47 |
| Dontrelle Willis | 112 | Dontrelle Willis | 38 |
| Roger Clemens | 40 | Roger Clemens | 29 |
| Roy Oswalt | 2 | Pedro Martinez | 6 |
| Chad Cordero | 1 | Andy Pettitte | 6 |
| Andy Pettitte | 1 | Roy Oswalt | 5 |
| Derrick Turnbow | 3 | ||
| John Smoltz | 1 | ||
| Jorge Sosa | 1 | ||
| Billy Wagner | 1 | ||
Furcal is a decent hitter ... for a shortstop.
Why bother overpaying Furcal to play centerfield when there are plenty of proven centerfielders who can't hit? If the Yankees put Furcal in center, then they would instantly have the worst-hitting centerfielder this side of Willy Tavares.
What are Furcal's fielding credentials, anyway? Does he at least routinely shag fly balls with teammate Andruw Jones and joke about replacing him in center?:
"Furcal, 28, likely will rule nothing out at this early stage of free agency — he routinely shags fly balls with Braves teammate Andruw Jones and jokes about replacing him in center."
Phew.
In that case, perhaps he's the second coming of Paul Blair.
Are the Yankees serious?:
"Even if the Yankees aren't completely serious — and when are they not? — the high demand for Furcal almost certainly will enable him to land a five-year contract and possibly a six-year deal."
What rhetorical question am I being asked here?
"When are the Yankees not completely serious?"
Or "When are the Yankees not not completely serious?"
Let me try to figure out what he's trying to say:
1. The Yankees are not completely serious in their pursuit of Furcal.
2. The Yankees are always completely serious.
So, in answer to his rhetorical question, "When are the Yankees not completely serious," I'd have to say, "In their pursuit of Rafael Furcal." Because you just told me that. In the exact same sentence.
What are Furcal's fielding credentials, anyway? Does he at least routinely shag fly balls with teammate Andruw Jones and joke about replacing him in center?:
"Furcal, 28, likely will rule nothing out at this early stage of free agency — he routinely shags fly balls with Braves teammate Andruw Jones and jokes about replacing him in center."
Phew.
In that case, perhaps he's the second coming of Paul Blair.
Are the Yankees serious?:
"Even if the Yankees aren't completely serious — and when are they not? — the high demand for Furcal almost certainly will enable him to land a five-year contract and possibly a six-year deal."
What rhetorical question am I being asked here?
"When are the Yankees not completely serious?"
Or "When are the Yankees not not completely serious?"
Let me try to figure out what he's trying to say:
1. The Yankees are not completely serious in their pursuit of Furcal.
2. The Yankees are always completely serious.
So, in answer to his rhetorical question, "When are the Yankees not completely serious," I'd have to say, "In their pursuit of Rafael Furcal." Because you just told me that. In the exact same sentence.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
The Case Against Mariano.
Exhibit A in the case against Mariano Rivera for Cy Young is this Mike Vaccaro column. If you vote for Mariano Rivera, then you're agreeing with Mike Vaccaro. See my point?
Anyway, let's see if Vaccaro can make his case:
"It isn't just ridiculous, it's shameful. It's dreadful. It's woeful. And don't think for one second that the fact that Mariano Rivera plays for the New York Yankees wasn't held against him in certain quarters. So that makes it spiteful, too."
Journalistic tendencies for hyperbole aside, I doubt that very much. In my opinion, Mariano Rivera is one of the most universally popular and respected players on the planet. Even in the "certain quarters" where New York Yankees are despised and associated with arrogance and greed, Mariano Rivera is the graceful anti-Yankee.
"That's the crazy part: Colon wasn't even the best starting pitcher in the American League this year; Johann [sic] Santana was."
On my ballot, the battle for first place was between Colon and Santana. I leaned towards Colon simply for the win-loss record.
Is my opinion ridiculous, shameful, dreadful, woeful? No.
Santana's superior ERA and innings pitched simply weren't pronounced enough to sway me. I don't care too much about strikeouts. If strikeouts really matter, then Randy Johnson should have been a candidate.
Even if Colon's 21 wins are largely a product of luck and circumstance, I'm willing to grant the Cy Young Award to Mr. Lucky.
Let's flip Vaccaro's argument on its head: Was Mariano the best reliever in the American League in 2005?
I think he was, but you're also voting for a reliever who blew 4 saves out of 47. Excellent, but not extraordinary compared to the elite relievers in the AL in 2005 or compared to the historically great seasons by relief pitchers.
Mariano wasn't first in the league in saves, he was third.
Mariano pitched 78 innings, which is a lot for a reliever, but it's nowhere near Colon's 220+.
Yeah, I absolutely think 223 innings at 3.48 ERA is more valuable than 78 innings at 1.38 ERA. That's why I automatically put relievers at a disadvantage when I'm analyzing the Cy Young candidates.
