He wasn't asking if they took Enzyte.

Curt "Mr. Too Much Information" Schilling strikes again:

"I'm not going to name any one player, but I think that a lot of us looked around. There's no mystery. We all get naked with each other. There were some changes in the game last year from a physical standpoint."

Let's do the time warp again.

It's Spring Training and there is not much to talk about. Why not write a column about Robinson Cano? Yankee fans don't know too much about this guy. The last I'd heard of him, he was wearing a knit cap in an ice cream shop. I think Robinson Cano is a pretty good choice for a topic of discussion.

Observationally, I also believe that Cano made way too many fielding errors last year and simply does not seem like a disciplined player, in the field or at the plate. Get in front of the ball. Get the bunt down. Yeah, he does kind of remind me of Alfonso Soriano in that regard. What do you know? I completely agree with Larry Brooks.

This could be the best Larry Brooks article ever!

Maybe Larry Brooks can clarify the situation even further. Maybe Larry Brooks can use a metaphor or two to crystallize what I've been thinking about Robinson Cano. You can do it, Larry. You're a professional writer:

"But much like the Hubbell Gardner character in 'The Way We Were,' it sure did look as if it came too easy to him. Much like Evonne Goolagong Cawley, the great Australian tennis champion of the 70's who won seven grand slam titles when it appeared as if she had the skill to have taken twice as many, Cano seemed to suffer from 'walkabouts' in the field; unaccountable lapses in concentration that explain his 17 errors, second-most to Alfonso Soriano among AL second basemen."

What in the name of all that is Holy was that?

The Hubbell Gardner character? Evonne Goolagong Cawley, a female tennis champion of the "70's" [sic].?

Who the heck is Hubbell Gardner? Who the heck is Evonne Goolagong Cawley?

It's 2006 and you're writing an article in a New York City newspaper and you're making a reference to Evonne Goolagong Cawley while discussing the second baseman for the Yankees.

I love you, Larry Brooks.

Hey Lupica, stop whining!

Which is the most increasingly tiring theme?:

• ARod's whining?
• Mike Lupica whining about ARod's whining?
• Felz whining about Mike Lupica's whining about ARod's whining?

I don't personally even think ARod's comments qualify as whining. His observations seem quite clear-headed and self-aware. I haven't found any who can attack what he's saying, they just attack who's saying it.

"ARod needs to shut up." In America, ARod doesn't need to do anything. The only thing ARod needs to do is keep hitting those dingers.

Mike Lupica wants to control Alex Rodriguez. Mike Lupica doesn't just want to write negative articles about Alex Rodriguez, he wants Alex Rodriguez to fear the criticism. He wants Alex Rodriguez to think about it every time he steps into the batter's box. Mike Lupica actually believes that he can increase the pressure on Alex Rodriguez and thereby affect Alex Rodriguez's performance on the baseball field. Mike Lupica thinks his oh-so-witty wordplay in a "Shootin' From the Lip" column is a Sworld of Damocles hanging over the head of every NY-area professional athlete.

It's a nice theory, but there seems to be a hole: Alex Rodriguez hit .321 with 48 homeruns last year.

ARod won the MVP, even though Mike Lupica thought David Ortiz deserved it. ARod hit more homeruns in a single season than any American League third basemen ever (I think). ARod hit more homeruns in a single season than any Yankee right-handed batter ever.

I'm forced to wonder: If this is how ARod performs when he's stultified by the NY negativity and pressure, then how many homeruns would he have hit if he was more relaxed and self-actualized? Sixty? Eighty? One hundred?

Whatever. Nobody really cares what ARod talks about off the field or how happy he is. ARod said he does his talking with his bat, and he sure does.

Of course, the next article you read will criticize ARod, asking him to be more forthright with the press.

Now for some more Fun with Archives.

In his current article, Lupica said ARod is the most productive Yankee since Ruth and Gehrig. Lupica also said that ARod might hit 800 homeruns in his career.

I'm reminded of Lupica's article from August 29, 2005 (easily accessible through a convenient blogger search).

It's an embarrassing article in retrospect, considering how badly the Mets collapsed in the stretch run of 2005.

But I'm intrigued by this particular prediction: "In this time in New York, it will be something different. Maybe Terry Cashman can find some music for this debate: About which left side of the infield you would rather have, Wright and Reyes or Alex Rodriguez and Derek Jeter. For now, the answer still has to be A-Rod and Jeter. For now. But not for much longer."

So, Alex Rodriguez might hit 800 homeruns and Alex Rodriguez is the best Yankee since Ruth and Gehrig.

At the same time, David Wright's ability is about to pass Alex Rodriguez's. Any day now.

Just how good does Mike Lupica think David Wright is? Is David Wright better than Babe Ruth? Is David Wright going to hit 900 homeruns?

Jon Heyman Continues One-Man Campaign Against Gary Sheffield.

Jon Heyman talks tough regarding Gary Sheffield's contract negotiations:

" 'Don't test me,' Sheffield warned the other day.

