(Courtesy to Michael Kay and Ken Singleton for directing their listening audience to this article.)
"Still, we don't think the Bronx Bombers are quite as imposing as the Yankees teams from 1996-2000 that broke the Rangers' hearts three times in the playoffs on their way to four Series championships in five years."
I don't believe the Yankees ever won a single game due to intimidation. I really don't. If a professional baseball player in Texas was ever scared or intimidated when he playes against the Yankees at any point in his career, he should have retired on the spot.
IRod, Palmeiro, Juan Gone, Rusty Greer, Will Clark, Lee Stevens ... these men were intimidated by the Yankees? I doubt it very much.
The Yankees were imposing because they were good. They weren't good because they were imposing.
Also, the unintentional irony of the assertion is almost too trite to point out.
Perhaps the 2006 Yankee team is not quite as imposing as the 1996-2000 Yankees. The 2000-2005 Yankees have obviously not won as many Championships. But the 2006 Yankees still have a very imposing lineup that ought to be able to knock out R.A. Dickey even without using any sacrifice bunts.
The 2006 Yankees aren't playing the 1998 Yankees this weekend. The 2006 Yankees are playing the 2006 Rangers.
So, if we are discussing the Fear Factor, I think it's safe to say that the 2006 Rangers aren't quite as imposing as the 1996-1999 Rangers teams that made the playoffs three times in four years.
The number one reason is the 2006 Rangers don't have a good bullpen and stuff.
"Those four World Series champions were a versatile bunch with role players, such as Scott Brosius, Chuck Knoblauch, Joe Girardi and Paul O'Neill, who would hit timely home runs, but also play hit-and-run, lay down a sacrifice bunt and find different ways to win. This Yankees team certainly lives up to its Bronx Bombers heritage, but it's often feast or famine on offense. Kind of like the Rangers."
This paragrah is confusing in so many ways.
1) Scott Brosius, Chuck Knoblauch, and Paul O'Neill were hardly "role players."
2) The Championship Yankee teams hit a ton of homeruns. Why does everyone think they didn't hit a lot of homeruns? Game-winning homeruns. Playoff homeruns. Walk-off homeruns. Game-winning, walk-off homeruns in the playoffs.
3) Are sac bunts really intimidating?
4) Every offense is feast or famine. That's what offenses do. Bad offenses are just famine more often.
In the quest for 1,000 runs (well, maybe 900 runs), the Yankees won't get there with a steady 6.2 runs per game. They would love to score 6 runs every single game, no more and no less. They'd sign up for that right now and they'd probably win 120 games. It just doesn't work that way.
5) None of the players listed were on the 1996 World Championship team except for Paul O'Neill.
Well, technically, Joe Girardi was also on the 1996 squad. But why'd you have to go and bring up Joe Girardi? Do you bring up Joe Girardi just to get me going?
Put it this way: If Pete Alfano can name one time Joe Girardi hit a "timely home run," I'll buy a "Don't Mess With Texas" bumper sticker.
Saturday, May 06, 2006
You're either a liar or you're stupid.
"Alex Rodriguez was moved out of the cleanup spot last night but it wasn't a demotion; it was more like an accident.
As Joe Torre and bench coach Lee Mazzilli were discussing potential lineups before the game, Torre told Mazzilli to make up one batting order with Gary Sheffield - starting for the first time since last Saturday - back in his usual No. 3 slot and then 'just move everyone else down.'
It didn't occur to anyone that Jason Giambi had been moved up from fifth to third during Sheffield's absence, so pushing everyone down meant A-Rod would hit fifth."
It was an accident? It didn't occur to anyone that Giambi had been moved up from fifth to third during Sheffield's absence? Nobody double-checks the lineup card?
So you're stupid.
"Still, the manager said he plans to stick with the batting order for at least another day because 'it worked. It's about as simple as that.'"
So it wasn't a mistake after all. So you're lying.
But why lie? :
"'If it had been on purpose, I would have gone and talked to him before doing it,' Torre said."
Oh, now I see what really happened.
You wanted to bat ARod fifth because he's slumping. But you didn't want to confront ARod and own up to it. You probably didn't want to hurt the AL MVP's confidence.
Instead, you lied about it, came up with a dopey excuse, and insulted everybody's intelligence.
But it worked. So stick with it. You're a genius, Torre. You're just a regular baseball Svengali.
Kind of like two games ago when you called ARod aside and told him to "get a hit." Or last night when you went to the mound and told Mariano to "get an out."
You taught Alex Rodriguez how to hit and Mariano Rivera how to pitch. You are a genius.
As Joe Torre and bench coach Lee Mazzilli were discussing potential lineups before the game, Torre told Mazzilli to make up one batting order with Gary Sheffield - starting for the first time since last Saturday - back in his usual No. 3 slot and then 'just move everyone else down.'
It didn't occur to anyone that Jason Giambi had been moved up from fifth to third during Sheffield's absence, so pushing everyone down meant A-Rod would hit fifth."
It was an accident? It didn't occur to anyone that Giambi had been moved up from fifth to third during Sheffield's absence? Nobody double-checks the lineup card?
So you're stupid.
"Still, the manager said he plans to stick with the batting order for at least another day because 'it worked. It's about as simple as that.'"
So it wasn't a mistake after all. So you're lying.
But why lie? :
"'If it had been on purpose, I would have gone and talked to him before doing it,' Torre said."
Oh, now I see what really happened.
You wanted to bat ARod fifth because he's slumping. But you didn't want to confront ARod and own up to it. You probably didn't want to hurt the AL MVP's confidence.
Instead, you lied about it, came up with a dopey excuse, and insulted everybody's intelligence.
But it worked. So stick with it. You're a genius, Torre. You're just a regular baseball Svengali.
Kind of like two games ago when you called ARod aside and told him to "get a hit." Or last night when you went to the mound and told Mariano to "get an out."
You taught Alex Rodriguez how to hit and Mariano Rivera how to pitch. You are a genius.
Jose Reyes Intentionally Walked.
Five hits for Jose Reyes? In one game?
God, why have you forsaken Felz?
God, why have you forsaken Felz?
Friday, May 05, 2006
Yankees are better than the Mets.
Even though the Mets are probably the second-best team in the National League, the Mets would probably be the eighth-best team in the American League.
It's actually a dopey topic and I'm sure this is the first of many, many, many Yankees vs. Mets articles to come.
The Mets are in first place in their own division and that's what matters. The Yankees have to fight Toronto and Boston, not the Mets.
But if Heyman wants to make a pro-Mets argument, he ought to come correct:
"The Mets have the more versatile offense. Entering last night, they led the league in stolen bases and were third in home runs. While they haven't yet established any offensive consistency, they have the ability to beat you a number of ways, rare for a Mets team."
The Yankees have a better offense the Mets. It doesn't matter if the Mets steal more bases than the Yankees. The Devil Rays steal more bases than the Yankees. It doesn't mean the Devil Rays have a good offense.
It's actually very simple to judge an offense's effectiveness. Look at the number of runs they score.
Not for nothing, but the Yankees have 36 homeruns and 18 stolen bases. It's versatile if that sort of thing floats your boat.
"The Mets have the best new high-powered acquisition. To steal a phrase from one of the many high-priced, high-profile failures of the Mets' often star-crossed past, we're never going to wipe that smile off of Carlos Delgado's face. It's obvious now that Delgado is as cut out for the big time as anyone who's ever come to Queens."
Delgado has been terrific, but Damon hasn't exactly stunk out the joint, either. In fact, Randolph should sit Jose Reyes down in a room with a Tivo and a continuous feed to the YES Network. Maybe Reyes could learn from a leadoff hitter who can keep his on-base% higher than .260.
But since it really makes no sense to compare a first baseman to a centerfielder, go ahead and match up Delgado's first month to Giambi's. You thought Delgado was having a good month until you saw Giambi's numbers.
"The Mets have the better clubhouse atmosphere. No place that includes the Big Unhappy is all fun and games, after all."
No.
Body.
Cares.
"The Mets have, by far, the better bullpen. Duaner Sanchez is a better setup man than all the Yankees' current setup men combined."
First of all, that's completely untrue. Since Heyman is supposedly analyzing the first month of the 2006 season, the Yankee bullpen is better than the Met bullpen. Actually, it's probably a tossup. I see no reason to think Sanchez's 19 innings are any more impressive than Scott Proctor's 17 innings. Or any more flash-in-the-pan.
But who cares about raw numbers? The Yankee bullpen is more versatile and quirky. You gotta love Myers with his sidearm delivery and Farnsworth with his 99 mph cheese. Between innings, the Yankee bullpen has an awesome atmosphere and that's the most important thing.
The Yankees rule and the Mets drool.
It's actually a dopey topic and I'm sure this is the first of many, many, many Yankees vs. Mets articles to come.
The Mets are in first place in their own division and that's what matters. The Yankees have to fight Toronto and Boston, not the Mets.
But if Heyman wants to make a pro-Mets argument, he ought to come correct:
"The Mets have the more versatile offense. Entering last night, they led the league in stolen bases and were third in home runs. While they haven't yet established any offensive consistency, they have the ability to beat you a number of ways, rare for a Mets team."
The Yankees have a better offense the Mets. It doesn't matter if the Mets steal more bases than the Yankees. The Devil Rays steal more bases than the Yankees. It doesn't mean the Devil Rays have a good offense.
It's actually very simple to judge an offense's effectiveness. Look at the number of runs they score.
Not for nothing, but the Yankees have 36 homeruns and 18 stolen bases. It's versatile if that sort of thing floats your boat.
"The Mets have the best new high-powered acquisition. To steal a phrase from one of the many high-priced, high-profile failures of the Mets' often star-crossed past, we're never going to wipe that smile off of Carlos Delgado's face. It's obvious now that Delgado is as cut out for the big time as anyone who's ever come to Queens."
Delgado has been terrific, but Damon hasn't exactly stunk out the joint, either. In fact, Randolph should sit Jose Reyes down in a room with a Tivo and a continuous feed to the YES Network. Maybe Reyes could learn from a leadoff hitter who can keep his on-base% higher than .260.
But since it really makes no sense to compare a first baseman to a centerfielder, go ahead and match up Delgado's first month to Giambi's. You thought Delgado was having a good month until you saw Giambi's numbers.
"The Mets have the better clubhouse atmosphere. No place that includes the Big Unhappy is all fun and games, after all."
No.
Body.
Cares.
"The Mets have, by far, the better bullpen. Duaner Sanchez is a better setup man than all the Yankees' current setup men combined."
First of all, that's completely untrue. Since Heyman is supposedly analyzing the first month of the 2006 season, the Yankee bullpen is better than the Met bullpen. Actually, it's probably a tossup. I see no reason to think Sanchez's 19 innings are any more impressive than Scott Proctor's 17 innings. Or any more flash-in-the-pan.
But who cares about raw numbers? The Yankee bullpen is more versatile and quirky. You gotta love Myers with his sidearm delivery and Farnsworth with his 99 mph cheese. Between innings, the Yankee bullpen has an awesome atmosphere and that's the most important thing.
The Yankees rule and the Mets drool.
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Belated Lupica.
"If the Yankee pitching goes south this year, does the old man still blame it on Mel Stottlemyre?"
Just for the record, the Yankees presently possess the second-best ERA in the league.
But here's the thing: If you're attempting to praise Mel Stottlemyre, DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, BRING UP JOSE CONTRERAS:
"Wouldn't it be something if the White Sox won again with both Jose Contreras and Javier Vazquez in their starting rotation?"
Wouldn't it be something if Andy Pettitte lost twenty games in the same season that Mike Mussina won twenty games in the same season that Sidney Ponson won twenty games in the same season that Bronson Arroyo won twenty games in the same season that Scott Kazmir won twenty games in the same season that Victor Zambrano lost twenty games in the same season that the team that wins the World Series has pitchers that used to play on another team at some point in their career?
Wouldn't that be something?
That sure would be something.
Just for the record, the Yankees presently possess the second-best ERA in the league.
But here's the thing: If you're attempting to praise Mel Stottlemyre, DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, BRING UP JOSE CONTRERAS:
"Wouldn't it be something if the White Sox won again with both Jose Contreras and Javier Vazquez in their starting rotation?"
Wouldn't it be something if Andy Pettitte lost twenty games in the same season that Mike Mussina won twenty games in the same season that Sidney Ponson won twenty games in the same season that Bronson Arroyo won twenty games in the same season that Scott Kazmir won twenty games in the same season that Victor Zambrano lost twenty games in the same season that the team that wins the World Series has pitchers that used to play on another team at some point in their career?
Wouldn't that be something?
That sure would be something.
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Yankees Network Shows Replay of Homerun by Yankee Player.
"With Alex Rodriguez at the plate (fifth inning, bases loaded), Kaat set the scene perfectly. He said A-Rod's lack of production in these situations has dialed up the 'pressure.'
'He (Rodriguez) has been hearing it from the crowd,' Kaat said.
But in typical Al Yankzeera style, up popped a replay of one time this season A-Rod has actually not gagged in the clutch. And that would be video of his Opening Day grand slam against Oakland.
Guess Al Yank has already destroyed all video of the times A-Rod A-Choked."
I anxiously await the day that SportsNet New York shows a highlight reel of Jose Reyes's popups to left field. Because the fans like to see montages of their players failing.
For all the snide remarks about Al Yankzeera, Raissman ought to take notice of Steven Goldman's Pinstriped Bible, which is prominently displayed on the Yes Network website.
Now compare it to rah-rah Gary Cohen over at SNY's website. I'm guessing that the entire 2006 calendar year could come and go and Gary Cohen will not state one negative opinion about Willie Randolph.
Is SportsNet New York nothing more than Al Metzeera?
'He (Rodriguez) has been hearing it from the crowd,' Kaat said.
But in typical Al Yankzeera style, up popped a replay of one time this season A-Rod has actually not gagged in the clutch. And that would be video of his Opening Day grand slam against Oakland.
Guess Al Yank has already destroyed all video of the times A-Rod A-Choked."
I anxiously await the day that SportsNet New York shows a highlight reel of Jose Reyes's popups to left field. Because the fans like to see montages of their players failing.
For all the snide remarks about Al Yankzeera, Raissman ought to take notice of Steven Goldman's Pinstriped Bible, which is prominently displayed on the Yes Network website.
Now compare it to rah-rah Gary Cohen over at SNY's website. I'm guessing that the entire 2006 calendar year could come and go and Gary Cohen will not state one negative opinion about Willie Randolph.
Is SportsNet New York nothing more than Al Metzeera?
Bring in Tanyon Sturtze again.
"If anybody is going to do it, Big Papi is going to find his way through the wind," Yankees manager Joe Torre said. "I just thought the count (3-2) was probably the difference. He had to throw a strike."
1) Please don't refer to David Ortiz as "Big Papi," like he's your friend.
There are a lot of Yankee fans in the audience who don't like the Red Sox. We don't like the Red Sox players. They are not our friends. When you refer to Ortiz as "Big Papi" and speak so admiringly about his homerun, it sounds like you're giving a Red Sox player a high five.
