"Maybe A-Rod will finally have a playoff series - or even just one playoff game - like Peyton had last Sunday against the Patriots. Peyton is now halfway to changing his own place in football history, halfway because last Sunday won't mean anything in the long run if he can't beat the Bears next Sunday. If he can do it, maybe A-Rod can."
Alex Rodriguez's has never played in a World Series.
Maybe that is what Lupica means.
But I don't think that is what Lupica means.
Last Sunday, in an important playoff game, Peyton Manning was 27-for-47 for 349 yards and one TD.
What is the baseball equivalent of this?
I don't know, excactly. I think it's a pointless comparison.
But I do know that ARod hit .409/.480/.773 against the Yankees in the 2000 ALCS. That's better than 27-for-47, 349.
I also know that ARod hit .421/.476/.737 against the Twins in the 2004 ALDS. That's better than 27-for-47, 349.
You're looking for a single game? How about this game? 4-for-5 with a double, a homerun, 2 rbis, and 2 runs scored. Trust me, that's better than 27-for-47, 349. It's like 37-for-47, 480, and 4 TDs.
I must be a genius. I found "just one playoff game" performance by Alex Rodriguez that's better than Peyton Manning's performance last Sunday. I could easily find several more
Or maybe I'm just proving why it's dumb to compare football to baseball.
After all, ARod doesn't pitch.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Friday, January 26, 2007
With sentimental pushes like that ...
Have you ever heard of the rule of three?
Basically, lists of three have a certain rhythm that is often appealing. For example, the rule of three is very noticeable in advertisements or joke telling.
It's the only explanation I can think of for Bernie Williams's inclusion in Johnette Howard's list:
"This Yankees nostalgia kick is way over the top. Granted, it's been years and a couple zillion dollars since the Yankees last won the World Series, but you know the sentimental push to bring back title-team stars Andy Pettitte, Bernie Williams and Roger Clemens has gone way too far when Jim Leyritz announces he wants to make a comeback, too."
This is the Yankees' so-called sentimental push for Bernie Williams, as described on the Yankee website:
"The Yankees have made it a point to tread delicately regarding Bernie Williams' future this winter.
'Part of me says if they wanted me, they would have made an offer by now,' Williams told the Journal-News. 'When you play this game for a long time, you take things for granted and think it won't end. But the harsh reality of it is, it will.'"
Basically, lists of three have a certain rhythm that is often appealing. For example, the rule of three is very noticeable in advertisements or joke telling.
It's the only explanation I can think of for Bernie Williams's inclusion in Johnette Howard's list:
"This Yankees nostalgia kick is way over the top. Granted, it's been years and a couple zillion dollars since the Yankees last won the World Series, but you know the sentimental push to bring back title-team stars Andy Pettitte, Bernie Williams and Roger Clemens has gone way too far when Jim Leyritz announces he wants to make a comeback, too."
This is the Yankees' so-called sentimental push for Bernie Williams, as described on the Yankee website:
"The Yankees have made it a point to tread delicately regarding Bernie Williams' future this winter.
But with Spring Training drawing closer and no contract offers yet from the club, Williams is accepting the idea that his 16-year career with the Yankees may be over.
...
He has been waiting for the Yankees to make him an offer, but told the newspaper that he understands it may not appear.'Part of me says if they wanted me, they would have made an offer by now,' Williams told the Journal-News. 'When you play this game for a long time, you take things for granted and think it won't end. But the harsh reality of it is, it will.'"
Thursday, January 25, 2007
J.V. shortstop gets his revenge.
All the grand jury testimony and leaks of confidential information and Congressional hearings. What does it really all boil down to? A frustrated athlete who got cut from the team:
"Kevin could have been a star," says Greg Suhr, the San Francisco deputy police chief and Ryan's childhood friend. "If he had used steroids or something like that, you're talking about another 25 pounds of muscle, more speed and a whole lot more recruiters. But he … played by the rules. You do the best with what you got. That's what he's always believed in.
"What he's doing now with BALCO, and Barry Bonds, and all of these guys who cheat, he's striking a blow for the good guys."
"Kevin could have been a star," says Greg Suhr, the San Francisco deputy police chief and Ryan's childhood friend. "If he had used steroids or something like that, you're talking about another 25 pounds of muscle, more speed and a whole lot more recruiters. But he … played by the rules. You do the best with what you got. That's what he's always believed in.
"What he's doing now with BALCO, and Barry Bonds, and all of these guys who cheat, he's striking a blow for the good guys."
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
President Truman, what do you think of Lazzeri's range to his left?
I'm not sure if this is more embarrassing for the President or for the reporter.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
So, Cashman has won nothing on his own.
"In the 14 months since he wrestled power away from George Steinbrenner's cabal of advisors in Florida, Cashman has reformatted the Yankees into an organization determined to develop star players rather than pay a premium for them. Along with significant roster changes, Cashman has made a series of personnel moves within the baseball operations department, firing several longtime scouts and coaches and reassigning others."
In the 14 months since Cashman wrestled power away from George Steinbrenner's cabal of advisors in Florida, the Yankees have a .250 winning percentage in the playoffs.
I think this much-maligned cabal of advisors was winning Championship rings while Brian Cashman was a gofer for the Columbus Clippers.
Heck, I'll bet the much-maligned cabal of advisors could have picked up some bats and managed one lousy run against Kenny Rogers.
In the 14 months since Cashman wrestled power away from George Steinbrenner's cabal of advisors in Florida, the Yankees have a .250 winning percentage in the playoffs.
I think this much-maligned cabal of advisors was winning Championship rings while Brian Cashman was a gofer for the Columbus Clippers.
Heck, I'll bet the much-maligned cabal of advisors could have picked up some bats and managed one lousy run against Kenny Rogers.
Stick to the stories about guys chasing after a ball on a field.
"To the end, people continue to try to protect a guy who doesn't deserve it, and act as if a leak about use of a banned substance is more significant than the drug use itself. Wonderful."
This may be a difficult concept for Mike Lupica to understand, but Barry Bonds deserves protection simply because he is a citizen of the United States.
The Bill of Rights is not a joke.
Mike Lupica, and a lot of other short-sighted folks, have no use for the Fourth Amendment. Not until maybe their teenage son is pulled over on a highway, 4:00 am, breath smells of alcohol. Maybe he took a few cough drops is all. Maybe the cop is a Mets fan who reads the name on the license and doesn't like what his pop said about Carlos Beltran.
Maybe Lupica doesn't care about confidential grand jury testimonies until he gets a subpoena.
Maybe Lupica doesn't care about the Fourth Amendment until a late-night knock on his door. Lupica talked to a confidential source who might have known something about something really important like steroid use and homerun records. Now the FBI wants to take a look-see at all of Lupica's computer files.
Guess what, everybody?
Barry Bonds took performance-enhancing substances of some kind, whether they were illegal, legal, or in a pseudo-legal grey area. Bonds is probably going to get off because he was careful enoguh to maintain plausible deniability. This is not fair. Hank Aaron's homerun record will be broken by a selfish cheat.
Get over it.
The Nero Congress is wasting its time trying to protect the records of their boyhood idols.
The prosecutors can't get Bonds within the rules, so they bend the rules. The ends justify the means. It's a far worse crime than cheating at baseball.
Baseball is a game.
The Bill of Rights is not a game.
This may be a difficult concept for Mike Lupica to understand, but Barry Bonds deserves protection simply because he is a citizen of the United States.
The Bill of Rights is not a joke.
Mike Lupica, and a lot of other short-sighted folks, have no use for the Fourth Amendment. Not until maybe their teenage son is pulled over on a highway, 4:00 am, breath smells of alcohol. Maybe he took a few cough drops is all. Maybe the cop is a Mets fan who reads the name on the license and doesn't like what his pop said about Carlos Beltran.
Maybe Lupica doesn't care about confidential grand jury testimonies until he gets a subpoena.
Maybe Lupica doesn't care about the Fourth Amendment until a late-night knock on his door. Lupica talked to a confidential source who might have known something about something really important like steroid use and homerun records. Now the FBI wants to take a look-see at all of Lupica's computer files.
Guess what, everybody?
Barry Bonds took performance-enhancing substances of some kind, whether they were illegal, legal, or in a pseudo-legal grey area. Bonds is probably going to get off because he was careful enoguh to maintain plausible deniability. This is not fair. Hank Aaron's homerun record will be broken by a selfish cheat.
Get over it.
The Nero Congress is wasting its time trying to protect the records of their boyhood idols.
The prosecutors can't get Bonds within the rules, so they bend the rules. The ends justify the means. It's a far worse crime than cheating at baseball.
Baseball is a game.
The Bill of Rights is not a game.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Hall of Fame 2017.
I've got a Hall of Fame debate for you.
A player who has played for nine years and has already accumulated five all-star appearances, three gold gloves, and four silver slugger awards.
Never won an MVP, but came in the top ten three times.
.333 career batting average and a 162-game average of 33 homeruns and 113 runs batted in.
No postseason exploits to bolster his candidacy, but no off-field shenanigans to hamper his candidacy, either.
His "Most Similar" players at baseball-reference.com are Hank Greenberg and Vladimir Guerrero.
You think it's difficult to factor in the steroid era? Try factoring the steroid era at Coors Field.
A player who has played for nine years and has already accumulated five all-star appearances, three gold gloves, and four silver slugger awards.
Never won an MVP, but came in the top ten three times.
.333 career batting average and a 162-game average of 33 homeruns and 113 runs batted in.
No postseason exploits to bolster his candidacy, but no off-field shenanigans to hamper his candidacy, either.
His "Most Similar" players at baseball-reference.com are Hank Greenberg and Vladimir Guerrero.
You think it's difficult to factor in the steroid era? Try factoring the steroid era at Coors Field.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Mad Libs.
Just replace "major league baseball" with "Pakistan" and "steroid use" with "find Osama bin Laden."
If you pretend, you may be able to sleep better tonight, with the knowledge that your elected representatives have their priorities in order.
Also, take comfort in the fact that this guy is dictating America's domestic policies.
If you pretend, you may be able to sleep better tonight, with the knowledge that your elected representatives have their priorities in order.
Also, take comfort in the fact that this guy is dictating America's domestic policies.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Tim Brown runs out of baseball players.
"Then there's Ledee, kind and affable and easy to root for. He's too young to be old, too talented to be done, and yet wonders what's next, if anything."
By major league baseball standards, Ricky Ledee is old.
Untalented, too.
By major league baseball standards, Ricky Ledee is old.
Untalented, too.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Perspective.
What was I expecting when I decided to read Tommy Lasorda's blog?
Tommy Lasorda reminisces about the "mixed emotions" he felt when he first learned about Bobby Kennedy's assassination:
"It was a night of mixed emotions. While I was happy for Big Don, I was sad and angry about the assassination."
"Big Don" referring to Don Drysdale, who was the starting pitcher for the Dodgers that evening. Two earned runs in 6 1/3 innings.
Tommy Lasorda reminisces about the "mixed emotions" he felt when he first learned about Bobby Kennedy's assassination:
"It was a night of mixed emotions. While I was happy for Big Don, I was sad and angry about the assassination."
"Big Don" referring to Don Drysdale, who was the starting pitcher for the Dodgers that evening. Two earned runs in 6 1/3 innings.
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Willie Randolph Hangin' Tough.
"More than ever, Randolph believes he can take this team where it needs to be. He is going to continue to manage in the same aggressive style that has turned the Mets around during his two-year tenure.
He will attack. Randolph said if he were presented again with the same Game 7 circumstances, he would not bunt the runners over in that fateful ninth.
If the Mets trailed by one run instead of two, he would have bunted, but he did not want to give up the out. He had faith in Cliff Floyd and rolled the dice, and the bottom line is Beltran got to the plate with the bases loaded."
I'm glad Kevin Kernan is not my accountant.The Yankees are an old team.
"You know who the core group of young Yankees is at the present time?
Cano and Chien-Ming Wang.
That's the whole list, despite all the giddiness about pitching prospects from the Tigers and Diamondbacks."
True, the Yankees are old. But they did get younger this offseason. Which is something I don't care about too much, but it's something Lupica obsesses about.
Besides, Cashman's strategy is to flood the minors with youngsters and hope one or two of them stick. For example, Philip Hughes should definitely be on the list of the core group of young Yankees.
I'm also not sure why Lupica seldom seems to notice how old the Mets are. Wright, Reyes, and a whole bunch of artifacts. The Moises Alou signing didn't exactly help matters, right?
But the funniest part is Lupica's solution to make the Yankees younger. Replace 33-year-old Doug Mintkayvitch with 30-year-old Andy Phillips:
"What, Andy Phillips couldn't play first base?"
Yes, if Andy Phillips played first base instead of Doug Mintkayvitch, the Yankees' average age would go down 0.12 years.
Fresh and Exciting!
I also just like the fact that Lupica thinks Phillips is young just because Phillips has limited time in the pros.
Phillips is young because I haven't seen him play much baseball on television.
The aging that has occurred offscreen doesn't count.
It's like a baby covering its eyes and thinking it is invisible.
Cano and Chien-Ming Wang.
That's the whole list, despite all the giddiness about pitching prospects from the Tigers and Diamondbacks."
True, the Yankees are old. But they did get younger this offseason. Which is something I don't care about too much, but it's something Lupica obsesses about.
Besides, Cashman's strategy is to flood the minors with youngsters and hope one or two of them stick. For example, Philip Hughes should definitely be on the list of the core group of young Yankees.
I'm also not sure why Lupica seldom seems to notice how old the Mets are. Wright, Reyes, and a whole bunch of artifacts. The Moises Alou signing didn't exactly help matters, right?
But the funniest part is Lupica's solution to make the Yankees younger. Replace 33-year-old Doug Mintkayvitch with 30-year-old Andy Phillips:
"What, Andy Phillips couldn't play first base?"
Yes, if Andy Phillips played first base instead of Doug Mintkayvitch, the Yankees' average age would go down 0.12 years.
Fresh and Exciting!
I also just like the fact that Lupica thinks Phillips is young just because Phillips has limited time in the pros.
Phillips is young because I haven't seen him play much baseball on television.
The aging that has occurred offscreen doesn't count.
It's like a baby covering its eyes and thinking it is invisible.
Friday, January 05, 2007
You had me, then you lost me.
Tim Marchman on December 27, 2006:
"Don't Give Up on Johnson in Pinstripes Just Yet."
Tim Marchman on January 5, 2007:
"Trade of Big Unit Is a Step In The Right Direction."
For Marchman's sake, let's hope that consistency really is the hobgoblin of small minds.