I say, fine, don't test him. Trade him."

No, Heyman is not kidding. Heyman seriously thinks the Yankees should trade Gary Sheffield. His proposal is that the Yankees trade Sheffield to the Red Sox for Manny Ramirez.


"If either team can get past the hatred between them and consider the logic, they'll realize how much sense this makes.

With Ramirez, the Yankees get a New Yorker, the nicer guy, and what's more, the better hitter. Sheffield is supremely talented, but as one American League scout pointed out, 'As a clutch hitter, Sheffield's not even in the same league as Manny Ramirez.' "

So why would the Red Sox trade Manny Ramirez to the Yankees? So the Yankees could get better and more clutch?


"The Red Sox, surely tiring of trying to appease Ramirez, would get a superb middle-of-the-order hitter."

Okay, so they're tired of trying to appease Ramirez. That's their motivation for trading him.

But you just said that Manny was "nicer" than Sheffield.

You also just attacked Sheffield's character: "And judging from history, the possibilities range from Sheffield publicly ripping teammates' salaries (he did that in Los Angeles) to purposely throwing balls away (that was in Milwaukee)."


Heyman knows this deal won't happen:

"Until further notice, this trade is about as likely to happen as George Steinbrenner showing up on a cool day without a white turtleneck. Maybe it simply makes too much sense."

No, it doesn't make any sense. It really, really, really, really doesn't make sense.


Yankee fans and teammates are not "sick of Sheffield." Only Jon Heyman is "sick of Sheffield."

Heyman hasn't liked Sheffield from day one. I'm not sure why. Maybe Heyman wanted the Yankees to get Guerrero instead and he can't admit he was wrong about Sheffield.

I suppose it's okay for a writer to personally dislike a player. But I also think it's a problem when it affects the writer's judgement. The writer's ability to think coherently may be affected. The writer may present a skewed view of the player's abilities.

Next thing you know, you're throwing darts at Gary Sheffield posters and proposing cuckoo trades.

Randolph Guarantees Something or Other.

"New York Mets manager Willie Randolph predicted his team is embarking on a 'special season.'

'I say special because that can mean a lot of things in a lot of different ways,' he said Thursday, when the Mets held their first full-squad workout of spring training."

Yeah, I know. I was thinking the same thing.

Yankees worst team in the Universe.

No, Eric Wilbur didn't really say the Yankees are that bad. He even said that the Yankees will probably win the AL East in 2006. But since nobody seems to understand George Steinbrenner's use of colloquialisms, I may as well exploit the concept.

Wilbur's certainly not the only one who hangs on every word that drops out of Steinbrenner's mouth. The Daily News actually thought that Steinbrenner's comments were worthy of a "Breaking News" designation. Breaking News! George Steinbrenner predicts Yankees will win the World Series this year!

Gee, I kinda thought Steinbrenner predicted a World Series victory about 100 times every year.


If Eric Wilbur is going to question George Steinbrenner's mental health, then Wilbur should not write a sentence like this:

"Nothing against the James Cameron Yankees, who ought to slug their way to plenty of 10-9 wins, but they are about as sure a thing as it is predicting the day that darned lovable Ziggy finally blows and verbally berates the nearest target with a string of expletives usually reserved for a Death Row record."

I have no idea what that means, but it seems to be an attempt to mesh three bizarre pop culture references in one pointless sentence.

James Cameron, the movie director? I don't get it. Why are these the James Cameron Yankees? Because their offense is, like, "titanic"? Ummm ... okay.

Ziggy, the character from the Sunday comics? Predicting the day that Ziggy finally blows and verbally berates the nearest target? With a string of expletives usually reserved for a Death Row record? Does Eric Wilbur predict the day that Ziggy finally blows and verbally berates the nearest target? Cool. Can I get in? I put $20 on March 30th, 2009.

I'm figuring that the 2006 Yankees are not a sure thing. Because it's unlikely that Ziggy -- who is a character from the Sunday comics -- and therefore devoid of free will -- will suddenly snap and berate the nearest target with a string of expletives usually reserved for a Death Row record.

But at least Wilbur wrote that entire sentence with "nothing against the Yankees." No offense taken, Mr. Wilbur, because I have no idea what you just said.

Let me try to clarify without pointlessly linking James Cameron to Ziggy to Death Row Records. Ahem: "Despite a potent offense, the Yankees are hardly a sure thing to win the World Series."

That sentence was cleaner and more precise.

That sentence was as clean as the skin under Phoebe Cates's fingernails after an afternoon of swimming in Judge Reinhold's chlorine-laden pool and it was as precise as a parry from Prince Valiant's sword.

Okay, I apologize. I'm sure I could do better, but it's late.

That sentence was as precise as a Tom Scholz power chord playing on your eight-track in your cherry red camaro at the exact moment you're unhooking your girlfriend's bra and it was as clean as Garfield's bowl after a feeding frenzy.

Nah. That's weak.

Why don't we just move on to the Wilbur content, since his style is so maddening.