Is Joe Torre friends with the Red Sox players? I think he probably is. It might explain why Ortiz never gets dusted when he plays the Yankees.
It also might explain why Billy Martin is spinning in his grave.
2) If Myers walks Ortiz, then the bases are loaded with one out and a ground ball gets a double play.
Manny Ramirez is no slouch himself. You're in a tough spot either way. Manny might have followed with a grand slam.
Also, the game was probably already lost when Loretta drove in a run off That Pitcher Who Shall Remain Nameless. (I'm seriously wondering, by the way, if Torre has his good ol' bullpen depth chart, but just gets confused because he sometimes hangs it upside-down.)
I'm not saying Myers should have walked Ortiz. I'm just saying Myers didn't have to throw a strike.
1) Please don't refer to David Ortiz as "Big Papi," like he's your friend.
There are a lot of Yankee fans in the audience who don't like the Red Sox. We don't like the Red Sox players. They are not our friends. When you refer to Ortiz as "Big Papi" and speak so admiringly about his homerun, it sounds like you're giving a Red Sox player a high five.
Is Joe Torre friends with the Red Sox players? I think he probably is. It might explain why Ortiz never gets dusted when he plays the Yankees.
It also might explain why Billy Martin is spinning in his grave.
2) If Myers walks Ortiz, then the bases are loaded with one out and a ground ball gets a double play.
Manny Ramirez is no slouch himself. You're in a tough spot either way. Manny might have followed with a grand slam.
Also, the game was probably already lost when Loretta drove in a run off That Pitcher Who Shall Remain Nameless. (I'm seriously wondering, by the way, if Torre has his good ol' bullpen depth chart, but just gets confused because he sometimes hangs it upside-down.)
I'm not saying Myers should have walked Ortiz. I'm just saying Myers didn't have to throw a strike.
Monday, May 01, 2006
Surprise! The Red Sox are good!
"Brilliance thus far of Beckett, Schilling make Boston contender again."
Tony Demarco may not be responsible for the subheader, but if the Red Sox are contenders "again," then they'd have had to be non-contenders for some period of time.
That's how "again" works.
First, you were a contender. Then, you were not a contender. Now, you're a contender again.
It's like when you're rejuvenated. First, you're juvenated. Then, you're not juvenated. Then, you're juvenated again. Re-juvenated.
The Red Sox have won 90+ games four seasons in a row. The Red Sox have made the playoffs three years in a row. The Red Sox won the World Series two seasons ago. the Red Sox tied the Yankees last seasons with 95 wins.
Maybe Tony Demarco wrote this article in 1988 and missed his deadline.
"And — surprise — it is these changed Sox who are enjoying the better first month of the season."
As documented above, it's hardly a "surprise" if the Red Sox are good.
Also, look at the standings. The Yankees are in first place as the first month of the season comes to an end.
It's only percentage points, as both teams are three games over .500. But 14-11 is not "better" than 13-10.
Tony Demarco may not be responsible for the subheader, but if the Red Sox are contenders "again," then they'd have had to be non-contenders for some period of time.
That's how "again" works.
First, you were a contender. Then, you were not a contender. Now, you're a contender again.
It's like when you're rejuvenated. First, you're juvenated. Then, you're not juvenated. Then, you're juvenated again. Re-juvenated.
The Red Sox have won 90+ games four seasons in a row. The Red Sox have made the playoffs three years in a row. The Red Sox won the World Series two seasons ago. the Red Sox tied the Yankees last seasons with 95 wins.
Maybe Tony Demarco wrote this article in 1988 and missed his deadline.
"And — surprise — it is these changed Sox who are enjoying the better first month of the season."
As documented above, it's hardly a "surprise" if the Red Sox are good.
Also, look at the standings. The Yankees are in first place as the first month of the season comes to an end.
It's only percentage points, as both teams are three games over .500. But 14-11 is not "better" than 13-10.
Sunday, April 30, 2006
Match Game with Ozzie Guillen.
"You have to be dumb enough to blame it on somebody when you screwed it up. If you’re going to blame somebody, look in the mirror. A.J. didn’t have anything to do with that. I think that’s a low-(bleep) way to play baseball."
Low-rent?
Low-class?
Low-brow?
What word is being bleeped here?
If Ozzie and the censors didn't confuse you with their understanding of English, then you're sure to be confused with Ozzie's Physics lesson:
“If Escobar is going to hit somebody, he should hit himself."
Low-rent?
Low-class?
Low-brow?
What word is being bleeped here?
If Ozzie and the censors didn't confuse you with their understanding of English, then you're sure to be confused with Ozzie's Physics lesson:
“If Escobar is going to hit somebody, he should hit himself."
Friday, April 28, 2006
Once again, Mariano Rivera's career is over.
I have read anti-Mariano articles every single year since 1996. Usually in April. Never in September.
There's almost no point in disputing this article point by point. To summarize, Mike Celizic actually believes:
1) Mariano ain't what he used to be.
2) Mariano is overused in 2006.
Every other Yankee fan in existence is wondering why Tanyon Sturtze started the ninth inning yesterday and why Scott Proctor has more inning pitches than Mariano Rivera.
If you want to accuse Torre of "living in the past," look who was starting in centerfield yesterday.
There's almost no point in disputing this article point by point. To summarize, Mike Celizic actually believes:
1) Mariano ain't what he used to be.
2) Mariano is overused in 2006.
Every other Yankee fan in existence is wondering why Tanyon Sturtze started the ninth inning yesterday and why Scott Proctor has more inning pitches than Mariano Rivera.
If you want to accuse Torre of "living in the past," look who was starting in centerfield yesterday.
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Commissioner Lurch Will Celebrate Nothing.
"Hank Aaron broke Babe Ruth's record," Selig said. "We don't celebrate anybody the second or third time in ... We celebrate new records, that's what we do. We're being consistent ... Whatever happens, happens. We're going to let nature take its course. Commissioners don't sit around and say, 'I hope this guy breaks it or not."'
Settle down, Commissioner. You're making me too excited about baseball.
Settle down, Commissioner. You're making me too excited about baseball.
Even Gary Sheffield.
"Alex Rodriguez - 0-for-4 with two strikeouts - heard several rounds of boos and he wasn't the only one."
Yankee fans are spoiled rotten.
"Wasted chances doomed the Bombers, who left 16 runners on base, went 2-for-15 with runners in scoring position and couldn't take advantage of the 14 walks issued by the Rays. Even Gary Sheffield, who had tied the game with a two-run homer in the fifth off starter Seth McClung, faltered in the 10th as his groundout to former Met Ty Wigginton at third ended the game with the bases loaded."
Ten seconds of research reveals the following 2006 situtional stats for Even Gary Sheffield:
Bases loaded: 0-for-5 (.000) 0 hrs, 0 rbis, .000 on-base%, .000 slugging%.
RISP with two outs: 1-for-12 (.083) 0 hrs, 1 rbi, .154 on-base, .167 slugging%.
Joe Torre apparently couldn't find fault with anything but the result:
"I can't find fault with anything but the result."
I'm not sure what else matters besides the result.
But, yes, I understand what Torre's trying to say. The Yankees were trying to beat the Devil Rays. They just couldn't.
Isn't there anything Joe Torre can do? Or is he just going to sit there and scratch his head?:
"You scratch your head sometimes over how things happen but you know there's nothing you can do."
Bucky Dent got fired for saying the same thing.
Yankee fans are spoiled rotten.
"Wasted chances doomed the Bombers, who left 16 runners on base, went 2-for-15 with runners in scoring position and couldn't take advantage of the 14 walks issued by the Rays. Even Gary Sheffield, who had tied the game with a two-run homer in the fifth off starter Seth McClung, faltered in the 10th as his groundout to former Met Ty Wigginton at third ended the game with the bases loaded."
Ten seconds of research reveals the following 2006 situtional stats for Even Gary Sheffield:
Bases loaded: 0-for-5 (.000) 0 hrs, 0 rbis, .000 on-base%, .000 slugging%.
RISP with two outs: 1-for-12 (.083) 0 hrs, 1 rbi, .154 on-base, .167 slugging%.
Joe Torre apparently couldn't find fault with anything but the result:
"I can't find fault with anything but the result."
I'm not sure what else matters besides the result.
But, yes, I understand what Torre's trying to say. The Yankees were trying to beat the Devil Rays. They just couldn't.
Isn't there anything Joe Torre can do? Or is he just going to sit there and scratch his head?:
"You scratch your head sometimes over how things happen but you know there's nothing you can do."
Bucky Dent got fired for saying the same thing.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Getting warm.
"When Williams re-upped for another season, the plan was for the 37-year-old switch-hitter to DH and back up all three outfield spots. Through 17 games Williams is batting .244 (11-for-45) overall and .320 (8-for-25) as the DH. None of those eight hits at DH, however, is for extra bases. Williams' only extra base hit for the season was a double hit while playing right field at the Angels on April 9."
I can sense it coming soon. Somebody will mention how many at-bats it has been since Bernie Williams has hit a homerun. Maybe it will require the milestone of 200 at-bats.
I can sense it coming soon. Somebody will mention how many at-bats it has been since Bernie Williams has hit a homerun. Maybe it will require the milestone of 200 at-bats.
Sunday, April 23, 2006
David Wright was 0-for-9 with 3 errors in Atlanta series.
I just brought it up because, instead of questioning Jeter Jr.'s ability to play in a big game, Mike Lupica continues his obsession with Johnny Damon:
"In Boston they now think of Johnny Damon as the guy who used to play center for the Red Sox right before Cocoa Crisp."
That would make sense since Johnny Damon is the guy who used to play center for the Red Sox right before "Cocoa" Crisp. Only difference being that most people in Boston spell it "Coco" instead of "Cocoa."
What's Lupica's problem with Johnny Damon?
Lupica has taken a gratuitous swipe at Damon in the past ten or so Shootin' From the Lips.
Come on, Lupica. You're a NY sportswriter and you're tough as nails. Wright was 0-for-9 against Atlanta and Beltran didn't even play. Your Favorite Li'l Firecracker at shortstop is sporting a nice .272 on-base%. This is way more interesting and informative than your pointless ongoing vendetta against Johnny Damon.
"In Boston they now think of Johnny Damon as the guy who used to play center for the Red Sox right before Cocoa Crisp."
That would make sense since Johnny Damon is the guy who used to play center for the Red Sox right before "Cocoa" Crisp. Only difference being that most people in Boston spell it "Coco" instead of "Cocoa."
What's Lupica's problem with Johnny Damon?
Lupica has taken a gratuitous swipe at Damon in the past ten or so Shootin' From the Lips.
Come on, Lupica. You're a NY sportswriter and you're tough as nails. Wright was 0-for-9 against Atlanta and Beltran didn't even play. Your Favorite Li'l Firecracker at shortstop is sporting a nice .272 on-base%. This is way more interesting and informative than your pointless ongoing vendetta against Johnny Damon.
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Calling out Larry Brooks.
Today's tough luck loss by Glavine reminded me of a ridiculous criticism directed at Kevin Brown last season. A quick search of the archives and, here you go: "Rotation Worries Hit Fever Pitch."
Basically, the idea was, "If the Yankees score 1 run, the Yankee pitcher should allow 0 runs":
"But not good enough to provide enough of a lift to a Yankee team still unable to establish a positive tone to the season. Brown allowed three runs in seven innings while retiring the final 11 batters he faced, which might have been good enough under other circumstances. But it wasn't last night, not when he surrendered two runs in the third and another in the fourth to allow the Angels to take a 3-0 lead in a game they'd win 3-1."
Through my blog archives, I know that Brooks went on to say:
"Where is the pitcher in pinstripes who's going to hand over a 1-0 lead to the bullpen in the eighth if that's what it takes? Where is the pitcher who is going to grow larger in the Bronx?"
I'll expect a similar article from Larry Brooks in tomorrow's Post. An article that rips Glavine for his inability to throw a shutout when he needed to. If the Mets score 1 run, then Glavine has to hold the Braves to 0 runs.
On second thought, I won't hold my breath waiting for that article.
Basically, the idea was, "If the Yankees score 1 run, the Yankee pitcher should allow 0 runs":
"But not good enough to provide enough of a lift to a Yankee team still unable to establish a positive tone to the season. Brown allowed three runs in seven innings while retiring the final 11 batters he faced, which might have been good enough under other circumstances. But it wasn't last night, not when he surrendered two runs in the third and another in the fourth to allow the Angels to take a 3-0 lead in a game they'd win 3-1."
Through my blog archives, I know that Brooks went on to say:
"Where is the pitcher in pinstripes who's going to hand over a 1-0 lead to the bullpen in the eighth if that's what it takes? Where is the pitcher who is going to grow larger in the Bronx?"
I'll expect a similar article from Larry Brooks in tomorrow's Post. An article that rips Glavine for his inability to throw a shutout when he needed to. If the Mets score 1 run, then Glavine has to hold the Braves to 0 runs.
On second thought, I won't hold my breath waiting for that article.
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
Monday, April 17, 2006
Saturday, April 15, 2006
Get that man some sensitivity training.
Frank Thomas is the Big Hurt. Randy Johnson is the Big Unit. So maybe Jeff Passan has a good new nickname for David Ortiz.
Friday, April 14, 2006
You meanies leave George alone.
Does anybody want to hear about my latest business trip? I didn't think so. It's very uninteresting stuff to anybody except me. Actually, it's also very uninteresting to me.
Two-hour drive each way and overnight at a Something-Or-Other Suites. Nothing special. Cable TV and free Contintental breakfast.
I partially achieved my goals, but not fully.
Naturally, my boss only cares about the bottom line, not the free Continental breakfast.
I only bring it up because I still don't know why Randy Johnson left yesterday's game so early. I read many articles about Randy Johnson leaving yesterday's early, but nobody gets to the bottom line.
As an example, Steve Politi explains what it's like to interview Randy Johnson, but doesn't ever answer the question.
Don't you have an inside source, or something? Don't you even have an opinion? A best guess? Is it a stiff shoulder, a tired arm, or just a cautious manager? I know it's one of the three and I didn't even watch the game on television.
Are you going to do your job and provide this information or are you seriously just going to write an article where you complain because Randy Johnson is a tough interview?
Similarly, Bob Raissman chronicles the difficult life of sportswriters yet again as they try to penetrate George Steinbrenner's fortress.
Everybody's got a tough job. Nobody cares about your problems:
"The timing of the protection often is curious. Early in spring training, Steinbrenner was tooling around in his golf cart, doing shtick with writers. He even mock-mugged Ch. 9 sport guy Russ Salzberg and ran over WFAN Yankee reporter Sweeny Murti's foot.
Still, more often than not, Steinbrenner, like some pin-striped Wizard of Oz, can be found hiding behind Rubenstein press releases.
This is now officially a joke."
How does a joke officially become a joke? Is there a review board, or something?
I thought of one this morning in the shower. What the heck was it? Oh, yeah ... heh, it's kind of stupid.
For some reason, I thought it would be funny to replace the word "Gibb" with the word "glib." Like with the Bee Gees. So you could have a Variety Show where you made fun of the Gibb Brothers, but instead it was the Glib Brothers. Naturally, everything they said was glib.