"The less important reason is that, all else being equal, it's a good idea for the Yankees to offload a superfluous former All-Star who didn't really seem part of the team. Picking up random people like Johnson, Alex Rodriguez, Kevin Brown, Gary Sheffield, Carl Pavano, and so on isn't why the Yankees haven't won a World Series since 2000, as most players of this class have played wonderfully for them. But on the other hand, Yankee voraciousness has in the past few years been associated with a growing sense of distance between fans and the team, as well as the loss of a sense of team identity. As long as they're sound on the merits, trades that send these kinds of players elsewhere are to be encouraged."
The growing distance between fans and players was so strong that 4,258,067 people went to Yankee Stadium last year to watch the Yankees play baseball. Ornery Randy Johnson may not have drawn anybody to the Stadium, but he didn't repel anybody, either.
Fans like winning. Fans root for the uniform. Even Roger Clemens is now being re-imagined as a clubhouse guy, a big game pitcher, and a True Yankee.
Why?
Because he won a couple of rings with the Yankees.
When you favorite team wins a Championship, it triggers endorphins in your brain, and then you associate all the good feelings with the players you see on the television screen.
However, the 2007 Yankees are not a marketing campaign, they're a professional baseball team.
If these spoiled fans disliked Randy Johnson's 17 wins so much, they may soon realize they dislike Kei Igawa's 17 losses even more.
"Don't Give Up on Johnson in Pinstripes Just Yet."
Tim Marchman on January 5, 2007:
"Trade of Big Unit Is a Step In The Right Direction."
For Marchman's sake, let's hope that consistency really is the hobgoblin of small minds.
"The less important reason is that, all else being equal, it's a good idea for the Yankees to offload a superfluous former All-Star who didn't really seem part of the team. Picking up random people like Johnson, Alex Rodriguez, Kevin Brown, Gary Sheffield, Carl Pavano, and so on isn't why the Yankees haven't won a World Series since 2000, as most players of this class have played wonderfully for them. But on the other hand, Yankee voraciousness has in the past few years been associated with a growing sense of distance between fans and the team, as well as the loss of a sense of team identity. As long as they're sound on the merits, trades that send these kinds of players elsewhere are to be encouraged."
The growing distance between fans and players was so strong that 4,258,067 people went to Yankee Stadium last year to watch the Yankees play baseball. Ornery Randy Johnson may not have drawn anybody to the Stadium, but he didn't repel anybody, either.
Fans like winning. Fans root for the uniform. Even Roger Clemens is now being re-imagined as a clubhouse guy, a big game pitcher, and a True Yankee.
Why?
Because he won a couple of rings with the Yankees.
When you favorite team wins a Championship, it triggers endorphins in your brain, and then you associate all the good feelings with the players you see on the television screen.
However, the 2007 Yankees are not a marketing campaign, they're a professional baseball team.
If these spoiled fans disliked Randy Johnson's 17 wins so much, they may soon realize they dislike Kei Igawa's 17 losses even more.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Peter Abraham's efficient 18-person starting rotation.
How will the Yankees replaced Randy Johson's 17 wins and 200+ innings?
Peter Abraham has the obvious answer:
"As for the 17 wins, they can get 17 wins from Pavano, Igawa, Pettitte, Proctor, the assorted kids and - who knows? - perhaps one Roger Clemens."
It's a good strategy.
Why keep one pitcher who can win 17 games when you can use 10 or 11 pitchers for the same thing?
Every team should probably replace all their expensive, productive players.
The Phillies could easily replace Ryan Howard's 58 homeruns. Just make one trade to the Cardinals and replace Howard with So Taguchi, Scott Spiezio, Ronnie Belliard, Shane Victorino, Chris Coste, David Bell, David Dellucci, and all the outfielders on their AAA team.
Peter Abraham has the obvious answer:
"As for the 17 wins, they can get 17 wins from Pavano, Igawa, Pettitte, Proctor, the assorted kids and - who knows? - perhaps one Roger Clemens."
It's a good strategy.
Why keep one pitcher who can win 17 games when you can use 10 or 11 pitchers for the same thing?
Every team should probably replace all their expensive, productive players.
The Phillies could easily replace Ryan Howard's 58 homeruns. Just make one trade to the Cardinals and replace Howard with So Taguchi, Scott Spiezio, Ronnie Belliard, Shane Victorino, Chris Coste, David Bell, David Dellucci, and all the outfielders on their AAA team.
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Shame on you, Chris Girandola.
I mean, look, I know it's a tough assignment: "Write about Scott Brosius and his first inclusion on the Hall of Fame ballot."
I also know this article is for the company newsletter.
It's a fluff piece.
But if you want to maintain any shred of credibility for both yourself and your employer, you can't actually suggest that Scott Brosius has a shot at the Hall of Fame:
"It is his clutch hitting in the postseason, as well as his solid and, often times, spectacular defensive play, which may give members of the Baseball Writers' Association of America enough impetus to consider him for Hall of Fame induction in 2007."
Just for fun, I looked up Brosius's stats at baseball-reference.com.
Brosius's Hall of Fame monitor is 19 on a scale where a likely HOF'er is greater than 100.
Most Similar Players are Ed Sprague, Bill Melton, and Mike Pagliarulo.
But the best part is the postseason stats. In 196 postseason at-bats, Mr. Clutch hit .245.
"Considering that since his retirement, the Yankees have reached the World Series only once, losing in six games to the Florida Marlins in 2003, it would seem logical that a strong case could be made for Brosius to fill one of the seats in the Hall of Fame."
Wow.
What a desecration of the word "logical."
Can you imagine? I mean, can you seriously imagine?
Think for a moment about all the mediocre players who'd suddenly have a Cooperstown case if Scott Brosius made it in.
Using Girandola's (ahem) "logic," I think every single player on the 2000 Yankees would have to make the Hall of Fame. If Scott Brosius makes the Hall of Fame, Jose Vizcaino can't be far behind.
I also know this article is for the company newsletter.
It's a fluff piece.
But if you want to maintain any shred of credibility for both yourself and your employer, you can't actually suggest that Scott Brosius has a shot at the Hall of Fame:
"It is his clutch hitting in the postseason, as well as his solid and, often times, spectacular defensive play, which may give members of the Baseball Writers' Association of America enough impetus to consider him for Hall of Fame induction in 2007."
Just for fun, I looked up Brosius's stats at baseball-reference.com.
Brosius's Hall of Fame monitor is 19 on a scale where a likely HOF'er is greater than 100.
Most Similar Players are Ed Sprague, Bill Melton, and Mike Pagliarulo.
But the best part is the postseason stats. In 196 postseason at-bats, Mr. Clutch hit .245.
"Considering that since his retirement, the Yankees have reached the World Series only once, losing in six games to the Florida Marlins in 2003, it would seem logical that a strong case could be made for Brosius to fill one of the seats in the Hall of Fame."
Wow.
What a desecration of the word "logical."
Can you imagine? I mean, can you seriously imagine?
Think for a moment about all the mediocre players who'd suddenly have a Cooperstown case if Scott Brosius made it in.
Using Girandola's (ahem) "logic," I think every single player on the 2000 Yankees would have to make the Hall of Fame. If Scott Brosius makes the Hall of Fame, Jose Vizcaino can't be far behind.
Friday, December 29, 2006
The worstest baseball column.
"Santa Claus probably never got a wish list from uberagent Scott Boras. Otherwise, he would have gone out of business a long time ago."
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.
"Boras suckered Rangers owner Tom Hicks into giving Alex Rodriguez $252 million for 10 years, the richest -- not to mention dumbest -- contract in pro sports."
Oh, please.
I could probably think of 100 worse pro sports contracts off the top of my head.
Steve Francis, Allan Houston, Juan Gonzalez, Darren Dreifort, Eli Manning, Adam Archuleta, Ed Belfour, and ARod's teammates Carl Pavano, Randy Johnson, Jason Giambi, Rick Helling, and Chan Ho Park.
What about Chan Ho Park? Certainly, Chan Ho Park's deal was worse than ARod's:
"Then he talked Hicks into an even worse deal, $65 million over five years, for Chan Ho Park."
So, Alex Rodriguez's deal was the dumbest, but Chan Ho Park's deal was worse.
I think we need to review the meaning of the suffix "-est."
You've got three degrees of comparison:
You start with the absolute: "dumb."
Followed by the comparative: "dumber."
After that, the superlative, and there can only be one superlative: "dumbest."
This exercise may help:
Dumb.
Dumber.
Dumbest.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.
"Boras suckered Rangers owner Tom Hicks into giving Alex Rodriguez $252 million for 10 years, the richest -- not to mention dumbest -- contract in pro sports."
Oh, please.
I could probably think of 100 worse pro sports contracts off the top of my head.
Steve Francis, Allan Houston, Juan Gonzalez, Darren Dreifort, Eli Manning, Adam Archuleta, Ed Belfour, and ARod's teammates Carl Pavano, Randy Johnson, Jason Giambi, Rick Helling, and Chan Ho Park.
What about Chan Ho Park? Certainly, Chan Ho Park's deal was worse than ARod's:
"Then he talked Hicks into an even worse deal, $65 million over five years, for Chan Ho Park."
So, Alex Rodriguez's deal was the dumbest, but Chan Ho Park's deal was worse.
I think we need to review the meaning of the suffix "-est."
You've got three degrees of comparison:
You start with the absolute: "dumb."
Followed by the comparative: "dumber."
After that, the superlative, and there can only be one superlative: "dumbest."
This exercise may help:
Dumb.
Dumber.
Dumbest.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Is Scott Miller an avatar?
A cyborg?
A simulacrum?
A fictional creation of a viral marketing campaign?
On December 24, 2006, "Scott Miller" comes out strongly against Mark McGwire's Hall of Fame credentials:
"McGwire and his fellow Bash (The Integrity of the Game) Brothers have dishonored the sport by dragging it into the worst scandal since the 1919 Black Sox.
They have twisted some of the game's most treasured numbers into an indecipherable maze of voodoo statistics largely devoid of meaning and context.
They have turned on the game's most important natural resource -- Little Leaguers, high schoolers and college players -- to a whole medicine's chest worth of dangerous unnatural resources that can be harmful or, at worse, fatal."
Then, on December 27, 2006, he writes this:
"Know whose box I'd also love to check on my ballot?
The late Ken Caminiti's, as a show of respect toward the one player out of hundreds who had the guts to publicly discuss the game's raging steroids problem.
That it took so long for a player -- any player -- to publicly identify the insidious cancer that was growing inside major league clubhouses is just one glimpse into the union's steely code of silence.
By speaking out shortly before his death -- admitting his own steroid use and discussing the high percentage of others who were using -- Caminiti performed a far greater service to the game and to the future health of his fellow players than anybody had to that point, including commissioner Bud Selig and union chief Don Fehr."
Wow.
I guess Ken Caminiti really cared about the children while he was Bashing (The Integrity of the Game) and winning an MVP with his voodoo statistics and leading his voodoo team to the voodoo World Series.
As for the union's steely code of silence, which players can really claim innocence?
Cal Ripken didn't know what was going on?
Tony Gwynn kept silent while his teammate's head swelled to the size of a Geo Tracker? Tony Gwynn didn't thereby indirectly risk the lives of all the nation's Little Leaguers?
No, I don't think it's a teammate's job to rat out a steroid user. I also don't think it's the Federal Government's job to waste resources hunting down steroid users in baseball, especially while a new NFL player tests positive every other day.
But if steroid use is really ruining our society from the inside-out -- if you really think this is a serious problem -- if this is something more serious than protecting Roger Maris's precious record -- then there's a heckuva lot of blame to go around.
If you're looking for saints on your Hall of Fame ballot, you're not going to find any.
A simulacrum?
A fictional creation of a viral marketing campaign?
On December 24, 2006, "Scott Miller" comes out strongly against Mark McGwire's Hall of Fame credentials:
"McGwire and his fellow Bash (The Integrity of the Game) Brothers have dishonored the sport by dragging it into the worst scandal since the 1919 Black Sox.
They have twisted some of the game's most treasured numbers into an indecipherable maze of voodoo statistics largely devoid of meaning and context.
They have turned on the game's most important natural resource -- Little Leaguers, high schoolers and college players -- to a whole medicine's chest worth of dangerous unnatural resources that can be harmful or, at worse, fatal."
Then, on December 27, 2006, he writes this:
"Know whose box I'd also love to check on my ballot?
The late Ken Caminiti's, as a show of respect toward the one player out of hundreds who had the guts to publicly discuss the game's raging steroids problem.
That it took so long for a player -- any player -- to publicly identify the insidious cancer that was growing inside major league clubhouses is just one glimpse into the union's steely code of silence.
By speaking out shortly before his death -- admitting his own steroid use and discussing the high percentage of others who were using -- Caminiti performed a far greater service to the game and to the future health of his fellow players than anybody had to that point, including commissioner Bud Selig and union chief Don Fehr."
Wow.
I guess Ken Caminiti really cared about the children while he was Bashing (The Integrity of the Game) and winning an MVP with his voodoo statistics and leading his voodoo team to the voodoo World Series.
As for the union's steely code of silence, which players can really claim innocence?
Cal Ripken didn't know what was going on?
Tony Gwynn kept silent while his teammate's head swelled to the size of a Geo Tracker? Tony Gwynn didn't thereby indirectly risk the lives of all the nation's Little Leaguers?
No, I don't think it's a teammate's job to rat out a steroid user. I also don't think it's the Federal Government's job to waste resources hunting down steroid users in baseball, especially while a new NFL player tests positive every other day.
But if steroid use is really ruining our society from the inside-out -- if you really think this is a serious problem -- if this is something more serious than protecting Roger Maris's precious record -- then there's a heckuva lot of blame to go around.
If you're looking for saints on your Hall of Fame ballot, you're not going to find any.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Kaboom!
Steroid Test Results Made Public!
Barry Bonds, 99 others, under suspicion!
I know that post made no sense to anybody else.
It's just that when I read about the reaction to today's court ruling, I instantly thought of the 1984 parody newspaper, the Post New York Post:
Even the local sports talking head said that Barry Bonds obviously tested positive.
Though we don't even know if Bonds was in this batch of testing. Or if he was cleaned out by the time he was tested.
We do have a pretty good idea, however, that 100 players tested positive.
I can guarantee that 99 of them were not Barry Bonds.
Barry Bonds, 99 others, under suspicion!
I know that post made no sense to anybody else.
It's just that when I read about the reaction to today's court ruling, I instantly thought of the 1984 parody newspaper, the Post New York Post:
Even the local sports talking head said that Barry Bonds obviously tested positive.
Though we don't even know if Bonds was in this batch of testing. Or if he was cleaned out by the time he was tested.