First of all, George Steinbrenner can not guarantee a Yankee World Series title. Everybody needs to get over it. Only God can guarantee anything, and only if God really cares about the outcomes of major league baseball games.

It seems as if we have this pointless discussion every year. The Yankees can not guarantee a World Series victory. But neither can the White Sox, the Red Sox, the Cardinals, or anybody else.

If I was to put percentages on the 2006 Yankees' chances of winning the World Series, I'd probably say about 10%. Which might be higher than any other team. Maybe I'd give the White Sox and the Cardinals 11% or 12%. But I've only got 100 percentage points to go around and I've already used 36 of them on just 3 teams.

Don't take Steinbrenner's predictions seriously. It's just effluvia for the press or silly attempts to inspire the Yankee players.


Ultimately, Wilbur predicts the Yankees will win the AL East, but lose to the White Sox in the playoffs:

"Instead, here is what Steinbrenner will get for $200 million: a likely AL East division winner that as currently constituted is vastly inferior to the Chicago White Sox, a team brimming with -- what do you know -- great pitching. If you can't guarantee what you're going to get out of guys like Wang, Chacon, Pavano, Small, Wright, Johnson, and Mussina, you can't possibly go around believing a world title is in your definitive future."

The Yankees are hardly vastly inferior to the Chicago White Sox. What, the Yankees, as currently constituted, couldn't possibly manage to beat the White Sox in a seven-game playoff series? That's total nonsense.

Wilbur has already pointed out that the Yankees have a superior lineup and bullpen. (I think he said the Yankees had a better bullpen, I'm not sure if he was talking about Kyle Farnsworth or just making a pointless allusion to Farnsworth Bentley.) The White Sox starting staff is probably better than the Yankee starting staff, but that's not a guarantee, either.

If Mussina is overrated (I'll "guarantee" right now that Mussina wins more than 12 games) and Pavano and Wright are perennial underachivers, then guess what? The same can be said for the pitchers on the White Sox. "Perennial underachievers" is the perfect description for Jose Contreras and Javier Vazquez. Freddy Garcia has been overrated for many years.

Personally, I trust 42-year-old Randy Johnson much more than I trust 14-year-old Bobby Jenks, who seems like the second coming of Jeff Zimmerman.

My conclusion is that I can not guarantee a 2006 World Series victory for the White Sox. Therefore, they suck.

Sic.

Larry Brooks wrote an article about the Mets' situation at second base. I didn't read the article too carefully. It's hard to take the article seriously. While I'm not expecting Edward R. Murrow, I think one of the first rules of reporting is to spell the subject's name right. That's just pathetic.

At least spell the name right. Start there.

Because now when you tell me Brett [sic] Boone is 37 years old, I'm thinking he might be 27 years old or 47 years old. Maybe Brett [sic] Boone is trying out for first base for the Twins rather than second base for the Mets.

The New York Post has the professional sheen of my "A Wizard Of Earthsea" book report I wrote in fourth grade using magic marker and construction paper. Come to think of it, my book report was far more professional.

Ambassador at extra-large.

The Chinese Water Torture is Consistent.

The weather in Hell is consistent.

The U.S. men's Olympic hockey team is consistent.

The Detroit Lions are consistent.

Interest payments on your credit cards are consistent.

William McGonagall was a consistent poet.

Alison and Peter Smithson were consistent architects.

Rain Man consistently watches The People's Court.

Similarly, Tony Womack is proud of his consistency as a baseball player:

"The only thing that makes me mad is it messes up my baseball card," Womack said. "I was consistent for a long time and then that comes up."

Who's in charge around here?

"Yet, the manager is dropping hints that Wright will bat fifth, with Paul Lo Duca in the two hole and Carlos Beltran behind him in the No. 3 spot."

Felz is pleased.

Felz might have a lot to write about next season.

Felz will have a big smile on his face every time Loduca grounds out to end the game while Wright is on triple deck.

" 'I guess I'm a show-me guy, I want to see that David can keep making the adjustments,' Randolph said Monday, leaving yet another clue. Fair enough, he doesn't want to rush the kid. But anyone who saw Wright tear up the National League after the All-Star break last year -- batting .333 with 16 homers in 273 at-bats -- would agree he became the Mets' greatest all-around threat."

This show-me attitude probably explains Randolph's unwillingness to just hand overthe leadoff spot to a young player like Reyes.

"Of course, batting Wright third effectively would crown him as the Mets' crown jewel, effectively demoting Beltran. That's probably too great of an admission for Randolph to make, and politically, a nearly impossible move for a team that has $119 million invested in the center fielder."

This is a "nearly impossible move"? It's simple. Before the game, when you make out the lineup card, you put Carlos Beltran in the #2 spot and you put David Wright in the #3 spot. If anybody is dumb enough to question the decision, tell them to look at the stats.

"Wright sounds convincing, but egos and organizational obstacles aside, the stats suggest not only is Wright better suited than Beltran to hit third, but Beltran is a better choice than Lo Duca to bat second."