I know it's not much of a joke, but I'd still like to initiate the process to make it official. It definitely needs to be fleshed out, but it might be good enough for Mad TV.
Two-hour drive each way and overnight at a Something-Or-Other Suites. Nothing special. Cable TV and free Contintental breakfast.
I partially achieved my goals, but not fully.
Naturally, my boss only cares about the bottom line, not the free Continental breakfast.
I only bring it up because I still don't know why Randy Johnson left yesterday's game so early. I read many articles about Randy Johnson leaving yesterday's early, but nobody gets to the bottom line.
As an example, Steve Politi explains what it's like to interview Randy Johnson, but doesn't ever answer the question.
Don't you have an inside source, or something? Don't you even have an opinion? A best guess? Is it a stiff shoulder, a tired arm, or just a cautious manager? I know it's one of the three and I didn't even watch the game on television.
Are you going to do your job and provide this information or are you seriously just going to write an article where you complain because Randy Johnson is a tough interview?
Similarly, Bob Raissman chronicles the difficult life of sportswriters yet again as they try to penetrate George Steinbrenner's fortress.
Everybody's got a tough job. Nobody cares about your problems:
"The timing of the protection often is curious. Early in spring training, Steinbrenner was tooling around in his golf cart, doing shtick with writers. He even mock-mugged Ch. 9 sport guy Russ Salzberg and ran over WFAN Yankee reporter Sweeny Murti's foot.
Still, more often than not, Steinbrenner, like some pin-striped Wizard of Oz, can be found hiding behind Rubenstein press releases.
This is now officially a joke."
How does a joke officially become a joke? Is there a review board, or something?
I thought of one this morning in the shower. What the heck was it? Oh, yeah ... heh, it's kind of stupid.
For some reason, I thought it would be funny to replace the word "Gibb" with the word "glib." Like with the Bee Gees. So you could have a Variety Show where you made fun of the Gibb Brothers, but instead it was the Glib Brothers. Naturally, everything they said was glib.
I know it's not much of a joke, but I'd still like to initiate the process to make it official. It definitely needs to be fleshed out, but it might be good enough for Mad TV.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
More Reality Journalism.
If you can't get any material for your sports column in the New York Times, a suitable substitute is a column about the detailed process of not getting any material.
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
The crisis you never heard about.
I don't know exactly how many at-bats it has been since Bernie hit a homerun. I think it is closing in on 150 at-bats.
The WBC homerun doesn't count.
Are any NY sportswriters talking about this? Maybe so, but I haven't seen it.
He may be "designated," but he's not much of a "hitter."
The WBC homerun doesn't count.
Are any NY sportswriters talking about this? Maybe so, but I haven't seen it.
He may be "designated," but he's not much of a "hitter."
Monday, April 10, 2006
The Fifth Column breaks down the Fourth Wall.
When I read a subpar article about Pedro Martinez, I also want to read an article about the article. I want to know about the process. I want a meta-article. I want an article about the effects of the original article. I want a never-ending, stream-of-consciousness, real-time, navel-gazing, self-aware journal of everything that happens in your life in relation to the subpar Pedro Martinez article.
Mike Lupica delivers:
"Now it is sometime around noon in the Mets clubhouse and there are players and media people everywhere, rain falling outside. I have been talking for 20 minutes with Tom Glavine, about golf and the Final Four and his Opening Day start. Glavine, who still thinks he might get to pitch against the Marlins at this point, who has been told the rain may stop around 2 o'clock, walks off. Billy Wagner is in front of his locker listening to music, probably not the radio.
I turn around and Pedro is there."
Fascinating stuff.
"Nobody in our business ever wants to be this kind of show in a team's clubhouse."
Errr, you must mean nobody besides yourself. Because instead of just dropping the subject, you went and wrote an article about it. This article. The article which I'm reading right now. The article where you said you didn't want to be a part of the drama.
"It had happened once before with a Met, the young and hotheaded Darryl Strawberry at old Huggins-Stengel Field in St. Petersburg, before the Mets moved to Port St. Lucie, Strawberry telling me to stay out of his personal life. It turned out Strawberry was yelling that day about a column somebody had written about him in another paper.
Another time, Eddie Lee Whitson called me out in the Yankee clubhouse. That time we did go out in the hall, even if I could see Don Mattingly's head poking out of the clubhouse door every few minutes, probably checking to see if I was still alive. Players have a right to get their say, even when it's loud, a right not to like what's written about them. But it sure is a lot easier for them to have the debate on their turf.
Pedro wasn't going anywhere, he does what he wants, it's part of him being Pedro. Part of the drama."
Mike Lupica delivers:
"Now it is sometime around noon in the Mets clubhouse and there are players and media people everywhere, rain falling outside. I have been talking for 20 minutes with Tom Glavine, about golf and the Final Four and his Opening Day start. Glavine, who still thinks he might get to pitch against the Marlins at this point, who has been told the rain may stop around 2 o'clock, walks off. Billy Wagner is in front of his locker listening to music, probably not the radio.
I turn around and Pedro is there."
Fascinating stuff.
"Nobody in our business ever wants to be this kind of show in a team's clubhouse."
Errr, you must mean nobody besides yourself. Because instead of just dropping the subject, you went and wrote an article about it. This article. The article which I'm reading right now. The article where you said you didn't want to be a part of the drama.
"It had happened once before with a Met, the young and hotheaded Darryl Strawberry at old Huggins-Stengel Field in St. Petersburg, before the Mets moved to Port St. Lucie, Strawberry telling me to stay out of his personal life. It turned out Strawberry was yelling that day about a column somebody had written about him in another paper.
Another time, Eddie Lee Whitson called me out in the Yankee clubhouse. That time we did go out in the hall, even if I could see Don Mattingly's head poking out of the clubhouse door every few minutes, probably checking to see if I was still alive. Players have a right to get their say, even when it's loud, a right not to like what's written about them. But it sure is a lot easier for them to have the debate on their turf.
Pedro wasn't going anywhere, he does what he wants, it's part of him being Pedro. Part of the drama."
Saturday, April 08, 2006
Bernie is shot.
"Yankees DH Bernie Williams and 2B Robinson Cano switched places in the batting order, with Cano moving up to eighth and Williams dropping to ninth. Manager Joe Torre said he was trying something new and had urged Williams to get more aggressive with his bat."
a) Huh? Batting eighth instead of ninth would make a player bat more aggressively?
b) The only thing Bernie has left is his ability to walk. So that's good thinking to insist he become more aggressive with his bat.
c) Despite what Michael Kay may think, Bernie is shot.
Look, it was a great run while it lasted. Bernie is one of the best players I've ever seen in a Yankee uniform from beginning to end.
But Bernie hasn't hit .300 since 2002. The swing looks like the same old Bernie swing, but then the ball doesn't go anywhere after it hits the bat. His batting averages have slipped: .333, .263, .262., .249. His slugging percentage has slipped worse: .493, .411, .435, .367.
The Yankees have a designated hitter whose slugging percentage was .367 in 485 at-basts last season. The Red Sox have a designated hitter who will probably hit .300 with 45 homeruns. The Yankees are already two games behind the Red Sox.
The solution to this predicament is not batting Bernie eighth instead of ninth. The solution is ... well, it's apparent what the solution could have been.
a) Huh? Batting eighth instead of ninth would make a player bat more aggressively?
b) The only thing Bernie has left is his ability to walk. So that's good thinking to insist he become more aggressive with his bat.
c) Despite what Michael Kay may think, Bernie is shot.
Look, it was a great run while it lasted. Bernie is one of the best players I've ever seen in a Yankee uniform from beginning to end.
But Bernie hasn't hit .300 since 2002. The swing looks like the same old Bernie swing, but then the ball doesn't go anywhere after it hits the bat. His batting averages have slipped: .333, .263, .262., .249. His slugging percentage has slipped worse: .493, .411, .435, .367.
The Yankees have a designated hitter whose slugging percentage was .367 in 485 at-basts last season. The Red Sox have a designated hitter who will probably hit .300 with 45 homeruns. The Yankees are already two games behind the Red Sox.
The solution to this predicament is not batting Bernie eighth instead of ninth. The solution is ... well, it's apparent what the solution could have been.
Greg Maddux is good.
In a discussion regarding the greatest pitchers of the past twenty-five years, Greg Maddux's name will always be near the top of the list.
I'm not sure who Jeff Passan has been talking to, but he seems to think that, of all people, Greg Maddux is under-appreciated:
"Come to think of it, it's Maddux's ability to hit any spot that separates him from his predecessors, contemporaries and successors, what keeps him around despite a fastball that regularly sits at 85 mph, what might make him, and not Roger Clemens or Pedro Martinez or Randy Johnson, this generation's greatest pitcher."
Well, there's the problem with your argument right there. You went ahead and listed the only three pitchers of Greg Maddux's generation who were actually better than Greg Maddux.
"In the heart of the Steroid Era, from 1992-98, Maddux went 127-53 with a 2.15 ERA. He struck out almost five batters for every one he walked, won four consecutive Cy Young Awards and took home seven of his 15 Gold Gloves."
Forget about Gold Gloves. Nobody cares. If Gold Gloves mattered, then write an article about Mike Mussina and put Jim Kaat in the Hall of Fame.
Come to think of it, Mike Mussina is probably underrated and did most of his best work "in the heart of the Steroid Era." Come to think of it, Jim Kaat is probably underrated and might belong in the Hall of Fame.
Here are some stats from 1992-1998 ("the heart of the Steroid Era," which, unbenkownst to anybody except Jeff Passan, actually started in 1992):
Roger Clemens: 99-63, 1,491 ip, 3.06 era, 522 bb, 1,488 k.
Pedro Martinez: 84-46, 1,146 ip, 2.98 era, 373 bb, 1,221 k.
Randy Johnson: 106-45, 1,371 ip, 3.07 era, 568 bb, 1,752 k.
Greg Maddux: 127-53, 1,675 ip, 2.15 era, 269 bb, 1,286 k.
Mike Mussina: 114-54, 1,481 ip, 3.54 era, 348 bb, 1,101 k.
Pete Schourek: 53-51, 812 ip, 4.46 era, 275 bb, 569 k.
Todd Van Poppel: 22-37, 505 ip, 6.21 era, 297 bb, 347 k.
Brian Rose: 1-4, 41 ip, 7.30 era, 16 bb, 21 k.
I'd have to agree that Greg Maddux was the best pitcher between the years 1992-1998. I also think that most baseball fans are aware of his greatness, what with the four straight Cy Youngs and all.
You know what other seasons probably qualify as "the heart of the Steroids Era"? How about 1999 - 2005?:
Roger Clemens: 108-48, 1,430 ip, 3.53 era, 508 bb, 1,349 k.
Pedro Martinez: 113-38, 1,367 ip, 2.50 era, 289 bb, 1,640 k.
Randy Johnson: 120-57, 1,616 ip, 2.81 era, 406 bb, 2,043 k.
Greg Maddux: 116-72, 1,557 ip, 3.49 era, 253 bb, 1,028 k.
Mike Mussina: 106-68, 1,445 ip, 3.79 era, 315 bb, 1,247 k.
Is Maddux really better than Clemens, Martinez, and Johnson? Well, no. Clemens, of course, did most of his work in the AL and had quite a career brewing prior to 1992.
But this conclusion is hardly an insult to Greg Maddux. Everybody knows that Greg Maddux is one of the best pitchers of all time, that he might be the last player to ever win 300 games, and that he's a first-ballot Hall of Famer. If Maddux is considered the fourth-best pitcher of his generation, that's probably where he belongs.
Since Passan felt the need to draw attention to Greg Maddux's pitching abilities, I have some suggestions for future articles:
I'm not sure who Jeff Passan has been talking to, but he seems to think that, of all people, Greg Maddux is under-appreciated:
"Come to think of it, it's Maddux's ability to hit any spot that separates him from his predecessors, contemporaries and successors, what keeps him around despite a fastball that regularly sits at 85 mph, what might make him, and not Roger Clemens or Pedro Martinez or Randy Johnson, this generation's greatest pitcher."
Well, there's the problem with your argument right there. You went ahead and listed the only three pitchers of Greg Maddux's generation who were actually better than Greg Maddux.
"In the heart of the Steroid Era, from 1992-98, Maddux went 127-53 with a 2.15 ERA. He struck out almost five batters for every one he walked, won four consecutive Cy Young Awards and took home seven of his 15 Gold Gloves."
Forget about Gold Gloves. Nobody cares. If Gold Gloves mattered, then write an article about Mike Mussina and put Jim Kaat in the Hall of Fame.
Come to think of it, Mike Mussina is probably underrated and did most of his best work "in the heart of the Steroid Era." Come to think of it, Jim Kaat is probably underrated and might belong in the Hall of Fame.
Here are some stats from 1992-1998 ("the heart of the Steroid Era," which, unbenkownst to anybody except Jeff Passan, actually started in 1992):
Roger Clemens: 99-63, 1,491 ip, 3.06 era, 522 bb, 1,488 k.
Pedro Martinez: 84-46, 1,146 ip, 2.98 era, 373 bb, 1,221 k.
Randy Johnson: 106-45, 1,371 ip, 3.07 era, 568 bb, 1,752 k.
Greg Maddux: 127-53, 1,675 ip, 2.15 era, 269 bb, 1,286 k.
Mike Mussina: 114-54, 1,481 ip, 3.54 era, 348 bb, 1,101 k.
Pete Schourek: 53-51, 812 ip, 4.46 era, 275 bb, 569 k.
Todd Van Poppel: 22-37, 505 ip, 6.21 era, 297 bb, 347 k.
Brian Rose: 1-4, 41 ip, 7.30 era, 16 bb, 21 k.
I'd have to agree that Greg Maddux was the best pitcher between the years 1992-1998. I also think that most baseball fans are aware of his greatness, what with the four straight Cy Youngs and all.
You know what other seasons probably qualify as "the heart of the Steroids Era"? How about 1999 - 2005?:
Roger Clemens: 108-48, 1,430 ip, 3.53 era, 508 bb, 1,349 k.
Pedro Martinez: 113-38, 1,367 ip, 2.50 era, 289 bb, 1,640 k.
Randy Johnson: 120-57, 1,616 ip, 2.81 era, 406 bb, 2,043 k.
Greg Maddux: 116-72, 1,557 ip, 3.49 era, 253 bb, 1,028 k.
Mike Mussina: 106-68, 1,445 ip, 3.79 era, 315 bb, 1,247 k.
Is Maddux really better than Clemens, Martinez, and Johnson? Well, no. Clemens, of course, did most of his work in the AL and had quite a career brewing prior to 1992.
But this conclusion is hardly an insult to Greg Maddux. Everybody knows that Greg Maddux is one of the best pitchers of all time, that he might be the last player to ever win 300 games, and that he's a first-ballot Hall of Famer. If Maddux is considered the fourth-best pitcher of his generation, that's probably where he belongs.
Since Passan felt the need to draw attention to Greg Maddux's pitching abilities, I have some suggestions for future articles:
- New York Yankees: New York's other baseball team.