We do have a pretty good idea, however, that 100 players tested positive.
I can guarantee that 99 of them were not Barry Bonds.
Bengie Molina tips the scales.
"The American League has been bashing the National League around for quite some time. The junior circuit hasn't lost an All-Star Game since 1996, went 154-98 in interleague play last season and has won seven of the last 11 World Series.
But the NL has been putting up a better fight of late."
I don't think the World Series or All Star Games are worthwhile indicators, but I think it's clear the AL is currently stronger than the NL.
So, what has occurred this offseason to strengthen the NL and weaken the AL?:
"Heading the list is outfielder Alfonso Soriano, the $136 million man who stayed in the NL when he left the Washington Nationals for the Chicago Cubs."
Soriano was already in the NL.
Soriano was already in the NL when the AL went 154-98 in interleague play and whatnot.
"Right-hander Jason Schmidt, who left the San Francisco Giants for the Los Angeles Dodgers, heads a list of players who stayed in the NL."
Oh, I see the difference. Heading the list is Alfonso Soriano, but Jason Schmidt heads the list.
Whoever heads this particular list, the point is that this list consists of players who were already in the NL.
Only players who switched leagues are relevant to this discussion.
So, what'cha got?:
"Jumping leagues were free agent catcher Bengie Molina (Giants), infielder Mark DeRosa (Cubs) and pitchers Adam Eaton (Philadelphia Phillies) and Ted Lilly (Cubs). The NL talent pool also increased when pitcher Freddy Garcia was traded to the Phillies."
Bengie Molina, Mark DeRosa, Adam Eaton, Ted Lilly, and Freddy Garcia?
That's all you've got?
That's the NL stripping the AL of its talent?
Ummm, no.
But the NL has been putting up a better fight of late."
I don't think the World Series or All Star Games are worthwhile indicators, but I think it's clear the AL is currently stronger than the NL.
So, what has occurred this offseason to strengthen the NL and weaken the AL?:
"Heading the list is outfielder Alfonso Soriano, the $136 million man who stayed in the NL when he left the Washington Nationals for the Chicago Cubs."
Soriano was already in the NL.
Soriano was already in the NL when the AL went 154-98 in interleague play and whatnot.
"Right-hander Jason Schmidt, who left the San Francisco Giants for the Los Angeles Dodgers, heads a list of players who stayed in the NL."
Oh, I see the difference. Heading the list is Alfonso Soriano, but Jason Schmidt heads the list.
Whoever heads this particular list, the point is that this list consists of players who were already in the NL.
Only players who switched leagues are relevant to this discussion.
So, what'cha got?:
"Jumping leagues were free agent catcher Bengie Molina (Giants), infielder Mark DeRosa (Cubs) and pitchers Adam Eaton (Philadelphia Phillies) and Ted Lilly (Cubs). The NL talent pool also increased when pitcher Freddy Garcia was traded to the Phillies."
Bengie Molina, Mark DeRosa, Adam Eaton, Ted Lilly, and Freddy Garcia?
That's all you've got?
That's the NL stripping the AL of its talent?
Ummm, no.
The Case for Randy Johnson.
Ken Davidoff:
"There's no disputing that Johnson's 2006 was lousy, especially given his $16-million salary. Yet he still managed to throw 205 innings and win 17 games with a herniated disc in his back.
Randy Johnson is old and his health is a question mark. But Randy Johnson's health issues are minor compared to Mussina's shoulder, Pettitte's elbow, and Pavano's vagina.
What's left for the back end of the Yankee 2007 rotation? A Japanese pitcher, minor-leaguer Phil Hughes, and Jeff Karstens.
I have as much faith in those guys as I had in Shawn Chacon and ... who's the other guy? ... the guy with the big chin who went 10-0? ... oh, yeah ... Aaron Small.
Remember 10-0 Aaron Small?
Tim Marchman:
"The unpleasant fact about Johnson is he may well be the Yankees' best starting pitcher. Take that 5.00 ERA, for instance. It was bad, but Johnson's underlying performance was good. His component ERA — a number derived from the hits, strikeouts, and so on, he allowed — was 3.81 in 2006, 13th-best in the American League. In fact, the disparity between the two numbers was the highest in the league. Component ERA, for a variety of reasons, is a better predictor of future success than actual ERA, and statistically, Johnson looks like an excellent bet to post an ERA of around 3.75 this coming season — a better bet, actually, than any other Yankee starter."
I'd take a good ERA over a good Component ERA, but it should be intuitively obvious that Johnson is set up for a better 2007 than 2006.
Since when is surgery a bad thing? Surgery is a good thing. That's why you have the surgery.
"There's no disputing that Johnson's 2006 was lousy, especially given his $16-million salary. Yet he still managed to throw 205 innings and win 17 games with a herniated disc in his back.
...
What Johnson shares with Pavano in clubhouse charm (zero), he more than trumps in reliability. He takes the ball every fifth day. Expect motivation to erase last year's embarrassments, as well as build toward both 300 career victories and another contract."
Randy Johnson is old and his health is a question mark. But Randy Johnson's health issues are minor compared to Mussina's shoulder, Pettitte's elbow, and Pavano's vagina.
What's left for the back end of the Yankee 2007 rotation? A Japanese pitcher, minor-leaguer Phil Hughes, and Jeff Karstens.
I have as much faith in those guys as I had in Shawn Chacon and ... who's the other guy? ... the guy with the big chin who went 10-0? ... oh, yeah ... Aaron Small.
Remember 10-0 Aaron Small?
Tim Marchman:
"The unpleasant fact about Johnson is he may well be the Yankees' best starting pitcher. Take that 5.00 ERA, for instance. It was bad, but Johnson's underlying performance was good. His component ERA — a number derived from the hits, strikeouts, and so on, he allowed — was 3.81 in 2006, 13th-best in the American League. In fact, the disparity between the two numbers was the highest in the league. Component ERA, for a variety of reasons, is a better predictor of future success than actual ERA, and statistically, Johnson looks like an excellent bet to post an ERA of around 3.75 this coming season — a better bet, actually, than any other Yankee starter."
I'd take a good ERA over a good Component ERA, but it should be intuitively obvious that Johnson is set up for a better 2007 than 2006.
Since when is surgery a bad thing? Surgery is a good thing. That's why you have the surgery.
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Homeruns make people crazy cuckoo.
"Guy embezzles thousands of dollars from his company. Upstanding member of the community. Donates to charity. Hero to little kids. His life is one long ticker-tape parade of attaboys, promotions and company parties. Few have any idea of what the guy's done, and those who do don't want to believe it."
Why would he embezzle money just to donate it to charity?
Are we talking about Robin Hood?
"Eight years later, his secret life is no longer so secret. Evidence has piled up that he broke the law. Maybe there were multiple co-conspirators driving the getaway car, but the DNA trail leads to our hero.
Because so many years have elapsed, we're just supposed to look the other way and let him slide?"
No.
"I don't think so. Wouldn't happen elsewhere, and it's not happening with Mark McGwire on my Hall of Fame ballot."
What evidence does Scott Miller have that Mark McGwire broke the law?
What evidence has piled up?
I want to know what evidence exists besides innuendo and supposition. Poor showing at a bogus Congressional hearing (didn't Congress have anything better to do?).
Because the hypothetical embezzler sure isn't going to jail based on innuendo and suppositon.
"Don't tell me about the hypocrisy of glamorizing Mac and Sammy eight years ago and then tearing it all down now. We know a lot more now than we did eight years ago. That isn't hypocrisy, despite what simpleton columnists and talk-show screamers say. It's called due diligence. It's called continuing education. Few had even heard of BALCO in 1998, and you can be damned sure that nobody was handing out subpoenas back then."
It's hypocritical because you are only angry at prolific HR hitters in baseball. You are not angry at all cheaters equally. You don't care about football players and you don't even care about pitchers. In fact, you don't even care about Randy Velarde, just because he didn't hit enough HRs.
"Don't tell me that anabolic steroids weren't against baseball's rules in '98, so the players all have Get Out Of Jail Free cards from that period. Anabolic steroids were -- and are -- against the federal law. It's not clearly spelled out in baseball's rulebook that the cleanup hitter can't strangle the batboy to death in the dugout, either."
Your first analogy is embezzlement and your second analogy is murder.
Oh, and amphetamines are also illegal according to federal law and used in abundance everyday in MLB.
Shrug.
"McGwire and his fellow Bash (The Integrity of the Game) Brothers have dishonored the sport by dragging it into the worst scandal since the 1919 Black Sox.
They have twisted some of the game's most treasured numbers into an indecipherable maze of voodoo statistics largely devoid of meaning and context."
I think the HR stats of the 1990s are easily decipherable and meaningful. Subtract about 20%. That wasn't really so difficult.
But even if they were truly indecipherable, they can not be devoid of context. How can baseball statistics ever be devoid of context? The context is 1990s in America with lots of players using steroids.
The entire purpose of Miller's article is to present these numbers in the context of steroid abuse, comparing these steroid abusers to players of previous decades. That's what "context" is.
Other contextual factors include small stadiums, small strike zone, better training techniques, bigger salaries, and watered-down pitching.
But I am still wondering why Miller's anger is directed solely at prolific HR hitters.
Hundreds of major league ballplayers have taken steroids.
Miller has narrowed the problem down to approximately six: Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, Canseco, and Giambi. These six players will be eliminated from HOF consideration and that's the big moral stand.
Ivan Rodriguez will make the Hall of Fame.
Mike Piazza will make the Hall of Fame.
Rickey Henderson will make the Hall of Fame.
Roger Clemens will make the Hall of Fame.
Even Gary Sheffiled will make the Hall of Fame.
I have as much suspicion -- and as little proof -- about all of them as I do about Mark McGwire.
"And those who bring Hall of Famer and noted spitballer Gaylord Perry into the equation right about now? That's a completely disingenuous comparison, misdemeanor vs. felony. Last time we checked, Vaseline wasn't an illegal substance."
In baseball, Vaseline is an illegal substance.
In any case, Miller is the guy who just brought up the character/moral clause thingy.
I don't know what kind of moral relativism would allow misdemeanors but disallow felonies. Sounds like a hypocritical morality if there ever was one.
So, what's McGwire's real crime? The real crime is hitting homeruns. Either that or making the writers look like fools in '98.
"Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling were the toasts of the town once, too. Enron was a model company and everyone was making gobs of money.
Then the closet door opened and the skeletons tumbled out.
Do you think Lay and Skilling should have walked when their crimes were revealed simply because those crimes had occurred several years earlier?"
Holey Moley. I'm not really sure Enron was ever a "model company." I am pretty sure the whole thing was a house of cards the whole time.
But what is Miller's problem? Embezzlement, murder, and now Enron?
Miller must be really, really, really upset about guys who took steroids.
In one article, Mark McGwire has been compared to an embezzler, a murderer, and the perpetrators of the greatest white collar crime in US history.
Why would he embezzle money just to donate it to charity?
Are we talking about Robin Hood?
"Eight years later, his secret life is no longer so secret. Evidence has piled up that he broke the law. Maybe there were multiple co-conspirators driving the getaway car, but the DNA trail leads to our hero.
Because so many years have elapsed, we're just supposed to look the other way and let him slide?"
No.
"I don't think so. Wouldn't happen elsewhere, and it's not happening with Mark McGwire on my Hall of Fame ballot."
What evidence does Scott Miller have that Mark McGwire broke the law?
What evidence has piled up?
I want to know what evidence exists besides innuendo and supposition. Poor showing at a bogus Congressional hearing (didn't Congress have anything better to do?).
Because the hypothetical embezzler sure isn't going to jail based on innuendo and suppositon.
"Don't tell me about the hypocrisy of glamorizing Mac and Sammy eight years ago and then tearing it all down now. We know a lot more now than we did eight years ago. That isn't hypocrisy, despite what simpleton columnists and talk-show screamers say. It's called due diligence. It's called continuing education. Few had even heard of BALCO in 1998, and you can be damned sure that nobody was handing out subpoenas back then."
It's hypocritical because you are only angry at prolific HR hitters in baseball. You are not angry at all cheaters equally. You don't care about football players and you don't even care about pitchers. In fact, you don't even care about Randy Velarde, just because he didn't hit enough HRs.
"Don't tell me that anabolic steroids weren't against baseball's rules in '98, so the players all have Get Out Of Jail Free cards from that period. Anabolic steroids were -- and are -- against the federal law. It's not clearly spelled out in baseball's rulebook that the cleanup hitter can't strangle the batboy to death in the dugout, either."
Your first analogy is embezzlement and your second analogy is murder.
Oh, and amphetamines are also illegal according to federal law and used in abundance everyday in MLB.
Shrug.
"McGwire and his fellow Bash (The Integrity of the Game) Brothers have dishonored the sport by dragging it into the worst scandal since the 1919 Black Sox.
They have twisted some of the game's most treasured numbers into an indecipherable maze of voodoo statistics largely devoid of meaning and context."
I think the HR stats of the 1990s are easily decipherable and meaningful. Subtract about 20%. That wasn't really so difficult.
But even if they were truly indecipherable, they can not be devoid of context. How can baseball statistics ever be devoid of context? The context is 1990s in America with lots of players using steroids.
The entire purpose of Miller's article is to present these numbers in the context of steroid abuse, comparing these steroid abusers to players of previous decades. That's what "context" is.
Other contextual factors include small stadiums, small strike zone, better training techniques, bigger salaries, and watered-down pitching.
But I am still wondering why Miller's anger is directed solely at prolific HR hitters.
Hundreds of major league ballplayers have taken steroids.
Miller has narrowed the problem down to approximately six: Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, Palmeiro, Canseco, and Giambi. These six players will be eliminated from HOF consideration and that's the big moral stand.
Ivan Rodriguez will make the Hall of Fame.
Mike Piazza will make the Hall of Fame.
Rickey Henderson will make the Hall of Fame.
Roger Clemens will make the Hall of Fame.
Even Gary Sheffiled will make the Hall of Fame.
I have as much suspicion -- and as little proof -- about all of them as I do about Mark McGwire.
"And those who bring Hall of Famer and noted spitballer Gaylord Perry into the equation right about now? That's a completely disingenuous comparison, misdemeanor vs. felony. Last time we checked, Vaseline wasn't an illegal substance."
In baseball, Vaseline is an illegal substance.
In any case, Miller is the guy who just brought up the character/moral clause thingy.
I don't know what kind of moral relativism would allow misdemeanors but disallow felonies. Sounds like a hypocritical morality if there ever was one.
So, what's McGwire's real crime? The real crime is hitting homeruns. Either that or making the writers look like fools in '98.
"Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling were the toasts of the town once, too. Enron was a model company and everyone was making gobs of money.
Then the closet door opened and the skeletons tumbled out.
Do you think Lay and Skilling should have walked when their crimes were revealed simply because those crimes had occurred several years earlier?"
Holey Moley. I'm not really sure Enron was ever a "model company." I am pretty sure the whole thing was a house of cards the whole time.
But what is Miller's problem? Embezzlement, murder, and now Enron?
Miller must be really, really, really upset about guys who took steroids.
In one article, Mark McGwire has been compared to an embezzler, a murderer, and the perpetrators of the greatest white collar crime in US history.
I guess you can have too much pitching after all.
"Through his version of events, Newsday's Anthony Rieber fuels speculation about the possibility of having Roger Clemens take RJ's spot in the rotation. It's not a very rational idea; Clemens won't return until after the season starts."
The Yankees are going to replace an old, overpaid pitcher with an old, overpaid pitcher.
At least Unit has thrown 430 innings over the past two seasons.
I agree that it's simply not rational to expect Clemens to be able to replace Johnson.
"More likely, the willingness to trade Randy Johnson means the Yanks are confident that either Carl Pavano, Phil Hughes, or Jeff Karstens will emerge as the fifth starter in spring training. Frankly, we're confident about that possibility too, so to get a prospect -- really, any prospect -- back for a decrepit Randy Johnson would be quite a deal."
This is a person who just said it's irrational to presume that Roger Clemens could effectively replace Randy Johnson in the Yankees rotation.
Then, in the very next sentence, this person proclaims that he is confident that Carl Pavano or Phil Hughes or Jeff Karstens could replace Randy Johnson in the starting rotation.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Yankees have a master plan.
Jon Heyman even says a Zito signing is in the works.
Maybe the Yankees just want to free up some cash for a future signing or maybe they just want to free up some cash for golf junkets and some Derek Jeter fatheads.
But please don't use the words "rational" and "Carl Pavano" and "starter" in the same sentence. When you use the words "Carl Pavano" and "starter" in the same sentence, and then categorize this as a "rational" thought, Descartes spins in his grave.
The Yankees are going to replace an old, overpaid pitcher with an old, overpaid pitcher.
At least Unit has thrown 430 innings over the past two seasons.
I agree that it's simply not rational to expect Clemens to be able to replace Johnson.
"More likely, the willingness to trade Randy Johnson means the Yanks are confident that either Carl Pavano, Phil Hughes, or Jeff Karstens will emerge as the fifth starter in spring training. Frankly, we're confident about that possibility too, so to get a prospect -- really, any prospect -- back for a decrepit Randy Johnson would be quite a deal."
This is a person who just said it's irrational to presume that Roger Clemens could effectively replace Randy Johnson in the Yankees rotation.
Then, in the very next sentence, this person proclaims that he is confident that Carl Pavano or Phil Hughes or Jeff Karstens could replace Randy Johnson in the starting rotation.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Yankees have a master plan.
Jon Heyman even says a Zito signing is in the works.
Maybe the Yankees just want to free up some cash for a future signing or maybe they just want to free up some cash for golf junkets and some Derek Jeter fatheads.
But please don't use the words "rational" and "Carl Pavano" and "starter" in the same sentence. When you use the words "Carl Pavano" and "starter" in the same sentence, and then categorize this as a "rational" thought, Descartes spins in his grave.
Monday, December 25, 2006
Subtraction By Subtraction.
"Intrepid Ed Price of the Star-Ledger is reporting the Yankees are talking to the Diamondbacks about sending Randy Johnson back to Arizona.
What a Christmas present that would be for the Yankees, who are on the hook for $16 million for their 43-year-old No. 4 starter."
I'm amused by the fact that Abraham has just moved Pettitte ahead of Johnson on the depth chart. Based on not a damn thing besides the fact that Abraham thinks Pettitte is a nicer guy.
Pettitte is younger than Johnson and that's why Pettitte may be slightly more valuable in the long run.
Pettitte, however, has not outpitched Johnson over the past two seasons.
For the 2006 Yankee depth chart, it's a toss up.
"The Unit is 34-19 and has pitched 430.2 innings in his two seasons with the Yankees. His ERA isn't pretty (4.37) but he has largely done what they expected. It's not a stretch to think he could win 17 or 18 in the National League even coming off the surgery."
Exactly.
So how are the Yankees going to easily replace him?
Why is this a Christmas present?
Maybe Dave-n-Aziz at the nj.com Yankees blog can explain:
"It would rid the Yanks of the question mark of whether or not Johnson could really be counted on anymore."
Yes, and replace it with an even bigger question mark: Ummm, who's pitching?
"We wouldn't have those silly stories about Johnson's mood swings."
No more silly stories on the sports pages.
Check.
It's addition by subtraction.
Ummm, but who's pitching?
There's a game today vs. the Cleveland Indians and, though the NY newspapers are devoid of silly stories about Randy Johnson's mood swings, the Indians are starting C.C. Sabathia and the umpires won't start the game until the Yankees put a pitcher on the mound.
It's in the rules and stuff.
"We'd be rid of caring about whether or not he can handle the NY media."
First of all, speak for yourself. I never cared about whether or not Randy Johnson can handle the NY media and their silly little stories about his mood swings.
Johnson has been a bust, but a minor bust. He has been a major bust in two playoff starts, but a minor bust in the regular season.
Secondly, I'm sure Dave-n-Aziz would suddenly care about whether or not Johnson's replacement, the mysterious Player X, could handle the NY media.
Since the NY media is completely infatuated with the notion of whether or not a player can handle the NY media.
"This would be a great deal, no matter whom the Yanks would get in return."
Especially if No Matter Whom is a pitcher.
So the Yankees' battery is not constantly Posada and TBA.
What a Christmas present that would be for the Yankees, who are on the hook for $16 million for their 43-year-old No. 4 starter."
I'm amused by the fact that Abraham has just moved Pettitte ahead of Johnson on the depth chart. Based on not a damn thing besides the fact that Abraham thinks Pettitte is a nicer guy.
Pettitte is younger than Johnson and that's why Pettitte may be slightly more valuable in the long run.
Pettitte, however, has not outpitched Johnson over the past two seasons.
For the 2006 Yankee depth chart, it's a toss up.
"The Unit is 34-19 and has pitched 430.2 innings in his two seasons with the Yankees. His ERA isn't pretty (4.37) but he has largely done what they expected. It's not a stretch to think he could win 17 or 18 in the National League even coming off the surgery."
Exactly.
So how are the Yankees going to easily replace him?
Why is this a Christmas present?
Maybe Dave-n-Aziz at the nj.com Yankees blog can explain:
"It would rid the Yanks of the question mark of whether or not Johnson could really be counted on anymore."
Yes, and replace it with an even bigger question mark: Ummm, who's pitching?
"We wouldn't have those silly stories about Johnson's mood swings."
No more silly stories on the sports pages.
Check.
It's addition by subtraction.
Ummm, but who's pitching?
There's a game today vs. the Cleveland Indians and, though the NY newspapers are devoid of silly stories about Randy Johnson's mood swings, the Indians are starting C.C. Sabathia and the umpires won't start the game until the Yankees put a pitcher on the mound.
It's in the rules and stuff.
"We'd be rid of caring about whether or not he can handle the NY media."
First of all, speak for yourself. I never cared about whether or not Randy Johnson can handle the NY media and their silly little stories about his mood swings.
Johnson has been a bust, but a minor bust. He has been a major bust in two playoff starts, but a minor bust in the regular season.
Secondly, I'm sure Dave-n-Aziz would suddenly care about whether or not Johnson's replacement, the mysterious Player X, could handle the NY media.
Since the NY media is completely infatuated with the notion of whether or not a player can handle the NY media.
"This would be a great deal, no matter whom the Yanks would get in return."
Especially if No Matter Whom is a pitcher.
So the Yankees' battery is not constantly Posada and TBA.
Friday, December 22, 2006
Cal Ripken Did Not Save Baseball.
If the McGwire/Sosa HR race of 1998 saved baseball, but Cal Ripken had already saved baseball in 1995, I wonder what killed baseball in between?
I say it was Charlie Hayes.
The Black Sox scandal killed baseball in 1919, Babe Ruth saved baseball in 1920, free agency killed it again in 1973, Mark Fidrych saved it again in 1975, the work stoppage killed it again in 1994, Cal Ripken saved it again in 1995, Charlie Hayes killed it in 1996, and then McGwire/Sosa saved it again in 1998.
"On the night of Sept. 6, 1995, Cal Ripken Jr. saved baseball.
The game was flickering when the Baltimore Orioles shortstop broke Lou Gehrig's record of 2,130 consecutive games played."
Do you know why baseball would have survived?
Because baseball is the perfect game. It has something for everyone. It's the game for the proletariat. It sates the vox populi.
"Ripken will easily be elected to the Hall of Fame when voting by the Baseball Writers' Association of America is announced Jan. 9. He and the San Diego Padres' Tony Gwynn are first-ballot shoo-ins.
But if ever a candidate deserves to be a unanimous choice, it's Ripken, something that's never happened in 63 elections held by the baseball writers. (On nine occasions, no election was held).
Tom Seaver came the closest in 1992 when he received 98.84%, missing by five votes of the 430 cast. Nolan Ryan received 491 of 497 (98.79%) in 1999, and in 1936's first election, Ty Cobb got 222 of 226 (98.23%).
...
Why then, shouldn't he be a unanimous choice?"
He should be a unanimous choice.
Why shouldn't Tony Gwynn be a unanimous choice, for that matter?
Is there a sportswriter on the face of the Earth who doesn't think Tony Gwynn belongs in the Hall of Fame?
Why weren't Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth and Willie Mays and Cy Young unanimous choices?
The sportswriters have developed their own dopey protocols as it pertains to HOF voting.
There's the first ballot thing, the silly votes for Jim Deshaies, and there will probably be a holdout who won't vote for Ripken simply because nobody ever gets 100% of the vote.
But, since Bodley posed the question, I'll answer it.
Ripken should not be a unanimous choice because this may present the impression that he's the greatest player ever.
A shorstop/third baseman who hit .276 is not the greatest player ever.
I say it was Charlie Hayes.
The Black Sox scandal killed baseball in 1919, Babe Ruth saved baseball in 1920, free agency killed it again in 1973, Mark Fidrych saved it again in 1975, the work stoppage killed it again in 1994, Cal Ripken saved it again in 1995, Charlie Hayes killed it in 1996, and then McGwire/Sosa saved it again in 1998.
"On the night of Sept. 6, 1995, Cal Ripken Jr. saved baseball.
The game was flickering when the Baltimore Orioles shortstop broke Lou Gehrig's record of 2,130 consecutive games played."
Do you know why baseball would have survived?
Because baseball is the perfect game. It has something for everyone. It's the game for the proletariat. It sates the vox populi.
"Ripken will easily be elected to the Hall of Fame when voting by the Baseball Writers' Association of America is announced Jan. 9. He and the San Diego Padres' Tony Gwynn are first-ballot shoo-ins.
But if ever a candidate deserves to be a unanimous choice, it's Ripken, something that's never happened in 63 elections held by the baseball writers. (On nine occasions, no election was held).
Tom Seaver came the closest in 1992 when he received 98.84%, missing by five votes of the 430 cast. Nolan Ryan received 491 of 497 (98.79%) in 1999, and in 1936's first election, Ty Cobb got 222 of 226 (98.23%).
...
Why then, shouldn't he be a unanimous choice?"
He should be a unanimous choice.
Why shouldn't Tony Gwynn be a unanimous choice, for that matter?
Is there a sportswriter on the face of the Earth who doesn't think Tony Gwynn belongs in the Hall of Fame?
Why weren't Ty Cobb and Babe Ruth and Willie Mays and Cy Young unanimous choices?
The sportswriters have developed their own dopey protocols as it pertains to HOF voting.
There's the first ballot thing, the silly votes for Jim Deshaies, and there will probably be a holdout who won't vote for Ripken simply because nobody ever gets 100% of the vote.
But, since Bodley posed the question, I'll answer it.
Ripken should not be a unanimous choice because this may present the impression that he's the greatest player ever.
A shorstop/third baseman who hit .276 is not the greatest player ever.
Saturday, December 16, 2006
Just say "steroids."
Ask some people for the time and they will give you the history of clocks.
Jeff Passan has been saving up some good stuff, just waiting for somebody to ask him what he thinks about the current state of baseball:
"The game is right. The game will always be right. The game is why baseball now thrives, why it has persevered, why it caught on in the first place. The game is malleable enough -- fast or slow, intense or laid-back, a pitching duel or slugfest -- to sate the vox populi. The game speaks. The game cries. The game invites. The game, simply, is perfect.
First of all, vox populi should be in italics. Small matter, but the Committee is keen on details.
More importantly, that's not a proper use of vox populi.
Using the literal translation -- "voice of the people" -- this doesn't make sense.
Baseball sates the voice of the people? Why doesn't baseball just sate the people? "Baseball sates the populi." Or perhaps baseball sates the appetites of the people?
More commonly, vox populi is translated as "public sentiment" or "public opinion." Which means pretty much the same thing and makes just as little sense in Passan's usage.
I know what Passan is trying to say. Baseball sates the general public, the unwashed masses, the doting Johnny Lunchpails.
In other words, "People Like Baseball."
That was easy and written entirely in English, without any Latin.
Jeff Passan has been saving up some good stuff, just waiting for somebody to ask him what he thinks about the current state of baseball:
"The game is right. The game will always be right. The game is why baseball now thrives, why it has persevered, why it caught on in the first place. The game is malleable enough -- fast or slow, intense or laid-back, a pitching duel or slugfest -- to sate the vox populi. The game speaks. The game cries. The game invites. The game, simply, is perfect.
Baseball is a dream that can be fulfilled, or at least seems that way, and that gives it a proletariat edge that no other sport can claim. Basketball discriminates by height, football by girth or speed, hockey by coordination or number of teeth missing. Fat or skinny, fast or slow, tall or short, baseball is accessible -- full of choices, indeed, from the game itself to the players to the ways in which one can enjoy it."
I think you had your Pulitzer, until the whole "sate the vox populi" thing.First of all, vox populi should be in italics. Small matter, but the Committee is keen on details.
More importantly, that's not a proper use of vox populi.
Using the literal translation -- "voice of the people" -- this doesn't make sense.
Baseball sates the voice of the people? Why doesn't baseball just sate the people? "Baseball sates the populi." Or perhaps baseball sates the appetites of the people?
More commonly, vox populi is translated as "public sentiment" or "public opinion." Which means pretty much the same thing and makes just as little sense in Passan's usage.