No kidding.

If Randolph is unwilling to put the best lineup out there because of egos and organizational obstacles -- whatever that means -- then I am forced to wonder what Randolph is being paid to do.

Wishy Washy Wojciechowski.

I was quite taken aback when I first read this article which criticized Sammy Sosa for retiring.

The article concludes with an impassioned plea for Sammy Sosa, and seemingly all pro athletes, to continue attempting to play until the bitter end, even if they're long past their glory days:

"He doesn't understand there is no dishonor in trying and failing. The dishonor comes when you don't try at all."

Okay, whatever you say.

I personally think pro athletes should do whatever they want to. Retire tomorrow at the peak of your skills or play as long as you can, at any level, for any amount of money. I have equal respect for Barry Sanders and Rickey Henderson. It's a free country.

But I also thought something seemed fishy.

Pro athletes are routinely criticized for staying past their welcome and Ruining our Collective Memories. We want Willie Mays to always catch the fly ball in the '51 World Series rather than eking out infield hits in the '73 World Series.

"Fie upon thee, Michael Jordan! You should have ended with the jumpshot that beat the Jazz and elevated my own mundane life. Instead, as I'm forced to watch you stumble to a mere 20 points per game, I am forced to face my own mortality. Oh, the fecundity of youth fades from my grasp!"

Or something to that effect.

Wojciechowski criticized Sosa for putting pride ahead of a last-ditch money grab? Gee, I would have figured that Sosa already had enough money and the last thing he needs to do is embarrass himself or the Washington Nationals. I mean, he's only being offered a non-guaranteed contract that's barely league minimum. Sheesh. How the mighty have fallen.

But, hey. If he wants to play in the minors and try to find his stroke, why not?

Point being, this seemed like an odd opinion. I figured if I searched the ESPN archives, I could find puh-lenty of examples where Wojciechowski criticized a pro athlete for not retiring. But I never did search the archives.

I didn't have to.

Amazingly enough, Wojciechowski waits a whole three days before writing that contradictory article: "Barry should spare us all and go away now."

Could this possibly have been written by the same author?:

"So Barry Bonds is going to hang up his cleats and violin after this season, eh? Good for him. Good for us.

Not since Reggie Jackson and the 'magnificence of me' days has there been a player more tone deaf when it comes to understanding how tiresome his martyr act has become.

As for getting out, the sooner the better works for me."

Wow. But at least Bonds is honorable enough to try.

Joel Sherman breaks ranks.

Mike Lupica, George King, and Buster Olney are going to avoid eye contact with Joel Sherman from now on:

"You are possibly watching the greatest player you will ever see. If Barry Bonds plays long enough to break Hank Aaron's homer record, he is likely just borrowing it. A-Rod has the most homers ever through his age-29 season at 429 - 87 more than Aaron had and 170 more than Bonds. He has 1,901 hits, fourth most for his age. A-Rod has a decent chance of being the first 800-homer, 4,000-hit man, in part because of his durability."

Well, I don't know about 800 hrs and 4,000 hits, but keep going ...

"A-Rod actually has gained a reputation as the hardest working Yankee. He is not the bad free-throw shooter, who nevertheless keeps working on his dunks. Rodriguez thought he was having trouble grasping the nuances of the slow roller at third base, so he contacted Robin Ventura to dissect the play because he thought Ventura made it best. He recognizes his difficulties on pop ups and has spent hours before the regular spring training workouts the past two years having balls shot in the air so he can practice.

Rodriguez is a baseball gym rat. He arrives early, stays late. He is relentless in trying new theories, workouts and psychological insights to improve. As his friend, bullpen catcher Mike Borzello, said, 'if he thinks you are working out five hours, he will work out six. He wants to see all the new equipment. He takes pride in every element of the game. He wants to be the best baserunner. He wants to be the best baseball player. He is not just competing with Barry Bonds and Albert Pujols. He is competing against Babe Ruth.'

And A-Rod actually knows who Babe Ruth is. His passion for baseball is undeniable. Most players would have difficulty naming all their teammates. Rodriguez can break down the strengths and weaknesses of the Padres' roster. He can analyze strategy as if channeling Don Zimmer. His baseball IQ is even more impressive than his slugging percentage.

'After a game you will be talking to him and he will be telling you about the pitch sequence to (Hideki) Matsui in the second inning,' Al Leiter said. 'That is impressive. I am 40 and have been in the game for 22 years, and I don't know if I have ever seen anyone with his enthusiasm for the game.' "

It's kind of amazing that the NY press is so into its own shtick that it usually refuses to state the obvious:

"On the day of A-Rod's first Yankee workout of spring 2006, however, it felt like the right time to remember that there is a heck of a lot more to praise about Alex Rodriguez than criticize."

Vacillation Agitation.

Speaking of vacillation, it looks like Bernie Williams will vacillate between all three outfield spots:

"Williams is set to play for Puerto Rico in the WBC. The former starting center fielder could play all three outfield spots and DH on that squad, much like he will could do during the regular season.