- Derek Jeter: The shortstop you never heard of.
- Alex Rodriguez: The player with the littlest contract.
- Water: The under-appreciated beverage.
- Oxygen: The under-appreciated component of air.
- Vida Guerra: The under-appreciated butt.
Friday, April 07, 2006
What a maricon.
Beltran, however, was clearly not happy with the fans' fair-weather nature.
"I'm a friend that is a friend when you are doing well and also when you are doing bad," he explained. "That's the way I am. I'm not saying the New York fans are bad. They're good. But I do believe they can be better."The fans are not your friend. They never were. The fans would trade you tomorrow for one extra run batted in.
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
It was the best of games, it was the worst of games.
"If you needed proof of why it's silly to overblow the significance of Monday night's 15-run outburst, here it was one night later for the Yankees. After all the offensive sound and fury of their season opener, they came up empty in the clutch last night."
Both games are equally significant. They both count one.
I don't think anybody overblew the significance of a 15-run outburst on April 3rd, but it's certainly equally silly to overblow the significance of a bad night on April 4th.
How about the Yankees play 160 more regular season games first and we'll see if they make the playoffs? If they do, I don't think the Spectre of their performance on April 4 will haunt them.
"Blowouts happen. They don't mean a lot."
Blowouts don't cure cancer or definitively decide what to do with stem cell research, but blowouts certainly help win baseball games. Winning baseball games is nice when you're a fan of baseball.
Is John Harper a fan of baseball? I'm not sure:
"Just as powerhouse lineups, such as the one the Yankees have assembled for 2006, don't necessarily dictate success, at least not come playoff time, which is all that matters in the Bronx."
Again, this is a common tack of NY sportswriters. "Yankee victories don't mean anything until October. Baseball doesn't matter until October."
If that's the case, why wouuld anybody read your column in the first place? Why are you writing a column during the regular season?
"Indeed, I have a funny feeling that for Yankee fans, angst has fast replaced giddiness after Alex Rodriguez resorted to his old ways last night, twice failing to deliver the go-ahead run in the late innings, setting up a 4-3 loss to the A's."
The Yankees were 1-for-15 with runners in scoring position last night.
Do I really have to tell you who had that hit?
I'm also baffled by the obsession with late innings. Use the first two games of the Yankee 2006 season as examples.
The Yankees essentially won game one with a 7-run second inning. I'm quite sure Harper doesn't consider ARod's 1-out bases-loaded homerun to be a "big hit," but this hit essentially won the whole game.
The Yankees essentially lost game two in the first inning. With runners on second and third with no outs, the next three Yankees batters struck out. As every Japanese and Cuban player knows, the Yankees could have scored two runs simply by hitting two ground balls to the second baseman. I'm sure Sheffield and ARod also know this, but Harden just got the better of them this time.
Not to overblow the significance of those two at-bats, but now the Yankees won't win the World Series.
Both games are equally significant. They both count one.
I don't think anybody overblew the significance of a 15-run outburst on April 3rd, but it's certainly equally silly to overblow the significance of a bad night on April 4th.
How about the Yankees play 160 more regular season games first and we'll see if they make the playoffs? If they do, I don't think the Spectre of their performance on April 4 will haunt them.
"Blowouts happen. They don't mean a lot."
Blowouts don't cure cancer or definitively decide what to do with stem cell research, but blowouts certainly help win baseball games. Winning baseball games is nice when you're a fan of baseball.
Is John Harper a fan of baseball? I'm not sure:
"Just as powerhouse lineups, such as the one the Yankees have assembled for 2006, don't necessarily dictate success, at least not come playoff time, which is all that matters in the Bronx."
Again, this is a common tack of NY sportswriters. "Yankee victories don't mean anything until October. Baseball doesn't matter until October."
If that's the case, why wouuld anybody read your column in the first place? Why are you writing a column during the regular season?
"Indeed, I have a funny feeling that for Yankee fans, angst has fast replaced giddiness after Alex Rodriguez resorted to his old ways last night, twice failing to deliver the go-ahead run in the late innings, setting up a 4-3 loss to the A's."
The Yankees were 1-for-15 with runners in scoring position last night.
Do I really have to tell you who had that hit?
I'm also baffled by the obsession with late innings. Use the first two games of the Yankee 2006 season as examples.
The Yankees essentially won game one with a 7-run second inning. I'm quite sure Harper doesn't consider ARod's 1-out bases-loaded homerun to be a "big hit," but this hit essentially won the whole game.
The Yankees essentially lost game two in the first inning. With runners on second and third with no outs, the next three Yankees batters struck out. As every Japanese and Cuban player knows, the Yankees could have scored two runs simply by hitting two ground balls to the second baseman. I'm sure Sheffield and ARod also know this, but Harden just got the better of them this time.
Not to overblow the significance of those two at-bats, but now the Yankees won't win the World Series.
Friday, March 31, 2006
I sure hope Johnny Damon has moxie.
Mets prospect Lastings Milledge has it.
The White Sox had it, and so did the Japanese baseball team in the WBC. (I bet you didn't know the Cubans were "divinely precise," despite all the fielding errors they made.)
The Yankees had it when they won, but lost it when they lost. Or maybe they lost because they had already lost their moxie. It's all so confusing.
The only thing I know is that moxie is more important than ever since Bud Selig has outlawed homeruns.
It's also just nice to see words make comebacks. When is the last time you heard the word "moxie"? When your grandmother said you were a "looker"?
Somewhere, a sportswriter writes that ARod is "vacillating"; the reborn word sweeps through the sportwriting world like pollen in a hurricane; it migrates from country to country like birds with the Avian flu; an intellectual mother lode is tapped as the collective unconscious imposes its will.
Ideas have wings. Even dumb ideas.
The White Sox had it, and so did the Japanese baseball team in the WBC. (I bet you didn't know the Cubans were "divinely precise," despite all the fielding errors they made.)
The Yankees had it when they won, but lost it when they lost. Or maybe they lost because they had already lost their moxie. It's all so confusing.
The only thing I know is that moxie is more important than ever since Bud Selig has outlawed homeruns.
It's also just nice to see words make comebacks. When is the last time you heard the word "moxie"? When your grandmother said you were a "looker"?
Somewhere, a sportswriter writes that ARod is "vacillating"; the reborn word sweeps through the sportwriting world like pollen in a hurricane; it migrates from country to country like birds with the Avian flu; an intellectual mother lode is tapped as the collective unconscious imposes its will.
Ideas have wings. Even dumb ideas.
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Numbers lie, part two.
"The cold, hard numbers have been tabulated. And in what surely is the game's least surprising development since Angels owner Arte Moreno was applauded by fans for lowering concession beer prices, home runs are running for cover now that steroid testing is a regular part of the game.
Last season, the first with a relatively tough steroids policy in place, major leaguers swatted fewer homers than in any summer since 1997.
The decline was not dramatic. And a slight change in one season still could turn out to be as much aberration as trend."
Not to get all MENSA on Scott Miller, but anything that occurs in just one season can not be a trend.
On to the numbers and a most simplistic statistical analysis:
Measurements: 2.05, 2.08, 2.28, 2.34, 2.25, 2.09, 2.14, 2.25, 2.06.
Number of measurements: 9.
High: 2.34.
Low: 2.05.
Average: 2.17.
Standard deviation: 0.11.
Conveniently enough, the 2005 homerun measurement is exactly one standard deviation off the average. One standard deviation is not a lot.
Or just look at the numbers as they move from left to right, from 1997 to 2005. Do you see a trend? Can you guess which year steroids ended?
I'd say steroids ended after the 2001 season when the homeruns per game dropped from 2.25 to 2.09. (It's a trend! The numbers are in and the steroid era ended in 2002!)
I am not blind to the effects of steroids, though I'm not exactly sure why Palmeiro and Bonds are pariahs while Ivan Rodriguez and Clemens get off scot-free.
I also know that homeruns are hardly running for cover. The modern game has not fundamentally changed because homeruns dropped to "only" 2.06 per game.
Last season, the first with a relatively tough steroids policy in place, major leaguers swatted fewer homers than in any summer since 1997.
The decline was not dramatic. And a slight change in one season still could turn out to be as much aberration as trend."
Not to get all MENSA on Scott Miller, but anything that occurs in just one season can not be a trend.
On to the numbers and a most simplistic statistical analysis:
Measurements: 2.05, 2.08, 2.28, 2.34, 2.25, 2.09, 2.14, 2.25, 2.06.
Number of measurements: 9.
High: 2.34.
Low: 2.05.
Average: 2.17.
Standard deviation: 0.11.
Conveniently enough, the 2005 homerun measurement is exactly one standard deviation off the average. One standard deviation is not a lot.
Or just look at the numbers as they move from left to right, from 1997 to 2005. Do you see a trend? Can you guess which year steroids ended?
I'd say steroids ended after the 2001 season when the homeruns per game dropped from 2.25 to 2.09. (It's a trend! The numbers are in and the steroid era ended in 2002!)
I am not blind to the effects of steroids, though I'm not exactly sure why Palmeiro and Bonds are pariahs while Ivan Rodriguez and Clemens get off scot-free.
I also know that homeruns are hardly running for cover. The modern game has not fundamentally changed because homeruns dropped to "only" 2.06 per game.
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Monday, March 27, 2006
Oh, fer cryin' out loud ...
"Last season, the Milwaukee Brewers were in the NL wild-card race until midway through September and finished 81-81. Manager Ned Yost says that, assuming health, the Brewers are ready to improve in all aspects and turn into contenders.
'We think we can do enough of the little things to get two more wins a month,' Yost says. 'That puts us at 93 or 94 wins' "
The day Prince Fielder lays down a sacrifice bunt is the day I stop watching baseball and devote my life to stamp collecting.
Listen, everybody, this HR Genie is not going back into the bottle. Babe Ruth broke that egg about 85 years ago and the yolk is not going back into the shell.
'We think we can do enough of the little things to get two more wins a month,' Yost says. 'That puts us at 93 or 94 wins' "
The day Prince Fielder lays down a sacrifice bunt is the day I stop watching baseball and devote my life to stamp collecting.
Listen, everybody, this HR Genie is not going back into the bottle. Babe Ruth broke that egg about 85 years ago and the yolk is not going back into the shell.
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Even better than Spring Training games.
I have suspected for a while that sportswriters were completely disconnected from the public. I now have some numerical evidence.
While the WBC is being endlessly praised, the overall ratings on ESPN were 1.1, with the finals receiving a whopping 1.8, which may or may not have beat Knight Rider reruns on channel 55.
I'm not talking about the ratings in Cuba or Japan. I'm talking about the ratings in the USA.
I'm talking about the supposed audience of Kevin Kernan (yet another WBC article), Jon Heyman, John Donovan (with a pat on the head to those cute little Japanese players), Ken Rosenthal (Guess why Japan won? Small ball!), some chick named Janie, and dozens more just like them.
You know what, John Donovan? Two words that prove Japan is not the best baseball-playing nation in the World: Hideki Irabu. Two more words: Tuffy Rhodes.
Were the WBC games exciting? No, not really.
Were they well-attended? No, not really. Unless you're impressed by 737,000 attendees at 39 games. 39 x 2 = 78, so I know right away it's less than 20,000 per game.
Were the games compelling? No, not really. Depending on what country you live in.
Was the type of baseball being played interesting? No, not really. Whenever I watched, it seemed like a bunch of players who couldn't hit.
As for the actual games, most of the analysis is quite condescending. I'll use Heyman's article as the example, but there are about 100 articles out there which basically say the same thing:
"An open letter to Team USA:
Too bad you losers couldn't make it here. Baseball history continued to be made last night without you, South Africa, the Netherlands and the rest of the early-round dropouts.
Cuba and Japan put on a lively, emotional display before a packed house at beautiful PETCO Park in the World Baseball Classic finale. Hope you returning Yankees thoroughly enjoyed that captivating 15-2 Grapefruit League loss to Detroit in lovely Lakeland."
The WBC was more exciting than Spring Training games, this is true. But that's like having a taste test between flat Coke and flat Pepsi.
It's also real nice that you just called South Africa and the Netherlands "losers."
"Many of you mega-millionaires suffered the punishment you deserved for losing: an additional week in central Florida, home to alligators, crocodiles, strippers and Steinbrenner."
The strippers sound kind of nice, actually. Not the kind of thing I'd consider punishment. Playing baseball in central Florida, where the strippers are, while being paid mega-millions by Steinbrenner.
As for the alligators and crocodiles, I don't really think Jeter and ARod actually had to worry about alligators and crocodiles as they ran from the dugout to their positions in the field.
"It may take a while, judging by ESPN, which skipped the first few batters to carry some worthless NIT game."
Number of professionals in the WBC: two. Number of professionals in the NIT: zero.
Number of mega-millionares in the WBC: at least one. Number of mega-millionaires in the NIT: zero.
The Netherlands and South Africa are losers and now the NIT is worthless. Heyman can go watch the NCAA tournaments with its shoe deals and big schools. Pure basketball fans watch the NIT with its teamwork and fundamentals.
"There's one thing we have to make clear. Your defeat wasn't a fluke. Nor were the teams who got here lucky."
So condescending. Nobody said the Japanese were lucky. But if you really open your eyes, you'll know that Team USA wasn't prepared to play, physically or mentally.
"They were here because they can play. And also because they are prepared, team-oriented, multi-dimensional and efficient. The South Korean team, eliminated Friday night, made zero errors in seven games."
Eliminated Friday night because they can't hit.
For what it's worth, the players in the US major leagues can also play. They are prepared, team-oriented, multi-dimensional, and efficient.
The only style that matters is the winning style. If you don't hit homeruns, you're not going to win. The '82 Cardinals were very exciting. But that was 25 seasons ago already. They're the exception, not the rule.
"Matsuzaka, who started last night's finale, tried to jump to the big leagues last year but was prevented by the troubled ownership of the Seibu Lions. You fellows caught a glimpse of him a few days ago, when he shut you out for four innings, putting him in large company.
Anyway, scouts say this kid, only 25, is ready to be an ace in the States. He hit 96 on the gun last night. Plus, he has all he needs: his trick pitch, the rapt attention of the Yankees, and agent Scott Boras to handle his very American goal."
This is as condescending as it gets.
"Wow! In the whole country, the Japanese have a player who can throw the ball 96 miles per hour! I told you the Japanese were good!"
Who can't throw the ball 96 mph? Tanyon Sturtze can throw the ball 96 mph. Rick Ankiel can throw the ball 96 mph. Victor Zambrano can throw the ball 96 mph. Dewon Brazelton can throw the ball 96 mph.
This guy Matsuzaka might be Tom Seaver or he might be Lance McCullers. I have no way of knowing.
But please don't insult his country and his baseball-playing ability by acting all impressed because he can throw a baseball 96 mph. That's AAA in this country, pal.
If you want to prove you're the best in the world, then don't prove it in the WBC. Prove it by signing a four-year deal with the Blue Jays.
"The Japanese team can do the little things. Unlike you guys, they don't wait for the three-run homer."