I know what Passan is trying to say. Baseball sates the general public, the unwashed masses, the doting Johnny Lunchpails.
In other words, "People Like Baseball."
That was easy and written entirely in English, without any Latin.
Monday, December 11, 2006
2-year, $32 million.
Y'all are a few years late realizing that Andy Pettitte is a hypocrite, y'hear?:
How can Ken Rosenthal and others claim the Pettitte contract is worth $32 million when the rest of the world is reporting 1 year, $16 million?
Because the second year is a player option. It's not guaranteed money. Theoretically, Pettitte could turn down the money and go back on the market.
But, since it's a player option, there's no reason Pettitte won't make at least that much money in 2008.
As a safety net for the Yankees , Pettitte (ahem) has promised (heh heh) that he wouldn't enforce the option (wink wink) if he was not healthy enough (nudge nudge) to pitch in 2008.
Of course, Trustworthy is as Trustworthy does:
"I don't know about you. But if I'm a pitcher who's had elbow trouble two of the past three years and was offered $12 million to pitch, while still getting to tuck my kids into bed, hanging with my lifelong friends and attending my home church, then slap away.
"The Astros made one offer here and compared it to the one over there. That's not just smart baseball, it's smart business.
Fans are smart, too, and should realize this was about good, old American greed, nothing more and nothing less.
Pettitte has every right to cash in, sure. Good for him. He had his reasons for wanting to stay, but in the end Pettitte was no different than, say, Terrell Owens.
There were 32 million reasons home is where he'll hang his Yankees cap."
How can Ken Rosenthal and others claim the Pettitte contract is worth $32 million when the rest of the world is reporting 1 year, $16 million?
Because the second year is a player option. It's not guaranteed money. Theoretically, Pettitte could turn down the money and go back on the market.
But, since it's a player option, there's no reason Pettitte won't make at least that much money in 2008.
As a safety net for the Yankees , Pettitte (ahem) has promised (heh heh) that he wouldn't enforce the option (wink wink) if he was not healthy enough (nudge nudge) to pitch in 2008.
Of course, Trustworthy is as Trustworthy does:
"I don't know about you. But if I'm a pitcher who's had elbow trouble two of the past three years and was offered $12 million to pitch, while still getting to tuck my kids into bed, hanging with my lifelong friends and attending my home church, then slap away.
The only slap in the face was by Pettitte. He is a good man. Church-going. Sings in the choir. Brings his best.
But in this case he was at his worst. The advice Pettitte has followed contradicts everything he ever said was most important in his life. It also cast a shadow on all the good feelings he brought his hometown.
'My heart started pulling me, tugging me to come back down here.'
— Andy Pettitte, December 2003, about Houston
Sometimes the best spin is none at all. All Pettitte needed to do was be honest.
Tell us it was about the money. Tell us, yeah, it's going to be tough leaving the wife and kids again for maybe eight months, but $32 million is $32 million. We'd understand.
'My family is the most important thing to me. I think everybody realizes that now. I'm sure everyone thought I'd just go after the money. It wasn't about the money. I could have gotten a lot more money other places.'
— Andy Pettitte, December 2003
Everyone should realize something else now. Team Andy again is talking about it not being about the money, even saying again that Pettitte could have gone elsewhere for considerably more than the two-year, $32 million paid by the Yanks. They've turned the tables. They've blamed McLane. Don't buy it."
Contracts According to Felz.
I learned something new today. The reported figures of baseball contracts only refer to guaranteed money. Though performance bonuses and options abound, these are not included in the reported figures.
I can find no mention of a third-year option in the ESPN article that I linked to, but it wouldn't be the first time ESPN was wrong.
According to this particular article, the first Yankee offer to Pettitte was 3/$30 mill, including a buyout for the 4th year. The final Yankee offer only guaranteed $26 million to Pettitte. The 3rd year, which would have brought the total to $39 million, was performance-based, and there was no mention of 2007.
Was the Yankee offer passive or aggressive? That's an opinion. Compared to a final Astro offer of 3/$31.5 mill, I think the Yankee offer was plenty aggressive, especially since Pettitte wouldn't allow the Yankee doctors to examine his elbow.
but did the Yankees guarantee more money than the Astros? Apparently not.
I still believe that the Yankee offer was more than fair and arguably better than the Astro offer. I still believe that Pettitte would have stayed with the Yankees if he had wanted to. I still believe that it's very misleading to claim that the Yankees "let Pettitte go" without making an offer. I still believe the general perception is wrong.
Okay, so now that that's cleared up, maybe somebody could explain what an "option" is.
I can find no mention of a third-year option in the ESPN article that I linked to, but it wouldn't be the first time ESPN was wrong.
According to this particular article, the first Yankee offer to Pettitte was 3/$30 mill, including a buyout for the 4th year. The final Yankee offer only guaranteed $26 million to Pettitte. The 3rd year, which would have brought the total to $39 million, was performance-based, and there was no mention of 2007.
Was the Yankee offer passive or aggressive? That's an opinion. Compared to a final Astro offer of 3/$31.5 mill, I think the Yankee offer was plenty aggressive, especially since Pettitte wouldn't allow the Yankee doctors to examine his elbow.
but did the Yankees guarantee more money than the Astros? Apparently not.
I still believe that the Yankee offer was more than fair and arguably better than the Astro offer. I still believe that Pettitte would have stayed with the Yankees if he had wanted to. I still believe that it's very misleading to claim that the Yankees "let Pettitte go" without making an offer. I still believe the general perception is wrong.
Okay, so now that that's cleared up, maybe somebody could explain what an "option" is.
Sunday, December 10, 2006
It feels weird briefly agreeing with Mike Lupica.
"Andy Pettitte had all those reasons for leaving the Yankees, or so he said three years ago. Maybe he meant some of the things he said when he left. It was about living in Houston full time, that was a big one. It was about family. Okay. You never fault somebody for that. Now it's not just Pettitte, it's his DAD saying in the Times how happy his grandchildren are, because the kids can stay in the Houston schools they're in even.
They couldn't have done that before?
If Pettitte is such a born Yankee, as Yankee as pinstripes and payroll, then what about all the things he told Astros fans?
What was he just saying because it sounded good at the time, what did he really mean?"
I think any grown man who refuses $7.5 mill because the boss didn't call him on the cell phone is pathetic.
I think any grown man who thinks a $39 mill offer is insulting is a sissy.
I never fell for Pettitte's pro-family, pro-Christian line of junk in the first place.
"You know why Derek Jeter is my Sportsman of the Year in New York sports this year? It's not just because of the wonderful season he had. It's because he's not part of the constant chatter. It's because he doesn't talk just to talk, say what he thinks people want him to hear, about A-Rod or anybody else. Some of his own teammates call him a phony. There are plenty of those in this town. Jeter isn't one."
Well, it's nice to know I disagree with Lupica once again.
Jeter has made an art of saying "what he thinks people want him to hear" [sic]. (What people want to hear? What people want him to say?)
But you know why Derek Jeter is the Sportsman of the Year in New York sports? It's 100% because of the wonderful season he had on the field. It's not because of any off-field behavior, even if he had discovered a cure for the common cold.
As long as Pettitte can pitch, he can say any b.s. he wants to the press. It doesn't even bother me too much that he's a liar and a hypocrite. I could not care less. As long as he wins baseball games.
I care even less what his father says to the press.
I care even less than that what grades his kids get on their report cards.
Friday, December 08, 2006
Thursday, December 07, 2006
The forgotten $39 million.
People believe what they want to believe.
Or, more likely, some people just want to use their newspaper column to deliberately mislead their readers:
"A little more than three years ago, the Yankees decided they had no further use for Andy Pettitte."
The Yankees offered Pettitte $39 million.
The Yankees offered Pettitte more than the Astros offered Pettitte.
One may conclude that it seems that Pettitte decided he had no further use for the Yankees.
"They granted him his free agency and then sat back, not even bothering to make an offer, as Pettitte signed a three-year, $31-million deal with the Houston Astros."
No, Wallace Matthews. That's not the truth.
The Yankees bothered making an offer to Pettitte.
The Yankees bothered with a $39 million offer.
Pettitte turned it down so he could pitch in Houston along with his "special friend" and also so he could pitch for an owner with Christian values. Also, so he could be close to his family.
Not sure how Pettitte could possibly agree to come back and pitch for a secular owner who won't even call him on his cell phone to say "hi." Because that's supposedly why Pettitte left the Yankees in the first place.
I also don't think Steinbrenner became a saint in the interim three years.
I also don't think Pettitte's family has moved to the Bronx.
"The succession of frauds the Yankees brought in to fill the void - Kevin Brown, Javier Vazquez, Carl Pavano, Jaret Wright, Esteban Loaiza and of course, Randy Johnson - fizzled in the regular season and bombed out in October.
Those names are the biggest reasons why the Yankees have not been in a World Series since 2003, have not won it since 2000, haven't gotten past the first round of the playoffs for two years running."
Yes, all of the above-mentioned players have bombed out for the Yankees, to varying degrees. They certainly weren't a suitable replacement for Clemens ... I mean, for Pettitte.
But "since 2000" is an itsy bitsy bit misleading.
None of the above-mentioned pitchers were even on the Yankees in 2001. Or 2002. Or 2003.
In 2001, Kevin Brown was in LA, Carl Pavano was in Montreal, Jaret Wright was in Cleveland, Esteban Loaiza was in Toronto, and Randy Johnson was the pitcher who beat the Yankees in Game Six and Game Seven of the World Series.
Andy Pettitte was the Yankee pitcher who went to Arizona with a 3-2 Series lead and allowed 6 earned runs in 2 innings.
I mean, seriously, think about what Matthews just said: "Esteban Loaiza is one of the biggest reasons that the Yankees haven't won the World Series for the past six years."
Esteban Loaiza, who pitched in 10 whole regular season games for the Yankees, is one of the biggest reasons the Yankees haven't won the World Series for the past six years.
Esteban Loaiza pitched pretty well in the playoffs for the Yankees, actually.
Loaiza pitched 8 1/3 playoff innings for the Yankees and allowed 1 earned run.
The fraud with the 1.08 postseason ERA is the reason the Yankees haven't won a World Series since 2000.
"But they know they were wrong on this one. He may have won some of the biggest postseason games in their recent history - only Orlando Hernandez had a better record in October - but "they" (read: George M. Steinbrenner III) didn't think three more years of Pettitte was worth $31 million."
Give me a minute to get my calculator.
Sure enough, 39 is more than 31.
Using the transitive property, I can prove that George M. Steinbrenner III actually thought Pettitte was worth more than 3 years and $31 million.
Though George M. Steinbrenner III did not think Pettitte was worth 4 years and $52 million.
"Still, he remains one of the 10 best pitchers in baseball and the Yankees' best hope of regaining, even for a year, the spark that has left them over the past couple of years."
Andy Pettitte is not one of the 10 best pitchers in baseball.
If Andy Pettitte was one of the top ten pitchers in baseball, then I could not create the following list, which I call, "Ten Baseball Pitchers Who Are Better Than Andy Pettitte":
I don't think Wallace Matthews is this stupid or this forgetful. Matthews has to know that Pettitte is not one of the top ten pitchers in baseball and Matthews couldn't have possibly forgotten that the Yankees offered Pettitte $39 million.
Matthews does this on purpose.
For some unknown reason, it's important for Wallace Matthews praise Andy Pettitte and criticize George M. Steinbrenner III.
Or, more likely, some people just want to use their newspaper column to deliberately mislead their readers:
"A little more than three years ago, the Yankees decided they had no further use for Andy Pettitte."
The Yankees offered Pettitte $39 million.
The Yankees offered Pettitte more than the Astros offered Pettitte.
One may conclude that it seems that Pettitte decided he had no further use for the Yankees.
"They granted him his free agency and then sat back, not even bothering to make an offer, as Pettitte signed a three-year, $31-million deal with the Houston Astros."
No, Wallace Matthews. That's not the truth.
The Yankees bothered making an offer to Pettitte.
The Yankees bothered with a $39 million offer.
Pettitte turned it down so he could pitch in Houston along with his "special friend" and also so he could pitch for an owner with Christian values. Also, so he could be close to his family.
Not sure how Pettitte could possibly agree to come back and pitch for a secular owner who won't even call him on his cell phone to say "hi." Because that's supposedly why Pettitte left the Yankees in the first place.
I also don't think Steinbrenner became a saint in the interim three years.
I also don't think Pettitte's family has moved to the Bronx.
"The succession of frauds the Yankees brought in to fill the void - Kevin Brown, Javier Vazquez, Carl Pavano, Jaret Wright, Esteban Loaiza and of course, Randy Johnson - fizzled in the regular season and bombed out in October.
Those names are the biggest reasons why the Yankees have not been in a World Series since 2003, have not won it since 2000, haven't gotten past the first round of the playoffs for two years running."
Yes, all of the above-mentioned players have bombed out for the Yankees, to varying degrees. They certainly weren't a suitable replacement for Clemens ... I mean, for Pettitte.
But "since 2000" is an itsy bitsy bit misleading.
None of the above-mentioned pitchers were even on the Yankees in 2001. Or 2002. Or 2003.
In 2001, Kevin Brown was in LA, Carl Pavano was in Montreal, Jaret Wright was in Cleveland, Esteban Loaiza was in Toronto, and Randy Johnson was the pitcher who beat the Yankees in Game Six and Game Seven of the World Series.
Andy Pettitte was the Yankee pitcher who went to Arizona with a 3-2 Series lead and allowed 6 earned runs in 2 innings.
I mean, seriously, think about what Matthews just said: "Esteban Loaiza is one of the biggest reasons that the Yankees haven't won the World Series for the past six years."
Esteban Loaiza, who pitched in 10 whole regular season games for the Yankees, is one of the biggest reasons the Yankees haven't won the World Series for the past six years.
Esteban Loaiza pitched pretty well in the playoffs for the Yankees, actually.
Loaiza pitched 8 1/3 playoff innings for the Yankees and allowed 1 earned run.
The fraud with the 1.08 postseason ERA is the reason the Yankees haven't won a World Series since 2000.
"But they know they were wrong on this one. He may have won some of the biggest postseason games in their recent history - only Orlando Hernandez had a better record in October - but "they" (read: George M. Steinbrenner III) didn't think three more years of Pettitte was worth $31 million."
Give me a minute to get my calculator.
Sure enough, 39 is more than 31.
Using the transitive property, I can prove that George M. Steinbrenner III actually thought Pettitte was worth more than 3 years and $31 million.
Though George M. Steinbrenner III did not think Pettitte was worth 4 years and $52 million.