So, Was Mariano really snubbed? George King basically disproves his own claim:
"The last AL reliever to win the Cy Young was Dennis Eckersley in 1992. Not even the White Sox's Bobby Thigpen's record 57 saves in 1990 was good enough for the voters who selected Oakland's Bob Welch for his 27-6 ledger and 2.95 ERA.
It was the highest Rivera has finished in the Cy Young voting."
Mariano came in second. It's a great honor for a great year. It's not a snub.
Anyway, let's see if Vaccaro can make his case:
"It isn't just ridiculous, it's shameful. It's dreadful. It's woeful. And don't think for one second that the fact that Mariano Rivera plays for the New York Yankees wasn't held against him in certain quarters. So that makes it spiteful, too."
Journalistic tendencies for hyperbole aside, I doubt that very much. In my opinion, Mariano Rivera is one of the most universally popular and respected players on the planet. Even in the "certain quarters" where New York Yankees are despised and associated with arrogance and greed, Mariano Rivera is the graceful anti-Yankee.
"That's the crazy part: Colon wasn't even the best starting pitcher in the American League this year; Johann [sic] Santana was."
On my ballot, the battle for first place was between Colon and Santana. I leaned towards Colon simply for the win-loss record.
Is my opinion ridiculous, shameful, dreadful, woeful? No.
Santana's superior ERA and innings pitched simply weren't pronounced enough to sway me. I don't care too much about strikeouts. If strikeouts really matter, then Randy Johnson should have been a candidate.
Even if Colon's 21 wins are largely a product of luck and circumstance, I'm willing to grant the Cy Young Award to Mr. Lucky.
Let's flip Vaccaro's argument on its head: Was Mariano the best reliever in the American League in 2005?
I think he was, but you're also voting for a reliever who blew 4 saves out of 47. Excellent, but not extraordinary compared to the elite relievers in the AL in 2005 or compared to the historically great seasons by relief pitchers.
Mariano wasn't first in the league in saves, he was third.
Mariano pitched 78 innings, which is a lot for a reliever, but it's nowhere near Colon's 220+.
Yeah, I absolutely think 223 innings at 3.48 ERA is more valuable than 78 innings at 1.38 ERA. That's why I automatically put relievers at a disadvantage when I'm analyzing the Cy Young candidates.
So, Was Mariano really snubbed? George King basically disproves his own claim:
"The last AL reliever to win the Cy Young was Dennis Eckersley in 1992. Not even the White Sox's Bobby Thigpen's record 57 saves in 1990 was good enough for the voters who selected Oakland's Bob Welch for his 27-6 ledger and 2.95 ERA.
It was the highest Rivera has finished in the Cy Young voting."
Mariano came in second. It's a great honor for a great year. It's not a snub.
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
2005 AL Cy Young.
Them Us Bartolo Colon 118 Bartolo Colon 37 Mariano Rivera 68 Johan Santana 35 Johan Santana 51 Mariano Rivera 31 Cliff Lee 8 Mark Buehrle 11 Mark Buehrle 5 Randy Johnson 5 Jon Garland 1 Cliff Lee 4 Kevin Millwood 1 Jon Garland 3 John Lackey 3 Kevin Millwood 2 Joe Nathan 1 Francisco Rodriguez 1
Thursday, November 03, 2005
Jim Baumbach Struggles With Single-Digit Numbers.
"In spring training, after countless Red Sox players bombarded him with insults about not being a 'true Yankee,' he bit his lip, refusing to engage in a war of words."
1) Schilling.
2) Nixon.
3) Varitek.
That's three.
Three is a very big number, but it's still countable.
I may have even forgotten a few Red Sox players who bombarded ARod with insults. But even If I did, the number is still countable.
The trick is to use all the fingers on both hands.
1) Schilling.
2) Nixon.
3) Varitek.
That's three.
Three is a very big number, but it's still countable.
I may have even forgotten a few Red Sox players who bombarded ARod with insults. But even If I did, the number is still countable.
The trick is to use all the fingers on both hands.
'Tis better to have loved and lost than to have ne'er loved at all.
You know, I can be pretty tough on Mike Lupica. But I'm still a human being who can experience sympathy and compassion. I'm practically moved to tears when a man has to say goodbye to the person he loves the most.
But then, pulling me out of my empathetic funk, Lupica has to go and insult my intelligence:
"We were hoping (Epstein) might show up and pull a Macha," he said.
He was talking about Ken Macha, the A's manager, who said he was leaving the A's after the season and then changed his mind a few days later and came back.
Just like everybody else, I was confused by the "Macha" reference. I naturally assumed the Dirt Dog at the tavern was referring to the Irish War goddess.