Look at Team USA's roster. They do not sit back and wait for a three-run homer.
Griffey is past his prime, but he's got ten gold gloves. I understand that his bunting skills are rusty, but that's because it makes more sense for him to swing than to pass the baton. Griffey probably has a better chance of doubling in the run than the next guy does of singling in the run.
Do Damon, Jeter, and ARod sit back and wait for a three-run homer? That's all they do?
Besides, three-run homeruns are exciting, too. They really are. Three-run homeruns score three runs, which is good, because runs help win baseball games.
Three-run homeruns are now somehow symbols or American Sloth and Greed. Three-run homeruns are SUVs lumbering down the highway pushing Celicas off the road. Three-run homeruns are heartless, industrial bombs raining down on quick-witted samurai. Three-run homeruns are double-bacon cheeseburgers which cause us to flatulate in a noble sushi restaurant. Three-run homeruns are big-ass cowboy hats being worn at a funeral. Three-run homeruns are a giant nuclear mutant lizard rising from the sea attacking Tokyo and only the intelligence and teamwork of a sacrifice bunt can drive it back.
"They [Cuba] have a second baseman, Yulieski Gourriel, who could start somewhere for just about any team in the majors now."
Maybe so, maybe not. I saw Gourriel almost cost his team the game against D.R. with a Soriano-cum-Knoblauch fielding play where he actually made two errors. One error for missing the grounder in a fundamentally unsound way. Then, another error when he mindlessly flung the ball into the stands even though he had plenty of time due to a slow baserunner.
Again, why with the condescension? "The Cubans have a player who can play in MLB! The Cubans!"
Why is this a surprise? Even hear of Luis Tiant, Tony Oliva, and El Duque?
Here is a list of pro baseball players born in Cuba.
Maybe I gave the rest of the world more credit than any of these writers. It doesn't surprise me at all that a handful of MLB-ready players exist throughout the world. It doesn't surprise me at all that an unmotivated USA team got their butts kicked.
It doesn't surprise me because, in case Heyman didn't notice, MLB in the US already features many of the best players from all over the world.
If these writers want to watch exciting, compelling, well-played baseball, they should watch the MLB playoffs this October. (If you really think you're a Championship, then I'm naturally going to compare you to the World Series and not just freakin' Spring Training games.)
In the MLB playoffs, the players will pitch! They will bunt! They will steal bases! They will throw the ball 96 mph, just like the Japanese can do! They will turn double plays! Oh, and they might even bore you with a homerun.
The ratings for these MLB playoff games will likely be higher than 1.1.
While the WBC is being endlessly praised, the overall ratings on ESPN were 1.1, with the finals receiving a whopping 1.8, which may or may not have beat Knight Rider reruns on channel 55.
I'm not talking about the ratings in Cuba or Japan. I'm talking about the ratings in the USA.
I'm talking about the supposed audience of Kevin Kernan (yet another WBC article), Jon Heyman, John Donovan (with a pat on the head to those cute little Japanese players), Ken Rosenthal (Guess why Japan won? Small ball!), some chick named Janie, and dozens more just like them.
You know what, John Donovan? Two words that prove Japan is not the best baseball-playing nation in the World: Hideki Irabu. Two more words: Tuffy Rhodes.
Were the WBC games exciting? No, not really.
Were they well-attended? No, not really. Unless you're impressed by 737,000 attendees at 39 games. 39 x 2 = 78, so I know right away it's less than 20,000 per game.
Were the games compelling? No, not really. Depending on what country you live in.
Was the type of baseball being played interesting? No, not really. Whenever I watched, it seemed like a bunch of players who couldn't hit.
As for the actual games, most of the analysis is quite condescending. I'll use Heyman's article as the example, but there are about 100 articles out there which basically say the same thing:
"An open letter to Team USA:
Too bad you losers couldn't make it here. Baseball history continued to be made last night without you, South Africa, the Netherlands and the rest of the early-round dropouts.
Cuba and Japan put on a lively, emotional display before a packed house at beautiful PETCO Park in the World Baseball Classic finale. Hope you returning Yankees thoroughly enjoyed that captivating 15-2 Grapefruit League loss to Detroit in lovely Lakeland."
The WBC was more exciting than Spring Training games, this is true. But that's like having a taste test between flat Coke and flat Pepsi.
It's also real nice that you just called South Africa and the Netherlands "losers."
"Many of you mega-millionaires suffered the punishment you deserved for losing: an additional week in central Florida, home to alligators, crocodiles, strippers and Steinbrenner."
The strippers sound kind of nice, actually. Not the kind of thing I'd consider punishment. Playing baseball in central Florida, where the strippers are, while being paid mega-millions by Steinbrenner.
As for the alligators and crocodiles, I don't really think Jeter and ARod actually had to worry about alligators and crocodiles as they ran from the dugout to their positions in the field.
"It may take a while, judging by ESPN, which skipped the first few batters to carry some worthless NIT game."
Number of professionals in the WBC: two. Number of professionals in the NIT: zero.
Number of mega-millionares in the WBC: at least one. Number of mega-millionaires in the NIT: zero.
The Netherlands and South Africa are losers and now the NIT is worthless. Heyman can go watch the NCAA tournaments with its shoe deals and big schools. Pure basketball fans watch the NIT with its teamwork and fundamentals.
"There's one thing we have to make clear. Your defeat wasn't a fluke. Nor were the teams who got here lucky."
So condescending. Nobody said the Japanese were lucky. But if you really open your eyes, you'll know that Team USA wasn't prepared to play, physically or mentally.
"They were here because they can play. And also because they are prepared, team-oriented, multi-dimensional and efficient. The South Korean team, eliminated Friday night, made zero errors in seven games."
Eliminated Friday night because they can't hit.
For what it's worth, the players in the US major leagues can also play. They are prepared, team-oriented, multi-dimensional, and efficient.
The only style that matters is the winning style. If you don't hit homeruns, you're not going to win. The '82 Cardinals were very exciting. But that was 25 seasons ago already. They're the exception, not the rule.
"Matsuzaka, who started last night's finale, tried to jump to the big leagues last year but was prevented by the troubled ownership of the Seibu Lions. You fellows caught a glimpse of him a few days ago, when he shut you out for four innings, putting him in large company.
Anyway, scouts say this kid, only 25, is ready to be an ace in the States. He hit 96 on the gun last night. Plus, he has all he needs: his trick pitch, the rapt attention of the Yankees, and agent Scott Boras to handle his very American goal."
This is as condescending as it gets.
"Wow! In the whole country, the Japanese have a player who can throw the ball 96 miles per hour! I told you the Japanese were good!"
Who can't throw the ball 96 mph? Tanyon Sturtze can throw the ball 96 mph. Rick Ankiel can throw the ball 96 mph. Victor Zambrano can throw the ball 96 mph. Dewon Brazelton can throw the ball 96 mph.
This guy Matsuzaka might be Tom Seaver or he might be Lance McCullers. I have no way of knowing.
But please don't insult his country and his baseball-playing ability by acting all impressed because he can throw a baseball 96 mph. That's AAA in this country, pal.
If you want to prove you're the best in the world, then don't prove it in the WBC. Prove it by signing a four-year deal with the Blue Jays.
"The Japanese team can do the little things. Unlike you guys, they don't wait for the three-run homer."
Look at Team USA's roster. They do not sit back and wait for a three-run homer.
Griffey is past his prime, but he's got ten gold gloves. I understand that his bunting skills are rusty, but that's because it makes more sense for him to swing than to pass the baton. Griffey probably has a better chance of doubling in the run than the next guy does of singling in the run.
Do Damon, Jeter, and ARod sit back and wait for a three-run homer? That's all they do?
Besides, three-run homeruns are exciting, too. They really are. Three-run homeruns score three runs, which is good, because runs help win baseball games.
Three-run homeruns are now somehow symbols or American Sloth and Greed. Three-run homeruns are SUVs lumbering down the highway pushing Celicas off the road. Three-run homeruns are heartless, industrial bombs raining down on quick-witted samurai. Three-run homeruns are double-bacon cheeseburgers which cause us to flatulate in a noble sushi restaurant. Three-run homeruns are big-ass cowboy hats being worn at a funeral. Three-run homeruns are a giant nuclear mutant lizard rising from the sea attacking Tokyo and only the intelligence and teamwork of a sacrifice bunt can drive it back.
"They [Cuba] have a second baseman, Yulieski Gourriel, who could start somewhere for just about any team in the majors now."
Maybe so, maybe not. I saw Gourriel almost cost his team the game against D.R. with a Soriano-cum-Knoblauch fielding play where he actually made two errors. One error for missing the grounder in a fundamentally unsound way. Then, another error when he mindlessly flung the ball into the stands even though he had plenty of time due to a slow baserunner.
Again, why with the condescension? "The Cubans have a player who can play in MLB! The Cubans!"
Why is this a surprise? Even hear of Luis Tiant, Tony Oliva, and El Duque?
Here is a list of pro baseball players born in Cuba.
Maybe I gave the rest of the world more credit than any of these writers. It doesn't surprise me at all that a handful of MLB-ready players exist throughout the world. It doesn't surprise me at all that an unmotivated USA team got their butts kicked.
It doesn't surprise me because, in case Heyman didn't notice, MLB in the US already features many of the best players from all over the world.
If these writers want to watch exciting, compelling, well-played baseball, they should watch the MLB playoffs this October. (If you really think you're a Championship, then I'm naturally going to compare you to the World Series and not just freakin' Spring Training games.)
In the MLB playoffs, the players will pitch! They will bunt! They will steal bases! They will throw the ball 96 mph, just like the Japanese can do! They will turn double plays! Oh, and they might even bore you with a homerun.
The ratings for these MLB playoff games will likely be higher than 1.1.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Gary Sheffield totally needs a nice, steaming cup of Shut the Bleep Up!
Jon-n-Lisa, the New York Daily News's "mixed nuts," battle it out in a blog battle!
I'll totally check back all year long! I might even send an email in so I can get in on the action!
Dear Jon,
Yankees rule and the Mets drool!
No, seriously, you and Lisa rock. As long as the rivalry is all in good fun.
Though, to be honest, I don't like Jose Reyes. I would probably LOL if Jose Reyes tries to steal second base this year and, while he's sliding into second base, his ankle just snaps right off. That would be kewl beanz!
Catch you on the flip side,
Felz
I'll totally check back all year long! I might even send an email in so I can get in on the action!
Dear Jon,
Yankees rule and the Mets drool!
No, seriously, you and Lisa rock. As long as the rivalry is all in good fun.
Though, to be honest, I don't like Jose Reyes. I would probably LOL if Jose Reyes tries to steal second base this year and, while he's sliding into second base, his ankle just snaps right off. That would be kewl beanz!
Catch you on the flip side,
Felz
Saturday, March 18, 2006
Kevin Kernan has a theory.
The rest of America has moved on, but Kevin Kernan is still analyzing Team USA's performance in the World Baseball Classic:
"One of the everlasting images of the World Baseball Classic didn't take place in Anaheim Stadium or Chase Field.
It took place on the campus of Cal State Fullerton, during what turned out to be Team USA's final workout.
Ken Griffey Jr. grabbed a metal bat, the kind the college kids use, and started launching moonshots. One ball flew over the massive pine trees in right-center, traveling an estimated 500 feet. Teammates, fans and reporters were in awe.
In so many ways, that's what the American Game has become. Hit the ball farther than your opponent and prance around the bases. That's exactly why Team USA is sitting on the sidelines as the WBC semifinalskick off today at Petco Park with Japan battling Korea and the Dominican squaring off against Cuba."
Okay, I am not sure how many everlasting images have resulted from the WBC. ARod's single up the middle to win a game. Vernon Wells ending the final USA game with a 6-4-3 dp. The umpire calling the Japanese player out on the tag up play. Eh.
But I'm pretty sure that the memories of Ken Griffey's batting practice homeruns were not everlasting. I'm also pretty sure that, since Ken Griffey's batting practice homeruns were not televised, that they don't even qualify as "images." Maybe somebody captured it on their cell phone, or something, but I haven't seen it.
It's an everlasting image that's not everlasting and not an image.
Not surprisingly, Kernan also fetishizes small ball:
"Before every game the Asian teams work a long fielding session, something American teams never do anymore. They bunt like Phil Rizzuto. They execute. They work long and hard on all the facets of the game.
That's why there have been no bobbles by undefeated Korea, which has not committed an error in the tournament. That's why watching the Japanese pre-game ritual is a lesson in teamwork. Their players take plenty of swings before the game, too, working on bat control, hitting with a purpose, not long-ball theatrics. Yet, if the pitch is inside, they will look to crush it.
Korea and Japan play your father's brand of baseball, the kind of baseball the Yankees of the '50s played - even the Yankees of 1996-2000."
Just be sure not the bring up the Yankees of the '20s, the '30s, the '60s, or the '70s.
My father watched the 1961 Yankees. 240 homeruns and 1 stolen base, which was a mistake because Moose Skowron was on first base and he thought the count was full with two outs.
My father watched the 1977 Yankees. Reggie Jackson's three nuanced homeruns in one World Series game.
His father probably watched the Yankees move in the fences in right field in order to accommodate Babe Ruth's ability to bunt.
As for the '96 - '00 Yankees, I was there to see for myself. As is typical, when Kernan identifies the '96 - '00 era, he must be talking about the legendary '98 Yankees.
While Wade Boggs may have understood the nuances of the strike zone more than any baseball player ever, he split time in '96 with Charlie Hayes. Charlies Hayes did not seem to understand baseball's nuances. Charlie Hayes was so afraid of being spiked in the glove, he wouldn't even tag sliding baserunners at third base.
Other small ball kings who led the Yankees to a title in '96 were Mariano Duncan, Darryl Strawberry, Cecil Fielder, Gerald Williams, and Jim Leyritz.
The Yankee teams of the past ten years have featured terrific offenses which blend speed and power. Sometimes they win in the playoffs, sometimes they lose. Sometimes they got the breaks, sometimes they didn't. Sometimes they beat superior opponents, sometimes they lost to inferior opponents. The difference between winning and losing was never small ball execution.
The way for Team USA and the Yankees to get back on top? It ain't pepper drills.
"One of the everlasting images of the World Baseball Classic didn't take place in Anaheim Stadium or Chase Field.
It took place on the campus of Cal State Fullerton, during what turned out to be Team USA's final workout.
Ken Griffey Jr. grabbed a metal bat, the kind the college kids use, and started launching moonshots. One ball flew over the massive pine trees in right-center, traveling an estimated 500 feet. Teammates, fans and reporters were in awe.
In so many ways, that's what the American Game has become. Hit the ball farther than your opponent and prance around the bases. That's exactly why Team USA is sitting on the sidelines as the WBC semifinalskick off today at Petco Park with Japan battling Korea and the Dominican squaring off against Cuba."
Okay, I am not sure how many everlasting images have resulted from the WBC. ARod's single up the middle to win a game. Vernon Wells ending the final USA game with a 6-4-3 dp. The umpire calling the Japanese player out on the tag up play. Eh.