"Still, he remains one of the 10 best pitchers in baseball and the Yankees' best hope of regaining, even for a year, the spark that has left them over the past couple of years."
Andy Pettitte is not one of the 10 best pitchers in baseball.
If Andy Pettitte was one of the top ten pitchers in baseball, then I could not create the following list, which I call, "Ten Baseball Pitchers Who Are Better Than Andy Pettitte":
- Johan Santana.
- Mariano Rivera.
- Chien-Ming Wang.
- Curt Schilling.
- Roy Halladay.
- Jeremy Bonderman.
- Barry Zito.
- Scott Kazmir.
- Justin Verlander.
- Francisco Liriano.
I don't think Wallace Matthews is this stupid or this forgetful. Matthews has to know that Pettitte is not one of the top ten pitchers in baseball and Matthews couldn't have possibly forgotten that the Yankees offered Pettitte $39 million.
Matthews does this on purpose.
For some unknown reason, it's important for Wallace Matthews praise Andy Pettitte and criticize George M. Steinbrenner III.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
I know one American League executive whose team is going to lose.
It's that time of year again.
Time to feign outrage about the cold weather, the commercialization of Christmas, and the "skyrocketing" salaries for major league baseball players:
"Baseball's most valuable players this season raked in a combined $740,000 in salary, which is approximately what the Chicago Cubs plan to pay Alfonso Soriano every time he sneezes the next eight years."
In 2002, Alfonso Soriano was third in AL MVP voting while only earning $630,000. Then he became a free agent. Now, he's the poster boy for $100 million club.
This is how free agency works. This is how free agency has worked for 35 years. Stop acting all surprised.
"If there seems an incongruity with Justin Morneau making $385,000 and Ryan Howard getting $355,000 while Jamie Walker signs for $4 million a year because he happens to throw his 50 or so innings with his left hand, there is."
It's called free agency.
"It's such a deal, in fact, that the under-control player – preferably one with less than three years of service time, though fourth- and fifth-year arbitration-eligible players qualify, too – no longer is simply a luxury. With free-agent salaries filling with helium leading up to this year's Winter Meetings and showing no signs of abating, a quality zero-to-five player is now the most desired commodity in the game."
Well, duh.
But then they become free agents and, if you want to keep them on your team, you have to pay them $20 million per year.
"Forget the $20 million-a-year guy and forget prospects," one American League executive said. "Now it's guys who have established themselves who you can control for four or five years."
Justin Morneau and Ryan Howard are prospects and $20 million-a-year guys. It just depends of when.
First, they're prospects. Then, they're "under control." Then, they're $20 million-a-year guys.
If you forget the $20 million-a-year guys, then you're soon saying goodbye to Morneau and Howard.
"Flexibility comes with cheap contracts, and even though the minimum salary was raised 16 percent in the new collective-bargaining agreement, it's still $380,000, pennies compared to the long-term deals free agents are snagging."
Without prospects or expensive veterans, you can have a whole team of minimum wage rookies and mediocre talent.
Yes, your team will also have quite a bit of flexibility.
Some days you will lose by a lot and some days you will lose by a little.
Some days you will lose because of mediocre hitting and some days you will lose because of mediocre pitching and some days you will lose because of mediocre fielding.
Time to feign outrage about the cold weather, the commercialization of Christmas, and the "skyrocketing" salaries for major league baseball players:
"Baseball's most valuable players this season raked in a combined $740,000 in salary, which is approximately what the Chicago Cubs plan to pay Alfonso Soriano every time he sneezes the next eight years."
In 2002, Alfonso Soriano was third in AL MVP voting while only earning $630,000. Then he became a free agent. Now, he's the poster boy for $100 million club.
This is how free agency works. This is how free agency has worked for 35 years. Stop acting all surprised.
"If there seems an incongruity with Justin Morneau making $385,000 and Ryan Howard getting $355,000 while Jamie Walker signs for $4 million a year because he happens to throw his 50 or so innings with his left hand, there is."
It's called free agency.
"It's such a deal, in fact, that the under-control player – preferably one with less than three years of service time, though fourth- and fifth-year arbitration-eligible players qualify, too – no longer is simply a luxury. With free-agent salaries filling with helium leading up to this year's Winter Meetings and showing no signs of abating, a quality zero-to-five player is now the most desired commodity in the game."
Well, duh.
But then they become free agents and, if you want to keep them on your team, you have to pay them $20 million per year.
"Forget the $20 million-a-year guy and forget prospects," one American League executive said. "Now it's guys who have established themselves who you can control for four or five years."
Justin Morneau and Ryan Howard are prospects and $20 million-a-year guys. It just depends of when.
First, they're prospects. Then, they're "under control." Then, they're $20 million-a-year guys.
If you forget the $20 million-a-year guys, then you're soon saying goodbye to Morneau and Howard.
"Flexibility comes with cheap contracts, and even though the minimum salary was raised 16 percent in the new collective-bargaining agreement, it's still $380,000, pennies compared to the long-term deals free agents are snagging."
Without prospects or expensive veterans, you can have a whole team of minimum wage rookies and mediocre talent.
Yes, your team will also have quite a bit of flexibility.
Some days you will lose by a lot and some days you will lose by a little.
Some days you will lose because of mediocre hitting and some days you will lose because of mediocre pitching and some days you will lose because of mediocre fielding.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
I know exactly where Clemens fits.
"Can the Yankees, with question marks in their rotation, wait until the end of December for Pettitte's decision to hurl or retire? And where does Clemens fit into the equation?"
Clemens is the husband and Pettitte is the wife.
Clemens is the husband and Pettitte is the wife.
Monday, November 27, 2006
Phil Pepe's Last Article.
ARod took on Jeter and lost.
Big Papi took on Jeter and lost.
Two rules in New York City: (1) Don't take visitors to the Statue of Liberty and (2) Don't take on Derek Jeter:
"I believe fervently in the literal definition of the term 'Most Valuable.' The award was designed to go not to the year's outstanding player, but rather to the one most instrumental in the success of his team ..."
Which is why this article is about Joe Mauer?
Which is why not a single everyday player on the 95-win Tigers received a single MVP vote?
Which is why Ryan Howard won the NL MVP and his team didn't even make the playoffs?
"On June 7, the Twins were 25-33, 11 ½ games behind the Tigers in the AL Central and Morneau was batting .236 with 11 home runs and 38 runs batted in."
Is it really necessary to point out that baseball games count in April, May, and June?
Is it really necessary to point out that Pepe is trying to support Morneau's MVP case while pointing out that Morneau was hitting .236 on June 7?
Is it really necessary to write six consecutive sentences that are rhetorical questions?
"From June 8 to the end of the season, Morneau batted .362 with 23 homers and 92 RBIs, and the Twins went 71-33, passed the Tigers and won the division championship. That, to me, is the definition of a Most Valuable Player. How much clearer can it be?"
With no basis for comparison, it's very unclear.
Maybe the Twins passed the Tigers because the Twins had a pitcher who lost zero games at home the entire season.
"To say that Jeter deserves extra consideration as MVP because he plays a critical position on defense is a valid point. Jeter not only is the Yankees' shortstop, but an exceptional one, the winner of a Gold Glove this year."
Ha ha ha.
Phew.
Pepe gets to keep his job after all.
Big Papi took on Jeter and lost.
Two rules in New York City: (1) Don't take visitors to the Statue of Liberty and (2) Don't take on Derek Jeter:
"I believe fervently in the literal definition of the term 'Most Valuable.' The award was designed to go not to the year's outstanding player, but rather to the one most instrumental in the success of his team ..."
Which is why this article is about Joe Mauer?
Which is why not a single everyday player on the 95-win Tigers received a single MVP vote?
Which is why Ryan Howard won the NL MVP and his team didn't even make the playoffs?
"On June 7, the Twins were 25-33, 11 ½ games behind the Tigers in the AL Central and Morneau was batting .236 with 11 home runs and 38 runs batted in."
Is it really necessary to point out that baseball games count in April, May, and June?
Is it really necessary to point out that Pepe is trying to support Morneau's MVP case while pointing out that Morneau was hitting .236 on June 7?
Is it really necessary to write six consecutive sentences that are rhetorical questions?
"From June 8 to the end of the season, Morneau batted .362 with 23 homers and 92 RBIs, and the Twins went 71-33, passed the Tigers and won the division championship. That, to me, is the definition of a Most Valuable Player. How much clearer can it be?"
With no basis for comparison, it's very unclear.
Maybe the Twins passed the Tigers because the Twins had a pitcher who lost zero games at home the entire season.
"To say that Jeter deserves extra consideration as MVP because he plays a critical position on defense is a valid point. Jeter not only is the Yankees' shortstop, but an exceptional one, the winner of a Gold Glove this year."
Ha ha ha.
Phew.
Pepe gets to keep his job after all.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
4-0.
"Assuming he is truly the guy he has presented himself to be over the past 11 seasons, Jeter would rather be a world champion than an MVP any day of the week and any season of his career."
Every pro athlete would rather win a championship than an MVP award.
"Jeter's detractors use a lot of insults to describe him: cold, condescending, aloof, bloodless, a robot programmed to play baseball."
Is there really some big army of Jeter detractors that the rest of the world is unaware of?
I don't think I've ever heard anybody describe Jeter as cold, condescending, aloof, bloodless, or a robot programmed to play baseball. Only I describe Jeter as cold, condescending, aloof, bloodless, and a robot programmed to play baseball.
By the way, I wish! That would be awesome! A robot programmed to play baseball!
I can imagine Bob Sheppard's voice echoing over the Yankee Stadium speakers: "Batting fifth (fifth) ... number ninety-nine (nine) ... shortstop (stop) ... furby ... number ninety-nine (nine)."
I personally believe Jeter is a phony. But I could google "Jeter" and "phony" and felzball would probably come up 500 times out of 501 hits.
(Amazingly, I just tried this and felzball came up as the top two sites.)
I am apparently the only person on Earth who has ever written "Jeter" and "phony" in the same sentence.
I googled Jeter + condescending and got nothing.
Jeter + aloof got articles that described ARod as aloof.
Jeter + cold returned phrases such as "Jeter's cold determination" and "Jeter's cold spell" and one about Jeter's "cold shoulder" toward Ken Huckaby, the guy who accidentally injured Jeter on Opening Day 2003. Also, one about Jeter on the television show, Cold Pizza.
Jeter + bloodless (yuck!) got nothing.
So, out of 100 million sites on the Interweb, felzball is the only website that qualifies as a Jeter detractor.
Jeter's MVP consolation speech was one of the phoniest things you will ever hear. Perfectly safe and precisely what the fans want to hear. Which is fine. No need to be radically honest.
But please, Wallace Matthews, at least admit this guy is a big phony.
" 'Phony' is not one of them."
Oh, well.
"If he were, he would have publicly embraced A-Rod by now, just to shut everybody up."
Ahem.
Fact 1: Jeter says he'll do anything to win.
Fact 2: Publicly embracing a troubled teammate may help the Yankees win.
Fact 3: Jeter does not like ARod.
Observation: Jeter will not publicly embrace ARod because Jeter does not like ARod.
Conclusion: When Jeter says he will do anything to win, he is being a phony.
"But Jeter doesn't exist to placate teammates or the media, or to accumulate statistics and accolades. By all available evidence, he exists to win baseball games, not awards."
But only on his own terms.
Hasn't Matthews realized that placating teammates can sometimes help win baseball games? It sure couldn't hurt.
"When Alex Rodriguez won the MVP last year as a member of a Yankees team that bombed out in the first round of the playoffs, he said this of his runner-up, David Ortiz: 'I'd certainly trade his World Series championship for this MVP trophy'
Since the sincerity of A-Rod's words is always open to question, you can take that for what it's worth. And you know that if Alex Rodriguez dies without a World Series ring but with his two MVPs, he will die smiling.
...
To Jeter, winning the MVP in a season that ended as badly as 2006 did for the Yankees would be like hitting a solo home run at the end of a 10-run loss. Maybe A-Rod could be satisfied with that, but not Jeter." "
Me Wallace. Me no like ARod.
You know what I think? I think ARod has hunger and drive and resourcefulness. ARod is still out there taking fielding practice rather than getting fat and lazy with his $252 million contract (in case you hadn't heard, ARod signed a $252 million contract).
A player can not accomplish what ARod has accomplished without hunger and drive and resourcefulness.
I also think that nobody in baseball wants a ring more than ARod. Nobody gets crucified more than ARod for failing in the postseason. ARod would give back twenty MVPs for one Championship ring. He doesn't want to go down in history as baseball's version of Dan Marino.
ARod tanked in the playoffs the past two years. Hate the results. Don't hate the effort.
You know what else I think? As I dare to bring up the unspeakable evil that lurks in the heart of men?
I think that Jeter & Torre dislike ARod so much that they'd rather keep the ring count at 4-0 than allow it to become 5-1.
I can't prove it. It's just a hunch. But it may explain why Jeter smirks while ARod gets booed and it may explain why Torre goes out of his way to embarrass ARod in the playoffs.
Every pro athlete would rather win a championship than an MVP award.
"Jeter's detractors use a lot of insults to describe him: cold, condescending, aloof, bloodless, a robot programmed to play baseball."
Is there really some big army of Jeter detractors that the rest of the world is unaware of?
I don't think I've ever heard anybody describe Jeter as cold, condescending, aloof, bloodless, or a robot programmed to play baseball. Only I describe Jeter as cold, condescending, aloof, bloodless, and a robot programmed to play baseball.
By the way, I wish! That would be awesome! A robot programmed to play baseball!
I can imagine Bob Sheppard's voice echoing over the Yankee Stadium speakers: "Batting fifth (fifth) ... number ninety-nine (nine) ... shortstop (stop) ... furby ... number ninety-nine (nine)."
I personally believe Jeter is a phony. But I could google "Jeter" and "phony" and felzball would probably come up 500 times out of 501 hits.
(Amazingly, I just tried this and felzball came up as the top two sites.)
I am apparently the only person on Earth who has ever written "Jeter" and "phony" in the same sentence.
I googled Jeter + condescending and got nothing.
Jeter + aloof got articles that described ARod as aloof.
Jeter + cold returned phrases such as "Jeter's cold determination" and "Jeter's cold spell" and one about Jeter's "cold shoulder" toward Ken Huckaby, the guy who accidentally injured Jeter on Opening Day 2003. Also, one about Jeter on the television show, Cold Pizza.
Jeter + bloodless (yuck!) got nothing.
So, out of 100 million sites on the Interweb, felzball is the only website that qualifies as a Jeter detractor.
Jeter's MVP consolation speech was one of the phoniest things you will ever hear. Perfectly safe and precisely what the fans want to hear. Which is fine. No need to be radically honest.