'It will probably be a more complicated role than an everyday player,' Williams said."

Just to be sure, I looked up the word "complicated" in the dictionary.

Left, center, and right. Those are the three possible outfield positions. Bernie is already used to center, so the additional complications are left and right.

Oh, and designated hitter, where you sit on the bench most of the game.

Sounds like rocket science.


Also, just to be sure, I looked up Puerto Rico. Sure enoough, it is a commonwealth of the United States.

Talk about vacillation. One day, Puerto Rico is a commonwealth of America, and the next day it's a whole separate country. Make up your mind, Puerto Rico!

So I heard a rumor ...

... that Willie Randolph was considering a lineup with Paul Loduca batting second. It didn't seem possible, but a search on the Internet revealed at least one article that suggested its possibility:

"A hitter who uses the entire field, Lo Duca also could end up batting second behind speedy Jose Reyes, who led the NL with 60 stolen bases in 2005."

Now, this outrageous idea might just be a rumor. I'm not sure if Randolph ever suggested this or if it's just hot stove league slow news day nonsense.

While Randolph is pushing the Mets' reliance on speed, and maybe there's a reason to bat Reyes first since he's so fast on the basepaths, the Reyes-LoDuca 1-2 punch would feature the two worst offensive players on the entire team batting first and second, thereby ensuring that they get the most plate appearances of any players on the team.

While Willie may be dreaming dream of the Glory Days when he and Rickey Henderson batted 1-2 for the Yankees, there is a difference: Rickey and Willie could hit.

Reyes is a leadoff hitter whose on-base% last year was .300 and whose lifetime on-base% is .303. Paul LoDuca's on-base% last year was .334 and his liftetime on-base% is .339.

1-2? They should be batting 7-8.


Are the NY baseball managers just yanking our chains? I mean, the other day Randolph says that the Mets ought to make the playoffs with ther $120-or-so million payroll ... as long as Pedro is healthy.

If I'm reading too much into it, then perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but it seems to me that he's giving his $100 million team an out. If Pedro is hurt, then you don't expect to even win a wild card? Maybe that's not what he meant, but that's how I took it.

"No excuses, except for the following excuses."

Then, after hearing this, all the NY papers seem to think Randolph set high expectations. This is a bold claim. As long as Pedro isn't hurt, I expect our $100 million team to hold off the Brewers and win the wild card. Because I'm kooky optimistic like that.


Did Randolph seriously have to be reminded that Steve Trachsel is part of his rotation?

If Torre seriously puzzled by his starting rotation options and also his starting lineup options?

Can't be. They're just kidding, right? They're just shooting the breeze with the press, right?

Right?

Darren Daulton Provides Off-Season Entertainment.

"I've been thrown in jail five or six times," Daulton says from his home in Tampa. "Nicole thinks I'm crazy. She blames everything on drugs and drinking. But I don't take drugs and I'm not a drunk. Nicole just doesn't understand metaphysics."

Honey, that wasn't me who was drinking and got thrown in jail. It was just one of my planes of existence.


"I didn't have my first out-of-body experience until I was 35," he says. Curiously, the epiphany occurred at one of baseball's holiest shrines -- Wrigley Field. "I hit a line-drive just inside the third base line to help win a game," he recalls. "The strange thing was I didn't hit that ball. I never hit balls inside the third base line!"

He left the ballpark in tears. "I told my wife, 'It wasn't me who swung that bat! It wasn't me!'" he says. "She thought I was Looney Tunes."


"Reality is created and guarded by numeric patterns that overlap and awaken human consciousness, like a giant matrix or hologram," writes the .245 lifetime hitter. "They are created by sacred geometry -- numbers, the language of the universe, codes of awakening -- such as 11:11, which represent twin strands of DNA about to return to balance. Eleven equals BALANCE."


During the Dutch Enlightenment, No. 11 has been as significant as it was in Spinal Tap. "I'll wake up at night and look at the clock and it's 11:11," he says. "I'll turn on the TV and see a baseball game tied at 11 in the 11th inning. I'll look out the window and see a car passing with 1111 on the license plate. The car will turn into a driveway with 1111 on the mailbox."


Earth, Daulton believes, is entering a quadrant of space in which the "vibrational energy" will increase dramatically. "The Mayan calendar stops at Dec. 21, 2012 -- the date the Mayans believed the world would end," he says. "On that day, at 11:11 a.m. Greenwich Mean Time, those who are ready to ascend will vanish from this plane of existence, like the crew of the Enterprise in Star Trek."

Dan Marino is the Best Quarterback Ever.

Or, "Darren really does have too much time on his hands."

Or, "Take Mattingly's monument out of Monument Park because Yogi's monument keeps laughing at it."

Or, "That's baseball for ya!"

Or, "Barry Bonds doesn't pitch."


While climbing out from under the oeuvre of sportswriting opinion that is expressing amazement and faux outrage because Alex Rodriguez has not won a World Series after ten seasons in the big leagues, I started to think of a team.