But I'm pretty sure that the memories of Ken Griffey's batting practice homeruns were not everlasting. I'm also pretty sure that, since Ken Griffey's batting practice homeruns were not televised, that they don't even qualify as "images." Maybe somebody captured it on their cell phone, or something, but I haven't seen it.
It's an everlasting image that's not everlasting and not an image.
Not surprisingly, Kernan also fetishizes small ball:
"Before every game the Asian teams work a long fielding session, something American teams never do anymore. They bunt like Phil Rizzuto. They execute. They work long and hard on all the facets of the game.
That's why there have been no bobbles by undefeated Korea, which has not committed an error in the tournament. That's why watching the Japanese pre-game ritual is a lesson in teamwork. Their players take plenty of swings before the game, too, working on bat control, hitting with a purpose, not long-ball theatrics. Yet, if the pitch is inside, they will look to crush it.
Korea and Japan play your father's brand of baseball, the kind of baseball the Yankees of the '50s played - even the Yankees of 1996-2000."
Just be sure not the bring up the Yankees of the '20s, the '30s, the '60s, or the '70s.
My father watched the 1961 Yankees. 240 homeruns and 1 stolen base, which was a mistake because Moose Skowron was on first base and he thought the count was full with two outs.
My father watched the 1977 Yankees. Reggie Jackson's three nuanced homeruns in one World Series game.
His father probably watched the Yankees move in the fences in right field in order to accommodate Babe Ruth's ability to bunt.
As for the '96 - '00 Yankees, I was there to see for myself. As is typical, when Kernan identifies the '96 - '00 era, he must be talking about the legendary '98 Yankees.
While Wade Boggs may have understood the nuances of the strike zone more than any baseball player ever, he split time in '96 with Charlie Hayes. Charlies Hayes did not seem to understand baseball's nuances. Charlie Hayes was so afraid of being spiked in the glove, he wouldn't even tag sliding baserunners at third base.
Other small ball kings who led the Yankees to a title in '96 were Mariano Duncan, Darryl Strawberry, Cecil Fielder, Gerald Williams, and Jim Leyritz.
The Yankee teams of the past ten years have featured terrific offenses which blend speed and power. Sometimes they win in the playoffs, sometimes they lose. Sometimes they got the breaks, sometimes they didn't. Sometimes they beat superior opponents, sometimes they lost to inferior opponents. The difference between winning and losing was never small ball execution.
The way for Team USA and the Yankees to get back on top? It ain't pepper drills.
Friday, March 17, 2006
Golden Boy strands three baserunners.
I don't hold it against Derek Jeter by any means. Hitting baseballs isn't easy and nothing that occurs in the WBC really matters to me.
However, I also know if Alex Rodriguez strands a baserunner, it's the end of the world.
Derek Jeter, on the other hand, doesn't choke after swinging at lots of bad pitches. Derek Jeter guts out tough at-bats:
"With runners on second and third in the fifth inning, Derek Jeter gutted out a tough eight-pitch at-bat, fouling off balls at his face and his feet, only to ground out to second base and end the inning."
For the record, Golden Boy also stranded a runner at third base in the 8th inning.
However, I also know if Alex Rodriguez strands a baserunner, it's the end of the world.
Derek Jeter, on the other hand, doesn't choke after swinging at lots of bad pitches. Derek Jeter guts out tough at-bats:
"With runners on second and third in the fifth inning, Derek Jeter gutted out a tough eight-pitch at-bat, fouling off balls at his face and his feet, only to ground out to second base and end the inning."
For the record, Golden Boy also stranded a runner at third base in the 8th inning.
Say it ain't so, Kevin.
"Mark this down as one of the darkest days in USA baseball history. Abner Doubleday is turning two in his grave."
That would make him Abner Doubleplay.
Ha ha ha! I beat Lupica to the punch.
As an intelligent reader, it is sometimes my duty to read between the lines. When Kernan uses the term "USA baseball history," I am forced to assume he means Team USA International Competition.
March 16, 2006: Mark it down as one of Team USA's darkest days. Not too many Team USA days to choose from -- I know they missed the Olympics one time when they played some college kids -- but, as far as I know, Team USA hasn't had too may dark days or bright days.
It's hard to dispute Kernan's point. It elicits a shrug. Whatever you say.
Having said that, the writer has a duty to explicity distinguish between "Team USA baseball" described above and "USA baseball," as in the "United States of America," as in the country.
Because it's very easy to misinterpret Kernan's point. He seems to be saying this is really one of the darkest days in baseball history.
What is the correct interpretation?
The more I ponder it, the more I am forced to wonder if Kernan really believes this is one of the darkest day in American baseball history. As bad as the Black Sox, work stoppages, fights, injuries, deaths, racism, steroids, drugs, airplane crashes, Eddie Gaedel, disco demolition night, Anna Benson, and Bucky Dent asking Steve Sax to bunt with two strikes.
That would make him Abner Doubleplay.
Ha ha ha! I beat Lupica to the punch.
As an intelligent reader, it is sometimes my duty to read between the lines. When Kernan uses the term "USA baseball history," I am forced to assume he means Team USA International Competition.
March 16, 2006: Mark it down as one of Team USA's darkest days. Not too many Team USA days to choose from -- I know they missed the Olympics one time when they played some college kids -- but, as far as I know, Team USA hasn't had too may dark days or bright days.
It's hard to dispute Kernan's point. It elicits a shrug. Whatever you say.
Having said that, the writer has a duty to explicity distinguish between "Team USA baseball" described above and "USA baseball," as in the "United States of America," as in the country.
Because it's very easy to misinterpret Kernan's point. He seems to be saying this is really one of the darkest days in baseball history.
What is the correct interpretation?
The more I ponder it, the more I am forced to wonder if Kernan really believes this is one of the darkest day in American baseball history. As bad as the Black Sox, work stoppages, fights, injuries, deaths, racism, steroids, drugs, airplane crashes, Eddie Gaedel, disco demolition night, Anna Benson, and Bucky Dent asking Steve Sax to bunt with two strikes.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
If you love something, let it go.
If it comes back to you, it is yours to keep.
If it doesn't come back, it never was yours.
Some deep thoughts upon which to reflect as Kevin Kernan exaggerates the importance of a Spring Training homerun by Hee Sop Choi:
"This loss was no fluke. South Korea outplayed Team USA in every phase of the game that no long [sic] belongs to America."
If it doesn't come back, it never was yours.
Some deep thoughts upon which to reflect as Kevin Kernan exaggerates the importance of a Spring Training homerun by Hee Sop Choi:
"This loss was no fluke. South Korea outplayed Team USA in every phase of the game that no long [sic] belongs to America."
Sunday, March 12, 2006
Mike Lupica rarely pays attention to anything.
"Bonds rarely pays attention to anything or anyone other than himself. But if he watched what happened last year with Giambi, his teammate on the BALCO All-Stars, he couldn't help but notice that Giambi, hitting the way he did the second half of the season and being as much an MVP for the Yankees in that period as anybody, was better than a Presidential pardon."
For a second there, I thought Mike Lupica said Jason Giambi was as much an MVP for the Yankees in the second half of the season as anybody.
In the second half of 2005, Giambi hit .266 with 22 hrs and 55 rbis. Giambi is a slow baserunner and, when he's not DHing, he's a mediocre fielder at an unimportant position.
That's as valuable as Alex Rodriguez. .325-25-58 and about 3 errors at third base.
That's as valuable as Mariano Rivera. 23 saves, 1.69 era in 43 innings.
That's as valuable as Aaron Small. 10-0, 3.20 era in 76 innings.
Jeter .310-8-33-53 runs while playing shortstop; Sheffield .284-17-55; Chacon 7-3, 2.85 era in 74 innings; Johnson 8-2, 3.31 era in 98 innings.
What Mike Lupica said right there is a crock. Can you imagine actually believing that Jason Giambi was the second-half MVP for the Yankees in 2005?
Yet, I have a hunch that Lupica just planted a Stupid seed. Fifty thousand Mike and the Mad Dog listeners just read that column and think it's Gospel. They're going to bother me all summer long, aren't they?
I know rigorous statistical analysis is not the essence of Shootin' From The Lip. (The essence of Shootin' From The Lip is Fox TV shows, Oscar wardrobes, and Johnny Damon's hair, even though Lupica doesn't want to talk about Johnny Damon's hair.) But you've still got to do better than that. You can't just assert that Giambi was the Yankee MVP in the second half of 2005 when there is no way to back it up. You've got to at least look at the scoreboard stats.
It's precisely the wrong question. Of course Johnson and Mussina are not "getting better" at this stage of their careers.
Same goes for Damon, Jeter, ARod, Posada, Giambi, Rivera, Sheffield, etc. The only players who are suddenly going to "get better" are young players who are in the early "stage of their careers."
You might occasionally get an outlier -- 2000 Edgardo Alfonzo or 1993 Gregg Jefferies -- but it's safe to say that veterans in major league baseball don't suddenly "get better."
The most important observation is that the Yankees don't need Johnson and Mussina to get better. The Yankees need 30 combined wins.
Is Lupica slyly suggesting that Johnson and Mussina are on the way down and out? That Johnson and Mussina are anchors that will bring S.S. Yankee down with them?
Yes, I think that is what he's suggesting. Please remember Lupica's assertion when the Yankees win the AL East and Randy Johnson wins the Cy Young Award.
Though when Lupica is proven wrong, he'll just deny ever saying it.
For a second there, I thought Mike Lupica said Jason Giambi was as much an MVP for the Yankees in the second half of the season as anybody.
In the second half of 2005, Giambi hit .266 with 22 hrs and 55 rbis. Giambi is a slow baserunner and, when he's not DHing, he's a mediocre fielder at an unimportant position.
That's as valuable as Alex Rodriguez. .325-25-58 and about 3 errors at third base.
That's as valuable as Mariano Rivera. 23 saves, 1.69 era in 43 innings.
That's as valuable as Aaron Small. 10-0, 3.20 era in 76 innings.
Jeter .310-8-33-53 runs while playing shortstop; Sheffield .284-17-55; Chacon 7-3, 2.85 era in 74 innings; Johnson 8-2, 3.31 era in 98 innings.
What Mike Lupica said right there is a crock. Can you imagine actually believing that Jason Giambi was the second-half MVP for the Yankees in 2005?
Yet, I have a hunch that Lupica just planted a Stupid seed. Fifty thousand Mike and the Mad Dog listeners just read that column and think it's Gospel. They're going to bother me all summer long, aren't they?
I know rigorous statistical analysis is not the essence of Shootin' From The Lip. (The essence of Shootin' From The Lip is Fox TV shows, Oscar wardrobes, and Johnny Damon's hair, even though Lupica doesn't want to talk about Johnny Damon's hair.) But you've still got to do better than that. You can't just assert that Giambi was the Yankee MVP in the second half of 2005 when there is no way to back it up. You've got to at least look at the scoreboard stats.
"I know everything is supposed to be rosy down there in Yankeeville, but I don't see how you can't have questions about the Yankee starting rotation.
Especially the two guys at the top of it, Big Unit Johnson and Mike Mussina.
Maybe the question is this:
Are either one of them getting better at this stage of their careers?"
I know everything is supposed to be rosy down there in Metville, but I was wondering if Pedro and Glavine are getting better at this stage of their careers. I know everything is supposed to be rosy down there in RedSoxville, but I was wondering if Wells and Schilling are getting better at this stage of their careers. I know everything is supposed to be rosy down there in WhiteSoxville, but I was wondering if Buehrle and Vazquez are getting better at this stage of their careers.It's precisely the wrong question. Of course Johnson and Mussina are not "getting better" at this stage of their careers.
Same goes for Damon, Jeter, ARod, Posada, Giambi, Rivera, Sheffield, etc. The only players who are suddenly going to "get better" are young players who are in the early "stage of their careers."
You might occasionally get an outlier -- 2000 Edgardo Alfonzo or 1993 Gregg Jefferies -- but it's safe to say that veterans in major league baseball don't suddenly "get better."
The most important observation is that the Yankees don't need Johnson and Mussina to get better. The Yankees need 30 combined wins.
Is Lupica slyly suggesting that Johnson and Mussina are on the way down and out? That Johnson and Mussina are anchors that will bring S.S. Yankee down with them?
Yes, I think that is what he's suggesting. Please remember Lupica's assertion when the Yankees win the AL East and Randy Johnson wins the Cy Young Award.
Though when Lupica is proven wrong, he'll just deny ever saying it.
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Perspective on the WBC.
"If Mexico defeats Canada by a score of 1-0, 2-0 or 2-1, then both Mexico and Canada will secure berths in the second round, ending Team USA's run. Tomorrow's game against South Africa would become a meaningless exhibition."
Okay, you've got pitch counts, mercy rules, silly player substitutions, and rules like "if Mexico defeats Canada by a score of 1-0, 2-0 or 2-1, then USA is eliminated."
Under any circumstances, when Team USA plays Team South Africa, that game is a meaningless exhibition.
The entire tournament is a meaningless exhibition.
Okay, you've got pitch counts, mercy rules, silly player substitutions, and rules like "if Mexico defeats Canada by a score of 1-0, 2-0 or 2-1, then USA is eliminated."
Under any circumstances, when Team USA plays Team South Africa, that game is a meaningless exhibition.
The entire tournament is a meaningless exhibition.
Kevin Kernan is silly.
"This was an international disgrace."
No, it was not. Losing a baseball game is not an international disgrace.
(Predictably, Team Canada's manager suggests that his team won because they have more heart. I'm guessing they're also clutch and a team of destiny.)
"Mark it down as the most embarrassing defeat in Team USA baseball history, losing on its home turf to a country known for hockey, eh."
I can't rebuke that particular point. It probably is the most embarrassing loss in Team USA baseball history. It's also proably the least embarrassing loss in Team USA history.
Quick! Name one other loss in Team USA baseball history. Name one victory in Team USA baseball history, prior to the 2006 WBC. Name one play in Team USA baseball history, prior to the 2006 WBC.
"Shockingly, Team USA could be eliminated from the World Baseball Classic without throwing another pitch."
Good. Get them back to their teams in Spring Training.
Then the fans can be "shocked" and "stunned" when AAA pitchers manage to get three outs in an inning, which happens every day in Spring Training. Heck, it happens just about every day in the Majors. The only difference between Randy Keisler and Sandy Koufax is consistency.
Team USA's WBC loss is niether shocking nor stunning. It's one game and that's just how baseball works.
Dontrelle Willis had an off day in early March and Mark Teixeira was 0-for-5. Play again in July and Willis might throw a shutout and Teixeira might hit two grand slams. Play again tomorrow and Team USA might win 15-zip and set the world back on its axis.
No, it was not. Losing a baseball game is not an international disgrace.
(Predictably, Team Canada's manager suggests that his team won because they have more heart. I'm guessing they're also clutch and a team of destiny.)
"Mark it down as the most embarrassing defeat in Team USA baseball history, losing on its home turf to a country known for hockey, eh."
I can't rebuke that particular point. It probably is the most embarrassing loss in Team USA baseball history. It's also proably the least embarrassing loss in Team USA history.