But please, Wallace Matthews, at least admit this guy is a big phony.
" 'Phony' is not one of them."
Oh, well.
"If he were, he would have publicly embraced A-Rod by now, just to shut everybody up."
Ahem.
Fact 1: Jeter says he'll do anything to win.
Fact 2: Publicly embracing a troubled teammate may help the Yankees win.
Fact 3: Jeter does not like ARod.
Observation: Jeter will not publicly embrace ARod because Jeter does not like ARod.
Conclusion: When Jeter says he will do anything to win, he is being a phony.
"But Jeter doesn't exist to placate teammates or the media, or to accumulate statistics and accolades. By all available evidence, he exists to win baseball games, not awards."
But only on his own terms.
Hasn't Matthews realized that placating teammates can sometimes help win baseball games? It sure couldn't hurt.
"When Alex Rodriguez won the MVP last year as a member of a Yankees team that bombed out in the first round of the playoffs, he said this of his runner-up, David Ortiz: 'I'd certainly trade his World Series championship for this MVP trophy'
Since the sincerity of A-Rod's words is always open to question, you can take that for what it's worth. And you know that if Alex Rodriguez dies without a World Series ring but with his two MVPs, he will die smiling.
...
To Jeter, winning the MVP in a season that ended as badly as 2006 did for the Yankees would be like hitting a solo home run at the end of a 10-run loss. Maybe A-Rod could be satisfied with that, but not Jeter." "
Me Wallace. Me no like ARod.
You know what I think? I think ARod has hunger and drive and resourcefulness. ARod is still out there taking fielding practice rather than getting fat and lazy with his $252 million contract (in case you hadn't heard, ARod signed a $252 million contract).
A player can not accomplish what ARod has accomplished without hunger and drive and resourcefulness.
I also think that nobody in baseball wants a ring more than ARod. Nobody gets crucified more than ARod for failing in the postseason. ARod would give back twenty MVPs for one Championship ring. He doesn't want to go down in history as baseball's version of Dan Marino.
ARod tanked in the playoffs the past two years. Hate the results. Don't hate the effort.
You know what else I think? As I dare to bring up the unspeakable evil that lurks in the heart of men?
I think that Jeter & Torre dislike ARod so much that they'd rather keep the ring count at 4-0 than allow it to become 5-1.
I can't prove it. It's just a hunch. But it may explain why Jeter smirks while ARod gets booed and it may explain why Torre goes out of his way to embarrass ARod in the playoffs.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
Ignorance is fun.
You know what drives people crazy? It's not the spectre of subjectivity and it's not the debating.
It's the inconsistency:
"The whole thing is completely subjective and debatable, which drives statistical analysts crazy, but makes baseball fun."
Well, it's not completely subjective.
Every candidate's case is firmly grounded in statistical analysis.
If it was completely subjective, then Kevin Reese might win the AL MVP simply because his name sorta sounds like former Attorney General Edwin Meese.
"Morneau won because he batted a major-league best .362 after June 7, when the Twins went a major-league best 71-33."
Those are statistics.
You are analyzing them.
That's crazy.
"But then why did most of the Twins endorse Morneau? Simple: They believed that his importance to the team transcended his numbers — which, by the way, were pretty darned impressive.
There's something to that, no matter how many times analysts cite VORP and runs created and all the other newfangled statistics that point to Mauer or Jeter as more deserving MVPs."
No, no, no.
That's bad, bad, bad.
You're admitting that the sportswriters voted for Morneau just because his teammates liked Morneau more than they liked Mauer.
Stop doing it.
Stop asking the players their opinion. This is absolutely the worst way to determine the MVP.
What if most of the Yankees think Chien-Ming Wang should have won the Cy Young? Or Mariano Rivera? Or Scott Proctor?
Are you going to vote for Scott Proctor because Aaron Guiel says Proctor is an inspiration to the rest of the team?
"For those who must know, the Indians' Travis Hafner led the AL in runs created per game last season. Terrific. He also was a designated hitter who appeared in only 129 games for a team that finished fourth in a five-team division. Runs created per game doesn't tell you that, does it?"
Who led the AL in runs created per game? I Must Know.
Even if this particular statistic does not tell me how many games he played or his team's position in the standings. I Must Know Who Led the AL in Runs Created Per Game.
Actually, no stat tells you games played or the team's position in the standings.
Batting average, slugging percentage, errors, stolen bases, runs batted in, OBP, VORP, WHIP, or any other stat.
The only stats that tells you the number of games played is the games played stat The only stat that tells you a team's position in the standings is the standings stat.
The idea is to take all the information you can gather -- honest-to-goodness so-called objective stats and also intangible attributes -- and then you prioritize the data, weigh the data, and analyze the data.
Runs create per game is simply one more piece of information. I don't think anybody claimed that Hafner was MVP of the AL simply because he led the league in one stat.
But, you know, now that you mention it, he might have won the award if he had not gotten hurt. Hafner is a one-dimensional player who can rake and whose team didn't make the playoffs -- kind of like Ryan Howard.
"For the 1,653rd time, the award is not for best stats, not for best hitter, not for player of the year; it's for MVP, however that is defined by voters in a given year."
How about defindng MVP simply as "most valuable player?"
Do you really think Justin Morneau was the most valuable player in the American League in 2006? Because I don't. Even if the Twins players said so.
"As for the AL, it's downright amusing to hear statistical analysts rally to the defense of Jeter, a player they've trashed for years, screeching that his defense was overrated. That's true to an extent, but for heaven's sake, watch the games. Jeter's value is almost immeasurable."
Ken Rosenthal's propensity for hyperbole is almost immeasurable.
But, there you go.
If a player's value is immeasurable, if you can only divine this value by watching the games or maybe asking his teammates, then you no longer have to defend your case with common sense and logic.
You end up with the fourth-best player on the Twins as the MVP of the entire AL.
It's the inconsistency:
"The whole thing is completely subjective and debatable, which drives statistical analysts crazy, but makes baseball fun."
Well, it's not completely subjective.
Every candidate's case is firmly grounded in statistical analysis.
If it was completely subjective, then Kevin Reese might win the AL MVP simply because his name sorta sounds like former Attorney General Edwin Meese.
"Morneau won because he batted a major-league best .362 after June 7, when the Twins went a major-league best 71-33."
Those are statistics.
You are analyzing them.
That's crazy.
"But then why did most of the Twins endorse Morneau? Simple: They believed that his importance to the team transcended his numbers — which, by the way, were pretty darned impressive.
There's something to that, no matter how many times analysts cite VORP and runs created and all the other newfangled statistics that point to Mauer or Jeter as more deserving MVPs."
No, no, no.
That's bad, bad, bad.
You're admitting that the sportswriters voted for Morneau just because his teammates liked Morneau more than they liked Mauer.
Stop doing it.
Stop asking the players their opinion. This is absolutely the worst way to determine the MVP.
What if most of the Yankees think Chien-Ming Wang should have won the Cy Young? Or Mariano Rivera? Or Scott Proctor?
Are you going to vote for Scott Proctor because Aaron Guiel says Proctor is an inspiration to the rest of the team?
"For those who must know, the Indians' Travis Hafner led the AL in runs created per game last season. Terrific. He also was a designated hitter who appeared in only 129 games for a team that finished fourth in a five-team division. Runs created per game doesn't tell you that, does it?"
Who led the AL in runs created per game? I Must Know.
Even if this particular statistic does not tell me how many games he played or his team's position in the standings. I Must Know Who Led the AL in Runs Created Per Game.
Actually, no stat tells you games played or the team's position in the standings.
Batting average, slugging percentage, errors, stolen bases, runs batted in, OBP, VORP, WHIP, or any other stat.
The only stats that tells you the number of games played is the games played stat The only stat that tells you a team's position in the standings is the standings stat.
The idea is to take all the information you can gather -- honest-to-goodness so-called objective stats and also intangible attributes -- and then you prioritize the data, weigh the data, and analyze the data.
Runs create per game is simply one more piece of information. I don't think anybody claimed that Hafner was MVP of the AL simply because he led the league in one stat.
But, you know, now that you mention it, he might have won the award if he had not gotten hurt. Hafner is a one-dimensional player who can rake and whose team didn't make the playoffs -- kind of like Ryan Howard.
"For the 1,653rd time, the award is not for best stats, not for best hitter, not for player of the year; it's for MVP, however that is defined by voters in a given year."
How about defindng MVP simply as "most valuable player?"
Do you really think Justin Morneau was the most valuable player in the American League in 2006? Because I don't. Even if the Twins players said so.
"As for the AL, it's downright amusing to hear statistical analysts rally to the defense of Jeter, a player they've trashed for years, screeching that his defense was overrated. That's true to an extent, but for heaven's sake, watch the games. Jeter's value is almost immeasurable."
Ken Rosenthal's propensity for hyperbole is almost immeasurable.
But, there you go.
If a player's value is immeasurable, if you can only divine this value by watching the games or maybe asking his teammates, then you no longer have to defend your case with common sense and logic.
You end up with the fourth-best player on the Twins as the MVP of the entire AL.
2006 AL MVP.
I'm quite proud of my friends simply because they downgraded Justin Morneau vis a vis the opinion of the baseball writers.
Still not quite sure why Morneau's status was elevated above other sluggers like Ortiz, Hafner, Konerko, etc., and I'm truly baffled why Morneau's status was elevated above the catcher on his own team.
Ditto for Frank Thomas. Frank Thomas was the fourth-most valuable player in the American League? Thomas is a DH who hit .270 and scored 77 runs. He only played in 137 games.
Paul Konkerko, as an example, exceeded Thomas in every single offensive statistic, even stolen bases (1 to 0). Konerko ended up with 3 MVP points compared to Thomas's 174. I have no explanation for this occurrence.
In any case, the voting comparison is below.
A few of my friends just boycotted the NL ... which makes me even more proud of them.
Still not quite sure why Morneau's status was elevated above other sluggers like Ortiz, Hafner, Konerko, etc., and I'm truly baffled why Morneau's status was elevated above the catcher on his own team.
Ditto for Frank Thomas. Frank Thomas was the fourth-most valuable player in the American League? Thomas is a DH who hit .270 and scored 77 runs. He only played in 137 games.
Paul Konkerko, as an example, exceeded Thomas in every single offensive statistic, even stolen bases (1 to 0). Konerko ended up with 3 MVP points compared to Thomas's 174. I have no explanation for this occurrence.
In any case, the voting comparison is below.
A few of my friends just boycotted the NL ... which makes me even more proud of them.
| Baseball Writers | Felz & His Friends | ||
| Justin Morneau | 320 | Derek Jeter | 29 |
| Derek Jeter | 306 | David Ortiz | 13 |
| David Ortiz | 193 | Joe Mauer | 10 |
| Frank Thomas | 174 | Justin Morneau | 10 |
| Jermaine Dye | 156 | Jermaine Dye | 8 |
| Joe Mauer | 116 | Johan Santana | 4 |
| Johan Santana | 114 | Aex Rodriguez | 1 |
| Travis Hafner | 64 | ||
| Vladimir Guerrero | 46 | ||
| Carlos Guillen | 34 | ||
| Grady Sizemore | 24 | ||
| Carlos Delgado | 23 | ||
| Jim Thome | 17 | ||
| Alex Rodriguez | 13 | ||
| Jason Giambi | 9 | ||
| Johnny Damon | 7 | ||
| Justin Verlander | 7 | ||
| Ichiro Suzuki | 7 | ||
| Joe Nathan | 6 | ||
| Manny Ramirez | 6 | ||
| Miguel Tejada | 5 | ||
| Raul Ibanez | 4 | ||
| Robinson Cano | 3 | ||
| Paul Konerko | 3 | ||
| Magglio Ordonez | 3 | ||
| Vernon Wells | 3 | ||
| Carl Crawford | 2 | ||
| Mariano Rivera | 2 | ||
| Kenny Rogers | 2 | ||
| Chien-Ming Wang | 2 | ||
| Troy Glaus | 1 | ||
| Gary Matthews Jr. | 1 | ||
| A.J. Pierzynski | 1 | ||
| Michael Young | 1 |
I really don't understand why Morneau won ...
... but it had nothing to do with Alex Rodriguez.
I understand Sherman's point regarding Jeter's lack of leadership and I don't disagree.
But please remember that MVP voting occurs before the postseason even starts.
Even after Game One of the ALDS, Jeter was still 5-for-5 Cap'n Courageous and the Yankees were Murderer's Row & Robinson Cano.
A lot changes in three games.
The Yankees fell asleep against Detroit, ARod batted sixth and then eighth, clubhouse discord spilled out onto the field, and the leadership abilities of Torre and Jeter were called into question.
But the MVP votes didn't change one bit. The MVP votes were already locked up.
Also, second place in MVP voting is not a snub.
Jorge Posada was snubbed. Paul Konerko was snubbed. I'd say Miguel Tejada and Jimmy Rollins were snubbed relative to other players in their league at the same positions.
Derek Jeter came in second in the whole league.
It's an honor, not a snub.
I understand Sherman's point regarding Jeter's lack of leadership and I don't disagree.
But please remember that MVP voting occurs before the postseason even starts.
Even after Game One of the ALDS, Jeter was still 5-for-5 Cap'n Courageous and the Yankees were Murderer's Row & Robinson Cano.
A lot changes in three games.
The Yankees fell asleep against Detroit, ARod batted sixth and then eighth, clubhouse discord spilled out onto the field, and the leadership abilities of Torre and Jeter were called into question.
But the MVP votes didn't change one bit. The MVP votes were already locked up.
Also, second place in MVP voting is not a snub.
Jorge Posada was snubbed. Paul Konerko was snubbed. I'd say Miguel Tejada and Jimmy Rollins were snubbed relative to other players in their league at the same positions.
Derek Jeter came in second in the whole league.
It's an honor, not a snub.
Monday, November 20, 2006
2006 NL MVP.
| Baseball Writers | Felz & His Friends | ||
| Ryan Howard | 388 | Ryan Howard | 20 |
| Albert Pujols | 347 | Albert Pujols | 18 |
| Lance Berkman | 230 | Carlos Beltran | 10 |
| Carlos Beltran | 211 | Lance Berkman | 5 |
| Miguel Cabrera | 170 | Barry Bonds | 2 |
| Alfonso Soriano | 106 | Miguel Cabrera | 2 |
| Jose Reyes | 98 | Alfonso Soriano | 1 |
| Chase Utley | 98 | David Wright | 1 |
| David Wright | 70 | ||
| Trevor Hoffman | 46 | ||
| Andruw Jones | 29 | ||
| Carlos Delgado | 23 | ||
| Nomar Garciaparra | 18 | ||
| Rafael Furcal | 10 | ||
| Garrett Atkins | 10 | ||
| Matt Holliday | 10 | ||
| Aramis Ramirez | 5 | ||
| Freddy Sanchez | 5 | ||
| Chris Carpenter | 4 | ||
| Chipper Jones | 3 | ||
| Mike Cameron | 2 | ||
| Jimmy Rollins | 2 | ||
| Bronson Arroyo | 1 | ||
| Jason Bay | 1 |
Saturday, November 18, 2006
You'd better not let Joe Mauer beat you. Because he can.