A team of current players only.

A team full o' Chokers and Losers.

I now present the Chokerville Losers, along with number of rings they've won in their careers (token rings not included):

Starting Lineup

c - Mike Piazza (0)
1b - Frank Thomas (0)
2b - Craig Biggio (0)
3b - Alex Rodriguez (0)
ss - Nomar Garciaparra (0)
lf - Barry Bonds (0)
cf- Ken Griffey Jr. (0)
rf - Sammy Sosa (0)
dh - Jeff Bagwell (0)

Bench

Jim Edmonds (0)
Jeff Kent (0)
Rafael Palmeiro (0)
Ivan Rodriguez (1)
Miguel Tejada (0)
Jim Thome (0)
Omar Vizquel (0)

Starting Pitchers

Roger Clemens (2)
Tom Glavine (1)
Randy Johnson (1)
Greg Maddux (1)
Pedro Martinez (1)

Bullpen

Roberto Hernandez (0)
Trevor Hoffman (0)
John Smoltz (1)
Billy Wagner (0)


Purty good team, actually. I even left quite a few sluggers off the team just to make sure I had some decent backup infielders and a bullpen, which I'll never need to use.

My team has accumulated (approximately) 17 MVPs, 22 Cy Young Awards, and 168 All Star selections.

My team has at least 19 Hall of Famers out of 25 players. Even more than the '98 Yankees.

Yet, in (approximately) 349 cumulative seasons, my team has only won 8 Championship rings. That's only 4 more rings than Chuck Knoblauch won all by himself.


Is my team cherry picked? Sure.

Is it rigged to prove a point? Yup.

But go ahead and pick any other roster consisting of 25 current players. Heck, you can pick any player going back 25 years, as long as I get to add Edgar Martinez (0) and Tony Gwynn (0). You can pick all the clutch players you want.

Will your team be able to beat my Loser team? I doubt it.

Because he knows from empirical data.

"How come we don't hear nearly as much about Roethlisberger having it all over Eli, now and forever, when Roethlisberger plays the way he did last Sunday.

Or are we only supposed to use the empirical data we get from him when he's going good?"

Empirical data? Mike Lupica wants to bring empirical data into the discussion?

Dem's some big words for a guy who is wondering why long-forgotten Eli Manning isn't still part of the national discourse. After the NFL season is over. After the comparisons have been made and Roethlisberger has won hands down.

A guy who is the youngest player to ever win the Super Bowl, who won four straight road playoff games, and is practically undefeated as a starter in the NFL. Compared to a guy who was shut out at home in his first playoff game, the first time a home team had been shut out in the playoffs in 25 years.

This is how come we don't hear nearly as much about Roethlisberger having it all over Eli. Eli hasn't earned the right to be part of the discussion.


But let's get back to empirical data. If Mike Lupica is such an empirical data egghead whiz kid, I wonder how he can compare Randy Johnson's 2005 season to Carlos Beltran's 2005 season:

"Okay, I've got the first day of pitchers and catchers in the pool for when Randy Johnson tells us he just needed a year to get adjusted to New York.

March 1 for Carlos Beltran to say the same thing in Port St. Lucie.

And if they both don't play up to their previous standards this year, I say we write it all off to the famous New York City sophomore jinx."

Let's take a gander at the empirical data for Randy Johnson and Carlos Beltran (the Internet makes this so convenient!).

While I don't doubt that both Randy Johnson and Carlos Beltran will say idiotic things to the press about adjusting to New York, it really is the NY writers who thrive on the notion. It's so tough to play in New York because your doppelganger might appear in a back page cartoon at the Daily News.

But we only care about empirical data, right?


Randy Johnson was 17-8, 3.79 era, 225 2/3 inning pitched, 207 hits, 47 walks, 211 strikeouts.

The homeruns were way too high and he probably didn't meet the high expectations that accompany a five-time Cy Young Award winner, but how high were those expectations?

My expectations were 18 wins and an era under 3.50. I certainly wasn't expecting 25 wins and an era under 2.50. Were you? If so, are you crazy? Don't you know the batters in the AL can hit?

Unit was 4th in wins, 5th in innings pitched, 17th in era, 2nd in WHIP (normally, this would be terrific, but he gave up way too many homeruns), 2nd in strikeouts, and 4th in strikeouts-per-nine-innings, if that floats your boat.

Being empirical about it, I'd probably claim that Unit was still among the top ten starters in the AL (I tend to elevate the importance of innings pitches and quality starts), and Unit was certainly the best starting pitcher on the Yankees.


Now let's move on to Carlos Beltran. Empirically, of course.

.266, 16 hrs, 78 rbis.

.320 ob%, .414 slugging%, 83 runs, 17 stolen bases, 56 walks, 96 strikeouts, 34 doubles, 2 triples.

34 doubles is above-average. Tied for 27th in the league.

17 stolen bases is not too impressive, but it's still enough for top 20 in the league.