Quick! Name one other loss in Team USA baseball history. Name one victory in Team USA baseball history, prior to the 2006 WBC. Name one play in Team USA baseball history, prior to the 2006 WBC.
"Shockingly, Team USA could be eliminated from the World Baseball Classic without throwing another pitch."
Good. Get them back to their teams in Spring Training.
Then the fans can be "shocked" and "stunned" when AAA pitchers manage to get three outs in an inning, which happens every day in Spring Training. Heck, it happens just about every day in the Majors. The only difference between Randy Keisler and Sandy Koufax is consistency.
Team USA's WBC loss is niether shocking nor stunning. It's one game and that's just how baseball works.
Dontrelle Willis had an off day in early March and Mark Teixeira was 0-for-5. Play again in July and Willis might throw a shutout and Teixeira might hit two grand slams. Play again tomorrow and Team USA might win 15-zip and set the world back on its axis.
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Situational Ethics.
Every time he pencils Jason Giambi's name in the lineup, Joe Torre risks falling off his high horse:
"I think the one thing that baseball has always tried to maintain was the integrity because our game more than any other game statistics are so important. I think that right now that is called into question, and it's a shame in Barry's case. He's such a good player ... long, long ago before there was any doubt on what made him good. It's certainly a black eye that we all have to be aware of. It can turn to anger if you try to circumvent and get around trying to help us clean up. Trying to cut corners or trying a different way to keep doing what you're doing, that I think is wrong and knowingly wrong."
"I think the one thing that baseball has always tried to maintain was the integrity because our game more than any other game statistics are so important. I think that right now that is called into question, and it's a shame in Barry's case. He's such a good player ... long, long ago before there was any doubt on what made him good. It's certainly a black eye that we all have to be aware of. It can turn to anger if you try to circumvent and get around trying to help us clean up. Trying to cut corners or trying a different way to keep doing what you're doing, that I think is wrong and knowingly wrong."
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Bonds Worthy of Scorn Despite Abdul Impersonation.
"Faced with the most damning, deeply sourced, comprehensive and chilling charges against Barry Bonds yet, courtesy of a new book by the San Francisco Chronicle reporters who have been on him from the start, decision day is here for Bonds, for baseball and for the San Francisco Giants."
The charges are damning, deeply sourced, and comprehensive. I'm not sure why Dan Wetzel thinks they're chilling. I'm also not sure why this is considered new information.
Wetzel himself acknowledges the information is no surprise:
"It is not that the book reveals that Bonds used performance-enhancing drugs to become the most incredible home run hitter of all time. Only the most naive among us didn't already know that, Giants officials included."
So Wetzel is suddenly stunned and chilled, but he already knew Bonds did steroids.
Ummm ... huh?
"There isn't any middle ground. There isn't any room for debate or for situational ethics. There isn't any more time to put off making serious decisions about Bonds' future."
Actually, the entire discussion is middle ground and debate about situational ethics.
I haven't seen Dan Wetzel or anybody else ask the Mariners to bench Matt Lawton. There's your debate about situational ethics right there.
Is Wetzel really saying the contrite cheaters aren't really cheaters? That's sure what he seems to be saying:
"If Barry's reaction is to ignore, to pout, to try to clown it up in a pathetic, public relations-fueled drag act – his hair and boobs as fake as his career stats – then no longer can anyone sit by and idly watch."
That sounds precisely like situational ethics to me.
How about if Barry Bonds talks to the press, takes the newspaper to court, smiles more often, and dresses in men's clothes. Then Wetzel is cool with the steroids?
Besides, even if Dan Wetzel and everybody else in the world treats Barry Bonds with scorn, that's really not that much different than sitting by and idly watching. We'll all be idly watching, except with scorn.
I think everyone knows Bonds got chemical help. But everybody gets chemical help nowadays. The difference between legal drugs endorsed by MLB and illegal drugs? It's situational ethics and middle ground.
"Understand that Bonds is no one's victim, no one's good guy. Don't let the Paula Abdul act that got all the clowns on the 11 o'clock news chortling fool you."
Is it just me or is Wetzel obsessing about Barry Bonds in drag?
Funny Wetzel should mention it, because when I saw Barry Bonds dressed up as Paula Abdul, it totally fooled me.
I thought to myself, "That man is a good guy. Until I saw him dressed up as Paula Abdul, I was unsympathetic to his situation. But now that I've seen him dressed up as Paula Abdul, I am suddenly sympathetic to his situation."
Wetzel is right about one thing: This battle is in the court of public opinion. Bonds lost that battle long ago.
With that in mind, Wetzel's next suggestion is categorically ridiculous and downright disgusting:
"It should motivate Bud Selig to wipe the record book clean of that time frame, even reinstating Roger Maris' 61 home runs as the single-season record. Because baseball relies on having its lore passed down through the generations, and there is no way you'll ever be able to explain all of this to your children or your grandchildren."
This is an amazement statement by Dan Wetzel.
It should be obvious that Selig can't "wipe the record book clean of that time frame" because it's simply not possible. Think about it for five minutes and you tell me where you start. Even if you only go after the premier HR hitters of that era, it is just the tip of the iceberg, and there is no way to figure out which stats should stay and which stats should go.
What is "that time frame," anyway? Is it 1993 when Lenny Dykstra pulled 4 World Series homeruns out of his butt? Is it 1996, with Brady Anderson's 50 homerun season? Does it start with Cecil Fielder in the early '90s?
Which homeruns are steroid homeruns? Does Bonds get to keep his three pre-'98 MVPs? Or does he only get to keep them if he apologizes to Dan Wetzel?
The devil is in the details. The court of public opinion can easily and elegantly wipe Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, and anybody else from their personal record books. The official codifying of this is not possible.
We still haven't even proven that Bonds took steroids and, if we're going to start eliminating records because of suspicions, then I get to start with Luis Gonzalez in 2001 and give the Yankees their World Series rings. Or at least the Yankees who weren't on the 'roids.
Most alarming is Dan Wetzel's conclusion. He won't be able to explain this to his children or his grandchildren.
Is he serious? There is "no way" Dan Wetzel can explain "all of this" to his children?
Felz can do it in two sentences:
"In the '90s, a fairly substantial number of baseball players evidently took steroids, which made them significantly stronger than they would have been with weight training alone, and seems to have resulted in a lot more homeruns. A lot of people believe this steroid use resulted in an inherently unfair situation because most of the steroid users' contemporaries, and all of the players from pre-steroid times, did not benefit from similarly artificially-enhanced physiques."
Somebody call DYFS right away and get Dan Wetzel's kids out of his house. If he can't explain steroids and their impact on the baseball record books, then I wonder how he explains sex, pot, taxes, death, the infield fly rule, the Civil War, the two-party political system, Roth IRAs, gravity, evolution, algebra, global warming, dialectical materialism, and carrier pigeons.
The charges are damning, deeply sourced, and comprehensive. I'm not sure why Dan Wetzel thinks they're chilling. I'm also not sure why this is considered new information.
Wetzel himself acknowledges the information is no surprise:
"It is not that the book reveals that Bonds used performance-enhancing drugs to become the most incredible home run hitter of all time. Only the most naive among us didn't already know that, Giants officials included."
So Wetzel is suddenly stunned and chilled, but he already knew Bonds did steroids.
Ummm ... huh?
"There isn't any middle ground. There isn't any room for debate or for situational ethics. There isn't any more time to put off making serious decisions about Bonds' future."
Actually, the entire discussion is middle ground and debate about situational ethics.
I haven't seen Dan Wetzel or anybody else ask the Mariners to bench Matt Lawton. There's your debate about situational ethics right there.
Is Wetzel really saying the contrite cheaters aren't really cheaters? That's sure what he seems to be saying:
"If Barry's reaction is to ignore, to pout, to try to clown it up in a pathetic, public relations-fueled drag act – his hair and boobs as fake as his career stats – then no longer can anyone sit by and idly watch."
That sounds precisely like situational ethics to me.
How about if Barry Bonds talks to the press, takes the newspaper to court, smiles more often, and dresses in men's clothes. Then Wetzel is cool with the steroids?
Besides, even if Dan Wetzel and everybody else in the world treats Barry Bonds with scorn, that's really not that much different than sitting by and idly watching. We'll all be idly watching, except with scorn.
I think everyone knows Bonds got chemical help. But everybody gets chemical help nowadays. The difference between legal drugs endorsed by MLB and illegal drugs? It's situational ethics and middle ground.
"Understand that Bonds is no one's victim, no one's good guy. Don't let the Paula Abdul act that got all the clowns on the 11 o'clock news chortling fool you."
Is it just me or is Wetzel obsessing about Barry Bonds in drag?
Funny Wetzel should mention it, because when I saw Barry Bonds dressed up as Paula Abdul, it totally fooled me.
I thought to myself, "That man is a good guy. Until I saw him dressed up as Paula Abdul, I was unsympathetic to his situation. But now that I've seen him dressed up as Paula Abdul, I am suddenly sympathetic to his situation."
Wetzel is right about one thing: This battle is in the court of public opinion. Bonds lost that battle long ago.
With that in mind, Wetzel's next suggestion is categorically ridiculous and downright disgusting:
"It should motivate Bud Selig to wipe the record book clean of that time frame, even reinstating Roger Maris' 61 home runs as the single-season record. Because baseball relies on having its lore passed down through the generations, and there is no way you'll ever be able to explain all of this to your children or your grandchildren."
This is an amazement statement by Dan Wetzel.
It should be obvious that Selig can't "wipe the record book clean of that time frame" because it's simply not possible. Think about it for five minutes and you tell me where you start. Even if you only go after the premier HR hitters of that era, it is just the tip of the iceberg, and there is no way to figure out which stats should stay and which stats should go.
What is "that time frame," anyway? Is it 1993 when Lenny Dykstra pulled 4 World Series homeruns out of his butt? Is it 1996, with Brady Anderson's 50 homerun season? Does it start with Cecil Fielder in the early '90s?
Which homeruns are steroid homeruns? Does Bonds get to keep his three pre-'98 MVPs? Or does he only get to keep them if he apologizes to Dan Wetzel?
The devil is in the details. The court of public opinion can easily and elegantly wipe Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, and anybody else from their personal record books. The official codifying of this is not possible.
We still haven't even proven that Bonds took steroids and, if we're going to start eliminating records because of suspicions, then I get to start with Luis Gonzalez in 2001 and give the Yankees their World Series rings. Or at least the Yankees who weren't on the 'roids.
Most alarming is Dan Wetzel's conclusion. He won't be able to explain this to his children or his grandchildren.
Is he serious? There is "no way" Dan Wetzel can explain "all of this" to his children?
Felz can do it in two sentences:
"In the '90s, a fairly substantial number of baseball players evidently took steroids, which made them significantly stronger than they would have been with weight training alone, and seems to have resulted in a lot more homeruns. A lot of people believe this steroid use resulted in an inherently unfair situation because most of the steroid users' contemporaries, and all of the players from pre-steroid times, did not benefit from similarly artificially-enhanced physiques."
Somebody call DYFS right away and get Dan Wetzel's kids out of his house. If he can't explain steroids and their impact on the baseball record books, then I wonder how he explains sex, pot, taxes, death, the infield fly rule, the Civil War, the two-party political system, Roth IRAs, gravity, evolution, algebra, global warming, dialectical materialism, and carrier pigeons.
U.S.A.! U.S.A.!
See? I'm a good sport.
Nobody got hurt and the players seem genuinely excited about playing for their country.
Not sure if Derrek Lee is quite understanding the WBC's pop culture relevance:
"Today I felt proud," Lee said. "I felt like the whole country was watching."
Team USA's game was shown on ESPN2, apparently pre-empting repeats of Cold Pizza. I don't know if anybody was watching ESPN2 on Tuesday afternoon, but if Derrek Lee felt proud, then bully for him.
Speaking for myself, I saw exactly one play. Joe Nathan struck out a Mexican player and the pitch was in the dirt. The catcher picked up the ball and threw him out at first.
Then I switched to Simpsons reruns. It was the one where Homer creates "tomacco."
Nobody got hurt and the players seem genuinely excited about playing for their country.
Not sure if Derrek Lee is quite understanding the WBC's pop culture relevance:
"Today I felt proud," Lee said. "I felt like the whole country was watching."
Team USA's game was shown on ESPN2, apparently pre-empting repeats of Cold Pizza. I don't know if anybody was watching ESPN2 on Tuesday afternoon, but if Derrek Lee felt proud, then bully for him.
Speaking for myself, I saw exactly one play. Joe Nathan struck out a Mexican player and the pitch was in the dirt. The catcher picked up the ball and threw him out at first.
Then I switched to Simpsons reruns. It was the one where Homer creates "tomacco."
Mike Lupica Endorses World Baseball Classic, Witty Wordplay.
"It is called the World Baseball Classic, but for now, the only classic thing about it is George Steinbrenner's reaction, from his world."
"It is called the World Baseball Classic, but for now, the only classic thing about it is George Steinbrenner's reaction, from his world."
Uh huh.
See what he did there? Did you see with the "world" and the "classic"? He took you this way and that way and then ... boom! ... he dropped the punchline like a right hook from Rocky Marciano!
Oy.
Is this microphone working? What do you know from comedy, anyway?
Did Mike Lupica just jump the shark? I'm thinking, with that sentence, Lupica's patented strained wordplay has gone beyond all credible bounds of journalistic decency.
"Around here, we are supposed to believe that the World Baseball Classic is bad, bad, bad. Why? Because the Yankees say it is bad, bad, bad, that's why."
First of all, we're not supposed to believe anything the Yankees say. We're supposed to think for ourselves. Most intelligent observers know by now that everything Steinbrenner says is spin and hype.
Sell the product. Sell, sell, sell! Twenty-four hours a day!
Too bad the commissioner of the league hasn't learned that lesson.
Let me flip the question on Lupica: Am I supposed to believe the WBC is good because esteemed intellects like Roger Clemens think it's good? Am I supposed to believe the WBC will expand baseball internationally because Bud Selig says it will?
Because of Selig's stellar track record in Tampa Bay? The guy who wants to expand the game is the same guy who had the Twins on the chopping block?
The WBC is neither bad nor good, it's simply uninteresting to most American baseball fans. I have no rooting interest and I don't care which team wins. I think there's a good chance Team USA will tank because they simply don't care that much.
Will this mean Japan has the best players in the world? If that floats your boat, cool with me. I still say the White Sox are the World Champs and it's a beautiful thing because they were brought together by the Pure pursuit of money rather than the Artifice of ethnicity.
There is only one Race (dramatic pause) -- the Human Race.
"And you never know, if Jeter or A-Rod or Damon ends up getting the big hit to win the championship game, maybe Steinbrenner will want to call the thing 'Pride of the Yankess.' "
Ha ha. Good one, Mike. "Yankess" instead of "Yankees." Just like the sign!
And you never know, if Jeter fouls a ball off his foot while playing South Africa, then I guess Lupica really will have to watch snowboarding or NASCAR.
Because "let's face it, the Yankees aren't the Yankees when Jeter's not in the game."