But he was actually referring to Ken Macha. Of course! The manager of the Oakland A's. This whole time, we were talking about baseball.
But then, pulling me out of my empathetic funk, Lupica has to go and insult my intelligence:
"We were hoping (Epstein) might show up and pull a Macha," he said.
He was talking about Ken Macha, the A's manager, who said he was leaving the A's after the season and then changed his mind a few days later and came back.
Just like everybody else, I was confused by the "Macha" reference. I naturally assumed the Dirt Dog at the tavern was referring to the Irish War goddess.
But he was actually referring to Ken Macha. Of course! The manager of the Oakland A's. This whole time, we were talking about baseball.
NofanofYanksfanofArod13
This culled from a dubious Yankee message boars at Yesnetwork.com:
"To Yankees fans who drool over the vision of Torii Hunter in pinstripes, take a step back. Remember how much Twins general manager Terry Ryan received from the Yankees for Chuck Knoblauch nearly eight years ago. Then consider that Hunter is far more popular than Knoblauch was, both with the fans and in his own clubhouse."
YanksfanofArod13
It's not a major concern, but it seems to be a persistent myth: What did the Twins receive from the Yankees for Chuck Knoblauch nearly eight years ago?
The Twins received Brian Buchanan, Cristian Guzman, Eric Milton, Danny Mota, and cash.
Buchanan and Mota are not worth mentioning.
Cristian Guzman stinks and Eric Milton stinks. Links are provided in case you wish to independently verify this.
Okay, maybe Milton doesn't flat-out stink, but his career stats are 79-72, 4.99 ERA. Shrug.
As for cash, I'm not sure how much cash the Yankees gave up. But I must concede, cash is good.
"To Yankees fans who drool over the vision of Torii Hunter in pinstripes, take a step back. Remember how much Twins general manager Terry Ryan received from the Yankees for Chuck Knoblauch nearly eight years ago. Then consider that Hunter is far more popular than Knoblauch was, both with the fans and in his own clubhouse."
YanksfanofArod13
It's not a major concern, but it seems to be a persistent myth: What did the Twins receive from the Yankees for Chuck Knoblauch nearly eight years ago?
The Twins received Brian Buchanan, Cristian Guzman, Eric Milton, Danny Mota, and cash.
Buchanan and Mota are not worth mentioning.
Cristian Guzman stinks and Eric Milton stinks. Links are provided in case you wish to independently verify this.
Okay, maybe Milton doesn't flat-out stink, but his career stats are 79-72, 4.99 ERA. Shrug.
As for cash, I'm not sure how much cash the Yankees gave up. But I must concede, cash is good.
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
And I thought the 2004 Red Sox were a bad choice.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I present Frank Lidz's choice for 2005 Sportsmen of the Year: Jason Giambi.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Full Disclosure.
When I claimed the Yankees spent less than $100 million on payroll in 2000, I used USA Today's salary database as my source. I'm not quite sure how they figure this out. I'm not sure if it's an Opening Day point-in-time snapshot or if it's an attempt to list every single player the Yankees paid at any time during the season. (David Justice is listed as $7 million on the Indians payroll, but not included on the the Yankees payroll.)
I interpreted it as the Yankees spent $93 million for the entire year. It's quite possible that the Yankees added salary in the second half and the playoff roster actually represented a team payroll of more than $100 million per year. (Who paid David Justice?)
It's also unclear to me how they handle players who shuttle back and forth to Columbus or players who change rosters halway through the season.
So, maybe it was me who was misleading the doting public.
In case you hadn't noticed, I don't personally believe Lupica deserves the benefit of the doubt. I truly believe when he drops a line like that, he is careful with his wording and he is intentionally suggesting that the Yankees vastly oustpent the competition during the '96-'00 run and they often spent over $100 million.
It's really Lupica's use of language that I object to the most. It's a Liar's Language. It's like saying, "The Cubs haven't won the World Series since 1978," which is certainly accurate, but also purposefully misleading.
I interpreted it as the Yankees spent $93 million for the entire year. It's quite possible that the Yankees added salary in the second half and the playoff roster actually represented a team payroll of more than $100 million per year. (Who paid David Justice?)
It's also unclear to me how they handle players who shuttle back and forth to Columbus or players who change rosters halway through the season.
So, maybe it was me who was misleading the doting public.
In case you hadn't noticed, I don't personally believe Lupica deserves the benefit of the doubt. I truly believe when he drops a line like that, he is careful with his wording and he is intentionally suggesting that the Yankees vastly oustpent the competition during the '96-'00 run and they often spent over $100 million.
It's really Lupica's use of language that I object to the most. It's a Liar's Language. It's like saying, "The Cubs haven't won the World Series since 1978," which is certainly accurate, but also purposefully misleading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)