That's it. Nothing else about Carlos Beltran's season distinguishes him from an average NL centerfielder. Only his salary is in the top five.

Empirically speaking, please don't elevate a shlep like 2005 Beltran into the elite company of 2005 Unit.


As for the notion of Sophomore Slump, this is the domain of lazy sportswriters. (By the way, has Derek Jeter ever been able to duplicate the previous "high standards" he set in 1999? Has he just been in an extended Senior Slump?)

Empirical data is not too concerned with the reasons why. If I was a Mets fan, I wouldn't waste too much time wondering why Carlos Beltran stunk out the joint, I'd be unable to get past the stinkin' pile of garbage that my team was paying $100 million for. The empirical data is so damning, I don't need a reason why. I'm more concerned with the what and the who.

I choose Neveruary.

From a CBS Sportsline poll:

When is the best time to play the WBC?

-- February or March

-- November or December

Two words: "wind sprints."

"We want to keep the DH spot available for a lot of reasons. Jason, one. Bernie Williams, another. (Gary) Sheffield. (Hideki) Matsui. By the time the division series came up last year, we had a couple of guys that were exhausted."

First of all, thanks to the Daily News for the parenthetical clarification regarding Yankee players. While discussing potential designated hitters for the Yankees, I wasn't sure who Torre was talking about when he said "Sheffield" and "Matsui."

When he referred to "Matsui," was he talking about Yankee outfielder Hideki Matsui or was he talking about Met second baseman Kaz Matsui?

When he referred to "Sheffield," was he talking about Yankee outfielder Gary Sheffield or was he talking about Fran's boss in The Nanny?


More importantly, why are Yankee players exhausted after a season of Nine-Man-Stand-Around?

Torre, you're the manager. Whip these guys into shape. Maybe if (Gary) Sheffield and (Hideki) Matsui did some suicide drills in April, they wouldn't get so exhausted standing around in the outfield.

While you're at it, teach Robinson Cano how to bunt. Get a little old school on the rook. Send Kelly Stinnett out there with a bucket of baseballs and they don't leave until Cano gets down 100 bunts in a row. Every time he misses a bunt, the next pitch goes right at his head.

Vacillation Fascination.

Mariano Rivera is such a vacillator.

So is Andy Pettitte.

So is Robinson Cano.

So is John Smoltz.

So is Tim Hudson.


I only hear the word "uncorked" to describe a wild pitch and I only hear the word "tenacious" to describe a basketball defense. It's nice to see that Alex Rodriguez and the WBC have brought the word "vacillation" to the American consciousness.

Until it was used to describe ARod's reaction to the WBC, I don't remember hearing that word since I was studying for the SATs back in high school.

Ready for a solid 750 sentence? Ai'ght.

"Juxtaposed against ARod's vacillation, which provides plenty of fodder for those who believe the WBC is nothing more than an ersatz Olympics, Bud Selig's taciturn response surely contradicts his own quixotic hopes for the seminal tournament."


In any case, I sure wish these selfish millionaires would stop bombarding the world with their torturous vacillating. (Or, as Belt Parkway Tech valedictorian Bob Cook would say, "tortuous vascillating.")

Actually, I hope every Yankee who is still on board to play in the WBC vacillates one more time.

Roethlisberger wins Lupica's begrudging admiration and Super Bowl, too.

He waited until the end of the article to present his verdict, but the Reoethlisberger family and the entire city of Pittsburgh can rest easily now.

Mike Lupica likes Ben Reoethlisberger:

"I like Roethlisberger, by the way. He got on some run in the playoffs. He is the youngest quarterback to win a Super Bowl."

"He likes me! He really likes me! I'm going to Disneyworld!

You know, you start off in training camp doing two-a-days and through all the sweat and blood and tears, you keep your eyes on the prize. You keep hoping that Mike Lupica will praise you in his column.

It means more to me than 100 Lombardi trophies! Nobody can ever take this away from me!"


But with friends like Mike Lupica, you really don't need enemies:

"The officials didn't have as bad a game as Ben Roethlisberger, because no winning quarterback ever had as bad a game as Roethlisberger did, just when everybody had him on a fast track to Canton." Key word being "winning." Super Bowl titles actually help players get into Canton. I'm just saying ...

"Roethlisberger was 9-for-21, 123 yards, no touchdown passes, two picks. Statistically, he was about as good as Eli Manning was against the Panthers." You compared Ben Roethlisberger to Eli Manning? But I thought you liked Ben Roethlisberger?

"If he doesn't complete one third-and-forever pass to Hines Ward, a 37-yard prayer to the Seahawks' 3-yard line, he would have had 86 passing yards in the Super Bowl and an even lower quarterback rating than the 22 he had." But he did complete the pass, and it was quite an amazing play. The kind of play Eli Manning would have never, ever made. The kind of play where Eli Manning gets sacked.

"If the Seahawks had ever come back, he would have been remembered for one of the worst throws since Garo Yepremian, that volleyball that Kelly Herndon picked off when the Steelers had a chance to go ahead 21-3." But the Seahawks didn't come back.