"It is called the World Baseball Classic, but for now, the only classic thing about it is George Steinbrenner's reaction, from his world."
Uh huh.
See what he did there? Did you see with the "world" and the "classic"? He took you this way and that way and then ... boom! ... he dropped the punchline like a right hook from Rocky Marciano!
Oy.
Is this microphone working? What do you know from comedy, anyway?
Did Mike Lupica just jump the shark? I'm thinking, with that sentence, Lupica's patented strained wordplay has gone beyond all credible bounds of journalistic decency.
"Around here, we are supposed to believe that the World Baseball Classic is bad, bad, bad. Why? Because the Yankees say it is bad, bad, bad, that's why."
First of all, we're not supposed to believe anything the Yankees say. We're supposed to think for ourselves. Most intelligent observers know by now that everything Steinbrenner says is spin and hype.
Sell the product. Sell, sell, sell! Twenty-four hours a day!
Too bad the commissioner of the league hasn't learned that lesson.
Let me flip the question on Lupica: Am I supposed to believe the WBC is good because esteemed intellects like Roger Clemens think it's good? Am I supposed to believe the WBC will expand baseball internationally because Bud Selig says it will?
Because of Selig's stellar track record in Tampa Bay? The guy who wants to expand the game is the same guy who had the Twins on the chopping block?
The WBC is neither bad nor good, it's simply uninteresting to most American baseball fans. I have no rooting interest and I don't care which team wins. I think there's a good chance Team USA will tank because they simply don't care that much.
Will this mean Japan has the best players in the world? If that floats your boat, cool with me. I still say the White Sox are the World Champs and it's a beautiful thing because they were brought together by the Pure pursuit of money rather than the Artifice of ethnicity.
There is only one Race (dramatic pause) -- the Human Race.
"And you never know, if Jeter or A-Rod or Damon ends up getting the big hit to win the championship game, maybe Steinbrenner will want to call the thing 'Pride of the Yankess.' "
Ha ha. Good one, Mike. "Yankess" instead of "Yankees." Just like the sign!
And you never know, if Jeter fouls a ball off his foot while playing South Africa, then I guess Lupica really will have to watch snowboarding or NASCAR.
Because "let's face it, the Yankees aren't the Yankees when Jeter's not in the game."
Monday, March 06, 2006
.273 hitter sets his sights on Joe D.
While Mike Lupica's gears are grinding as he comes to the astonishing conclusion that George Steinbrenner authorized the anti-WBC sign in the Yankees' Spring Training ticket office, I feel the need to draw your attention to the current hitting streak of Jimmy Rollins. Because very few baseball writers seem to notice.
Rollins is twenty away from Joe D., eight away from Rose's NL record, and his current streak is already the third-best hitting streak of my lifetime.
It's nice to know that Dom Dimaggio is so gracious whenever a player gets within twenty games of his brother:
"It would be a little bit difficult for me to swallow," said DiMaggio, 89, in a telephone interview. "You can't compare a hitting streak in a full season with one in two seasons. There's a rest in there. Even though there's pressure on him, I have to believe there's more pressure doing it in one season than in two."
I'd be surprised if Rollins gets to 40, much less 57.
But can you imagine hitting in 36 straight games -- which is remarkable in its own right -- and then taking a whole season off -- and then starting the next season by hitting in 21 straight games?
No pressure? It's easier when you have an entire off-season to lose your timing and lose your groove?
Is Rollins seriously going to have to deal with ingnorant comments like this if his streak continues? Can a modern baseballlplayer do anything that would impress an 89-year-old man? Am I to believe that all the great baseball-playing human beings were miraculously born between the years of 1900 and 1930?
Okay, now I'm riled up. I suddenly find myself rooting for Rollins ...
Rollins is twenty away from Joe D., eight away from Rose's NL record, and his current streak is already the third-best hitting streak of my lifetime.
It's nice to know that Dom Dimaggio is so gracious whenever a player gets within twenty games of his brother:
"It would be a little bit difficult for me to swallow," said DiMaggio, 89, in a telephone interview. "You can't compare a hitting streak in a full season with one in two seasons. There's a rest in there. Even though there's pressure on him, I have to believe there's more pressure doing it in one season than in two."
I'd be surprised if Rollins gets to 40, much less 57.
But can you imagine hitting in 36 straight games -- which is remarkable in its own right -- and then taking a whole season off -- and then starting the next season by hitting in 21 straight games?
No pressure? It's easier when you have an entire off-season to lose your timing and lose your groove?
Is Rollins seriously going to have to deal with ingnorant comments like this if his streak continues? Can a modern baseballlplayer do anything that would impress an 89-year-old man? Am I to believe that all the great baseball-playing human beings were miraculously born between the years of 1900 and 1930?
Okay, now I'm riled up. I suddenly find myself rooting for Rollins ...
Life Lessons from Commissioner Fuddy Duddy.
Can't anybody take a joke? The sign was funny. The misspelling of "Yankees" only added to the hilarity.
I'll tell you what else: MLB graciously accepts the $zillion luxury tax and, in exchange, the Yankees can complain all they want.
Instead, Bud Selig does his best impression of Captain Kangaroo:
"At some point in life, you've got to rise above your own selfish interest," Selig said. "If this sport is to go on to do the heights we have to do, you can't let your own myopic interest guide you."
I hope Selig remembers that during the next round of labor negotiations. Or the next time he's negotiating a TV contract with ESPN. Or the next time he testifies before Congress.
You know, professional sports are competitive. Most of the owners are millionaires at least. How do you think Steinbrenner became owner of the Yankees in the first place? By sharing the wealth with CBS? Or by putting Michael Burke's kibbles-n-bits in a vice?
Myopic interests guide the whole thing. Myopic interests guide every pitch, every at-bat, every GM decision.
"At some point - I know it's trite, but I don't believe it's trite - sometimes in life, you do things that in the long run really help you and your sport."
"I know it's trite, but I don't believe it's trite." Gee whiz, that's swell. Go back into your crypt and leave the talking to David Stern.
How is the WBC going to help the Yankees in the long run?
How is the WBC going to help the sport in the long run?
The Yankees are doing quite well without the WBC, thank you very much.
If Selig wants the Yankees to play, he should pay. Cash money. Money talks and BS walks.
I know it's trite, but I don't believe it's trite.
I'll tell you what else: MLB graciously accepts the $zillion luxury tax and, in exchange, the Yankees can complain all they want.
Instead, Bud Selig does his best impression of Captain Kangaroo:
"At some point in life, you've got to rise above your own selfish interest," Selig said. "If this sport is to go on to do the heights we have to do, you can't let your own myopic interest guide you."
I hope Selig remembers that during the next round of labor negotiations. Or the next time he's negotiating a TV contract with ESPN. Or the next time he testifies before Congress.
You know, professional sports are competitive. Most of the owners are millionaires at least. How do you think Steinbrenner became owner of the Yankees in the first place? By sharing the wealth with CBS? Or by putting Michael Burke's kibbles-n-bits in a vice?
Myopic interests guide the whole thing. Myopic interests guide every pitch, every at-bat, every GM decision.
"At some point - I know it's trite, but I don't believe it's trite - sometimes in life, you do things that in the long run really help you and your sport."
"I know it's trite, but I don't believe it's trite." Gee whiz, that's swell. Go back into your crypt and leave the talking to David Stern.
How is the WBC going to help the Yankees in the long run?
How is the WBC going to help the sport in the long run?
The Yankees are doing quite well without the WBC, thank you very much.
If Selig wants the Yankees to play, he should pay. Cash money. Money talks and BS walks.
I know it's trite, but I don't believe it's trite.
Sunday, March 05, 2006
Two out of three ain't bad.
Jon Heyman identifies three key Yankee concerns for the upcoming 2006 season.
Number one is Carl Pavano:
"The $39.95-million enigma has reported an assortment of physical ailments since signing and doesn't always give the impression he's anxious to get back to work."
I agree. Pavano is not only a mediocre pitcher, he also seems soft and gutless.
Pavano had one good season and that was in the National League. I'm not sure why GMs around the league thought he was Curt Schilling instead of Javier Vazquez or Pete Schourek or Pete Harnisch. So, the Yankees bought the hype and will pay a lot of money for an average starting pitcher.
Time will tell, but I wouldn't be surprised if the same fate befalls Josh Beckett.
A second concern is Robinson Cano's work ethic. It is widely reported that he showed up for Spring Training out of shape:
"But one of the first things scouts are noticing is how much bigger Robinson Cano is, and not necessarily in a good way. Torre is a big fan and sees 30 homers a year in Cano's future, but one Yankees teammate said he could see Cano going either way: Cooperstown in 20 years or Columbus in 20 weeks. Fortunately, Damon, Derek Jeter and Alex Rodriguez are there to set perfect examples.
The Yankees say Cano is only seven pounds heavier than he was at the start of spring training in 2005 and that he's put on mostly muscle. Oddly enough, it appears to be all in his backside."
I'm not sure if it really matters too much. Bat ninth, try to avoid grounding into too many double plays, and turn the double plays in the field. Damon and Jeter on on deck, so just try to save their ups.
I hope Cano's lax attitude is more of a perception than reality, but maybe Larry Bowa can whip Cano into shape, since Joe Torre is more concerned with being lovable Uncle Joe.
(Maybe the dude who complained about Cano's attitude in the ice cream shop was onto something!)
Okay, so we've got one and a half problems so far.
Guess what Heyman identifies as problem #3? Can you guess?
None other than Gary Sheffield:
"Gary Sheffield, who's already suggested that Brian Cashman doesn't deserve his trust, ridiculed the 10-year contracts of star teammates (gee, who could he be talking about there?) and threatened to act up if he isn't treated right. Anything short of handing him gobs of cash daily as he enters the clubhouse could spell continuing trouble."
Number one is Carl Pavano:
"The $39.95-million enigma has reported an assortment of physical ailments since signing and doesn't always give the impression he's anxious to get back to work."
I agree. Pavano is not only a mediocre pitcher, he also seems soft and gutless.
Pavano had one good season and that was in the National League. I'm not sure why GMs around the league thought he was Curt Schilling instead of Javier Vazquez or Pete Schourek or Pete Harnisch. So, the Yankees bought the hype and will pay a lot of money for an average starting pitcher.
Time will tell, but I wouldn't be surprised if the same fate befalls Josh Beckett.
A second concern is Robinson Cano's work ethic. It is widely reported that he showed up for Spring Training out of shape:
"But one of the first things scouts are noticing is how much bigger Robinson Cano is, and not necessarily in a good way. Torre is a big fan and sees 30 homers a year in Cano's future, but one Yankees teammate said he could see Cano going either way: Cooperstown in 20 years or Columbus in 20 weeks. Fortunately, Damon, Derek Jeter and Alex Rodriguez are there to set perfect examples.
The Yankees say Cano is only seven pounds heavier than he was at the start of spring training in 2005 and that he's put on mostly muscle. Oddly enough, it appears to be all in his backside."
I'm not sure if it really matters too much. Bat ninth, try to avoid grounding into too many double plays, and turn the double plays in the field. Damon and Jeter on on deck, so just try to save their ups.
I hope Cano's lax attitude is more of a perception than reality, but maybe Larry Bowa can whip Cano into shape, since Joe Torre is more concerned with being lovable Uncle Joe.
(Maybe the dude who complained about Cano's attitude in the ice cream shop was onto something!)
Okay, so we've got one and a half problems so far.
Guess what Heyman identifies as problem #3? Can you guess?
None other than Gary Sheffield:
"Gary Sheffield, who's already suggested that Brian Cashman doesn't deserve his trust, ridiculed the 10-year contracts of star teammates (gee, who could he be talking about there?) and threatened to act up if he isn't treated right. Anything short of handing him gobs of cash daily as he enters the clubhouse could spell continuing trouble."
Lupica builds up an idea just to knock it down.
In this article, Mike Lupica mocks the notion that a player can't handle the pressure of playing in NYC:
"All season long, through the winter, into spring training, we heard about Randy Johnson's period of adjustment in New York City. Every time we did, we had to be reminded of Roger Clemens' period of adjustment. Two of the great pitchers of all time, and we're expected to believe the big city turned them into rubes."
First of all, Randy Johnson was 17-8 last year and Pedro Martinez was 15-8. Lupica claims there is "no telling" how many games Pedro would have won if he'd had a good bullpen. It's not that hard to do a little research and find out. Thirty-one starts resulting in 15 wins and 8 losses. Looper and the bullpen blew one or two wins for Pedro.
Not really the point. Johnson's 17-8 was not as bad as Lupica seems to think. The big city didn't turn Randy Johnson into a rube because rubes don't win 17 games.
What really mystified me was Lupica's rebuke of the idea of a NYC adjustment period. I personally believe the NYC adjustment period is a lame excuse and not much of a factor at all. But it also seems to me that Lupica is one of the high priests of this particular shibboleth.
When Lupica says "we heard" about Unit's adjustment period, he may have been listening to himself.
How long would it take for Lupica to contradict himself?
How long would it take Lupica to bring up the NYC adjustment period and predict doom for a newly-acquire Yankee?
One article later, this is Mike Lupica predicting doom for the Yankee bullpen:
"Every year the Yankees bring in new set-up men for the great Mo Rivera, and every year, it's the same deal:
Whatever it says on their resume, we don't know anything about them until they have pitch in front of 50,000 at the Stadium.
And we REALLY don't know about them until they have to do that in the heat."
"All season long, through the winter, into spring training, we heard about Randy Johnson's period of adjustment in New York City. Every time we did, we had to be reminded of Roger Clemens' period of adjustment. Two of the great pitchers of all time, and we're expected to believe the big city turned them into rubes."
First of all, Randy Johnson was 17-8 last year and Pedro Martinez was 15-8. Lupica claims there is "no telling" how many games Pedro would have won if he'd had a good bullpen. It's not that hard to do a little research and find out. Thirty-one starts resulting in 15 wins and 8 losses. Looper and the bullpen blew one or two wins for Pedro.
Not really the point. Johnson's 17-8 was not as bad as Lupica seems to think. The big city didn't turn Randy Johnson into a rube because rubes don't win 17 games.
What really mystified me was Lupica's rebuke of the idea of a NYC adjustment period. I personally believe the NYC adjustment period is a lame excuse and not much of a factor at all. But it also seems to me that Lupica is one of the high priests of this particular shibboleth.
When Lupica says "we heard" about Unit's adjustment period, he may have been listening to himself.
How long would it take for Lupica to contradict himself?
How long would it take Lupica to bring up the NYC adjustment period and predict doom for a newly-acquire Yankee?
One article later, this is Mike Lupica predicting doom for the Yankee bullpen:
"Every year the Yankees bring in new set-up men for the great Mo Rivera, and every year, it's the same deal:
Whatever it says on their resume, we don't know anything about them until they have pitch in front of 50,000 at the Stadium.
And we REALLY don't know about them until they have to do that in the heat."
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
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."
"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.
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.
Monday, February 27, 2006
Hey Lupica, stop whining!
Which is the most increasingly tiring theme?:
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?
- 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.
" '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.
Friday, February 24, 2006
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.
'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.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)