Besides, I still remember the bad throw. Ben Roethlisberger made a very bad throw that was intercepted and almost cost his team the game. I can remember that play even though the Seahawks did not come back to win the game. It's not too hard since I have a multi-faceted human brain.

Also, if he hadn't thrown that interception at the goal line, then he'd have thrown for one TD and only one interception and his QB rating would have been better. Since Lupica is taking away Roethlisberger's best play of the game, I'm taking away his worst play of the game.

"But maybe we can hold off now on making him the next Montana or Aikman or Brady. The Steelers didn't win because of him Sunday, they won despite him. Hasselbeck, even with the late pick he threw, outplayed Roethlisberger all day." Fair enough. Roethlisberger is no Montana or Aikman or Brady. (Come on, did any person in the entire Universe really compare Roethlisberger to Montana? No, of course not.)

Perhaps Hasselbeck outplayed Roethlisberger slightly in the Super Bowl, though Pittsburgh also spent a good chunk of the game trying to run out the clock. That's cool.

But please don't you ever compare a Super Bowl winning QB to Eli Manning ever again. It's an insult to every QB who ever won the Super Bowl.

Not About Johnny Damon's Hair.

Mike Lupica has a point. Who really cares about Johnny Damon's hair, anyway?:

"I want to be as clear about this as I can:

I don't think of Johnny Damon going through life on some kind of red carpet.
I don't care about his hair.

I don't care where he gets it done or if he's got highlights.

His hair wasn't all that interesting when it was caveman hair at Fenway Park, it doesn't matter now that it's makeover hair at Yankee Stadium.

Even though people who used to get half-hysterical about caveman hair now think Damon is cuter than a junebug.

Bottom line? The next time he gets a trim, leave me out of it."

Leave me out of it, too, Mike.

Professional athletes are defined by what they do on the field. That is why we know them, it's why we pay attention to them, it's our entire interface with these people. Nothing else matters to me. Johnny Damon exists in my universe for three hours a day, during baseball season only.

But since we're so unconcerned with Johnny Damon's hair, why are we talking about it? You've got an entire column and you apparently can talk about anything you want. I'll gladly discuss Damon's on-base% or range factor, since that's on-field stuff that us True Fans care about.

But now that I stop and think about it, it seems to me that Lupica hasn't discussed on-field performance, well, ever.

If a discussion of Johnny Damon's haircut is beneath Lupica, I'm forced to wonder why the following observations creep into the very same article:

"I don't know anything about 107.1 FM, The Peak, except for this:

It is a very cool place on the dial for good rock and roll."

I want to be as clear as I can, Mike: Next time you want to talk about rock radio, leve me out of it.

"That sniveling phony James Frey now says he had to make stuff up in 'A Million Little Pieces' because it made for a better story.

Bill Buckner probably wants to do it that way when he writes his memoir."

I want to be as clear as I can, Mike: Next time you want to be a literary critic, leave me out of it.
"Phil Jackson got his money with the Lakers, and he's got a great and good friend there with the owner's daughter, and now he just sits there and runs every single offensive set for Kobe."

I want to be as clear as I can, Mike: Next time you want to mention Phil Jackson's dating habits, leave me out of it.

"I would watch a festival of 'Saw' movies before watching a whole afternoon of Super Bowl pregame shows."

I want to be as clear as I can, Mike: Next time you want to be Roger Ebert, leave me out of it.

"What anchor guy ever had a better rookie year than Brian Williams has with the NBC Nightly News?"

I want to be as clear as I can, Mike: Next time you want to discuss anchor guys, leave me out of it.

"Sometimes 'Boston Legal' is like the old line about the NBA:

You don't have to start watching until the last two minutes, when James Spader and William Shatner sit there with cigars."

Let me be as clear as I can, Mike: Next time you want to be Matt Roush, leave me out of it.


Okay, I'll stop. This is tedious.

Still waiting for the sports analysis from the sportswriter. I could get this kind of crud from Larry King or Whitney Matheson.


Lupica can write about anything he wants. The Daily News has given him a column and, hey, even I'm reading it, if only for masochistic thrills.

But it's almost impossible to find a sportswriter who is more unconcerned with sports. It's all sports-as-pop-culture, sports-as-metaphor, sports-as-politics, athletes-as-role-models with a drizzle of literary allusion here and a wacky play on words there.

What happens on the field? Not nearly as important as what happens off the field. Not nearly as important as a press conference or a lawsuit or a Senate hearing or a charity event or an awards show.

What did Tiki say after the game? That's key.

Rather than analyze Eli's three interceptions, why don't you follow Tiki to the parking lot and ask him about what he said after the game? It's very insightful to the true sports fan. While you're at it, let me know what car Tiki drives and what rock concerts Theo Epstein is going to attend this weekend. Alright? All important information for the serious-minded fan.

Lupica shouldn't complain about Johnny Damon Haircut articles. He gave that monster life in the first place. He ought not get all high and mighty and disavow its existence.