"During the past 10 years, the Most Valuable Player award has gone to two admitted steroid users (Ken Caminiti and Jason Giambi), two strongly suspected (wink, wink) steroid users (Sammy Sosa and some guy in San Francisco) and one guy, Pudge Rodriguez, who has shrunk more drastically in the past two years than Lindsay Lohan.
If you can give baseball's most prestigious honor to Barry Bonds six times and to Alex Rodriguez twice, don't you think it's about time the academy showed some love for Derek Jeter?"
What the hell is this guy's problem with Alex Rodriguez?
Why is he lumping Alex Rodriguez in with steroid users and cheaters?
That's truly disgusting and offensive.
"I know, the MVP is not supposed to be a lifetime achievement award, but it's not supposed to be a stats competition, either."
Of course it's a stats competition.
"Unfortunately, as baseball fell deeper and deeper into its drug-fueled love affair with the long ball, so too have the MVP voters."
Do we have to go through this again?
Pick a decade, pick any decade. Peruse the history of MVP winners. It's very easy to find on the Interweb. Even Hal Bodley could probably find it.
While homeruns are not the only statistic that matters, they're historically pretty damned important in MVP voting. It's just incredibly ignorant to suggest that the nation's love affair with the homerun is some sort of recent phenomenon.
"You can say what you want about Jeter, that he's too smug, that he's protected in a great lineup, that he's a bad teammate for not cradling poor widdle A-Rod to his bosom -- it's all hogwash, by the way -- but even the most fervent Jeter-haters out there would have to concede that not only does he play hard and play well every time out, he also plays clean."
Okay, fine. Derek Jeter plays clean.
David Ortiz doesn't play clean? Joe Mauer doesn't play clean? Justin Morneau doesn't play clean? Travis Hafner doesn't play clean? Johan Santana doesn't play clean? Poor widdle Alex Rodriguez doesn't play clean?
"Plus, more than any of his teammates, he sets the tone for what opponents have come to expect from the Yankees."
A first-round exit in the playoffs?
"The perception that the Yankees never quit, that the Yankees play smart baseball, that the Yankees will find any way to beat you, all come from Derek Jeter. He doesn't represent the Yankees so much as the Yankees represent him."
Ladies and Gentlemen, I present, for your consideration, Wallace Matthews: A New York City sportswriter who missed the entire 2006 American League Divisional Series.
"Granted, those are tickets to Cooperstown, not the MVP award, but if we are going to reward numbers, artificially enhanced or not, then for once, why not reward 'intangibles,' the qualities that can't be juiced?"
Even if I was convinced that "intangibles" should be rewarded (why is "intangibles" in quotation marks? "Intangibles" is regular ol' English word, is it not?), I'd still have to be convinced that Jeter provided more intangibles than his AL MVP competitors.
"This season, it was those qualities in Jeter that kept the Yankees ahead of the AL East when they had every excuse to pack it in early."
You know, the injury-riddled Yankees still had Jeter, Damon, ARod, Posada, Rivera, Wang, Abreu and well over $100 million on the field every night ... in other words, they had absolutely no excuse to pack it in early.
"Despite what A-Rod told Esquire, I have yet to hear anyone in baseball say, 'We better not let Joe Mauer beat us.' I have heard plenty say it about Jeter."
Matthews never heard anyone in baseball say, "We better not let Joe Mauer beat us."
Wow.
Maybe that's why Joe Mauer beat so many people in baseball.
Or maybe Wallace Matthews doesn't know too many people in baseball.
Or maybe people in baseball are just really, really, really, really stupid.
If I was a baseball person? I'd be aware of the catcher who batted .347 with a good eye and decent power.
Then, right before I played the Twins, I'd say, "We better not Joe Mauer beat us."
If you can give baseball's most prestigious honor to Barry Bonds six times and to Alex Rodriguez twice, don't you think it's about time the academy showed some love for Derek Jeter?"
What the hell is this guy's problem with Alex Rodriguez?
Why is he lumping Alex Rodriguez in with steroid users and cheaters?
That's truly disgusting and offensive.
"I know, the MVP is not supposed to be a lifetime achievement award, but it's not supposed to be a stats competition, either."
Of course it's a stats competition.
"Unfortunately, as baseball fell deeper and deeper into its drug-fueled love affair with the long ball, so too have the MVP voters."
Do we have to go through this again?
Pick a decade, pick any decade. Peruse the history of MVP winners. It's very easy to find on the Interweb. Even Hal Bodley could probably find it.
While homeruns are not the only statistic that matters, they're historically pretty damned important in MVP voting. It's just incredibly ignorant to suggest that the nation's love affair with the homerun is some sort of recent phenomenon.
"You can say what you want about Jeter, that he's too smug, that he's protected in a great lineup, that he's a bad teammate for not cradling poor widdle A-Rod to his bosom -- it's all hogwash, by the way -- but even the most fervent Jeter-haters out there would have to concede that not only does he play hard and play well every time out, he also plays clean."
Okay, fine. Derek Jeter plays clean.
David Ortiz doesn't play clean? Joe Mauer doesn't play clean? Justin Morneau doesn't play clean? Travis Hafner doesn't play clean? Johan Santana doesn't play clean? Poor widdle Alex Rodriguez doesn't play clean?
"Plus, more than any of his teammates, he sets the tone for what opponents have come to expect from the Yankees."
A first-round exit in the playoffs?
"The perception that the Yankees never quit, that the Yankees play smart baseball, that the Yankees will find any way to beat you, all come from Derek Jeter. He doesn't represent the Yankees so much as the Yankees represent him."
Ladies and Gentlemen, I present, for your consideration, Wallace Matthews: A New York City sportswriter who missed the entire 2006 American League Divisional Series.
"Granted, those are tickets to Cooperstown, not the MVP award, but if we are going to reward numbers, artificially enhanced or not, then for once, why not reward 'intangibles,' the qualities that can't be juiced?"
Even if I was convinced that "intangibles" should be rewarded (why is "intangibles" in quotation marks? "Intangibles" is regular ol' English word, is it not?), I'd still have to be convinced that Jeter provided more intangibles than his AL MVP competitors.
"This season, it was those qualities in Jeter that kept the Yankees ahead of the AL East when they had every excuse to pack it in early."
You know, the injury-riddled Yankees still had Jeter, Damon, ARod, Posada, Rivera, Wang, Abreu and well over $100 million on the field every night ... in other words, they had absolutely no excuse to pack it in early.
"Despite what A-Rod told Esquire, I have yet to hear anyone in baseball say, 'We better not let Joe Mauer beat us.' I have heard plenty say it about Jeter."
Matthews never heard anyone in baseball say, "We better not let Joe Mauer beat us."
Wow.
Maybe that's why Joe Mauer beat so many people in baseball.
Or maybe Wallace Matthews doesn't know too many people in baseball.
Or maybe people in baseball are just really, really, really, really stupid.
If I was a baseball person? I'd be aware of the catcher who batted .347 with a good eye and decent power.
Then, right before I played the Twins, I'd say, "We better not Joe Mauer beat us."
Hal Bodley wires in another baseball column.
"There's so much money in the sport these days — it took in $5.2 billion in 2006 — I'm not sure my computer has enough dollar signs."
(1) You don't own a computer.
(2) No matter how big the dollar amount, you only need one dollar sign.
(1) You don't own a computer.
(2) No matter how big the dollar amount, you only need one dollar sign.
Friday, November 17, 2006
Wins divided by payroll.
"Willie Randolph should have won, even if his own payroll with the Mets was nearly $85 million more than Girardi's was with the Marlins."
Mike Lupica is obsessed with money when the Yankees spend it.
Mike Lupica is oddly not so obsessed with money when the Mets (or the Red Sox*) spend it.
(* By the way, in case you weren't familiar with Lupica Math, don't be fooled. The Yankees did not spend $57 million for Randy Johnson. It's just one of those typical Lupica tricks where he conveniently decides what counts as a debit and what counts as a credit. In this case, Lupica is adding Johnson's salary + luxury tax + portions of Javier Vazquez's salary.)
According to Lupica, Steinbrenner and Cashman are greedy villains who are ruining baseball. But Randolph is Manager of the Year and Theo Epstein is the (ahem) "future Boy Prince of Baseball."
Too bad Lupica can't use glue and sparkles to write out Theo Epstein's name. Maybe a little heart to dot the "i."
"The guys who gave Girardi all those first-place votes have a perfect right to their opinion. This is mine."
I checked the Constitution of the United States and, sure enough, the writers who voted for Girardi have a perfect right to their opinion. As long as Mike Lupica grants them that right. It says so right there in the First Amendment:
If you say so. I didn't think the Braves would be so bad, but I think just about everybody picked the Mets to win their division.
On the other hand, I don't think anybody expected the Marlins to win more than 55 or 60 games.
"He won big in the NL East in a year when he got nine wins - nine - out of Pedro Martinez, who was supposed to be the ace of his staff again."
Nine. Nine? Nine!
But Randolph also had $eighty five million - $eighty five million - more in payroll, which kind of helps offset the fact the Pedro Martinez only had nine - nine - wins.
I'd also like to point out that Pedro Martinez's 2006 salary was higher than the payroll of the entire Marlins roster. Not that Pedro is an evil free agent mercenary. Only Yankees are evil free agent mercenaries.
"He lost Victor Zambrano early, and whatever you think of Zambrano or thought about him, he was in Willie Randolph's rotation coming out of spring training."
Maybe Randolph's decision to keep Zambrano in the rotation is another reason Randolph did not deserve to be named Manager of the Year.
Because Zambrano wasn't just "in" Willie Randolph's rotation by magic or happenstance or coincidence. In fact, Willie Randolph was one of the key decision-makers in the entire world when it came to determining who was in Willie Randolph's rotation.
"Then he was gone and a kid named Brian Bannister got plugged in and he showed some promise and then Bannister was gone."
I'm convinced. Randolph deserved Manager of the Year because the Mets were actually the only team in baseball whose players suffered through injuries.
"The Mets nearly won 100 games this season and would have won 100 if they had needed to."
Huh?
They would have won 100 if they had needed to?
I guess they didn't really need to win Game Seven vs. St. Louis. But they would have won that game if they had needed to.
Or is Lupica praising the manager of a team and, at the same time, claiming that this team didn't win as many games as they could have?
"Jim Leyland won Manager of the Year for the job he did with the Tigers."
Right, but the Tigers are in the American League and the Mets are in the National League.
"Leyland didn't have nearly the stick on offense that Randolph did. But look at the pitching Leyland had. The Mets didn't have anything close this season."
Right, but the Tigers are in the American League and the Mets are in the National League.
"Even after the votes were in for Manager of the Year, Randolph kept managing his team."
Oh, I see.
That's a dig at Joe Girardi because the Marlins didn't make the playoffs.
The Marlins, with their $85 million disadvantage and their pitching staff of Dontrelle Willis plus the Bingo Long Traveling All-Stars.
"But even when the Mets finally stopped hitting, even when David Wright gave them nothing in the biggest games of the year, Randolph's team stayed in there against the Cardinals, nearly beat them the last two games at Shea, nearly made it to the World Series with John Maine starting Game 6 and Oliver Perez starting Game 7."
Wowza.
The heavily favored 97-win Mets almost beat the 83-win Cardinals.
The Mets almost beat the powerhouse team that had Jeff Weaver and everything!
"Girardi had $85 million less to work with than Willie? There was even more of a gap between Willie and Joe Torre, and people talked about Torre doing the best job he's done in years getting his team to 97 wins."
Okay, let me help Mike Lupica with this concept once again.
Major League Baseball consists of two leagues: The American League and the National League.
When one discusses the National League Manager of the Year, one usually limits the discussion to managers of teams in the National League.
Lupica is simply trying to divert attention away from the Mets/Marlins payroll gap. Lupica can not deal with it. Lupica needs the Mets to be underdogs. Lupica needs Randolph to be the Con Ed kid in the left field bleachers.
Instead of comparing the Mets to the Marlins, Lupica is pointlessly comparing the Mets to the Tigers and Yankees: "The Tigers had better pitching than the Mets. The Yankees spent more money than the Mets."
Yeah, but ... the rest of us were talking about the Marlins, weren't we? The team with the lowest payroll in the major leagues by far?
It should be obvious that, using Lupica's criteria, the Marlins compare even less favorably to their AL counterparts than the Mets do.
Yet, the Marlins managed to compete for a playoff spot for most of the season and almost finished with a .500 record.
Now, let's drill down on this payroll gap. For the sake of this discussion, I'll use payrolls of $15 mill for Florida, $100 mill for the Mets, and $200 mill for the Yankees. Close enough.
The gap between NYM and Florida is $85 mill and the gap between NYY and NYM is $100 mill.
So, technically speaking, the gap between the Yankees and Mets is greater than the gap between the Mets and the Marlins.
But you don't need an economics refresher to understand that Lupica is misreprazentin'. You just need common sense.
The expectations for a $200 million team are high. The expectations for a $100 million team are nearly as high, especially since that $100 million team has the highest payroll in their league.
But what are the expectations for a $15 million team? In a league where the league minimum is $10 million? For a team whose payroll is 1/3rd Tampa Bay's?
I was expecting '62 Mets territory.
Even more to the point, Torre did not win Manager of the Year in the AL. He wasn't even close, despite what "people talked about."
This is beacause voters typically use a simplistic formula when determining Manager of the Year: Wins divided by payroll.
Even if this methodology is flawed, at least it's fairly consistent.
Unless your name is Mike Lupica.
If your name is Mike Lupica, the only mathematical consistency is that the Yankees are Bad and the Mets are Good.
Mike Lupica is obsessed with money when the Yankees spend it.
Mike Lupica is oddly not so obsessed with money when the Mets (or the Red Sox*) spend it.
(* By the way, in case you weren't familiar with Lupica Math, don't be fooled. The Yankees did not spend $57 million for Randy Johnson. It's just one of those typical Lupica tricks where he conveniently decides what counts as a debit and what counts as a credit. In this case, Lupica is adding Johnson's salary + luxury tax + portions of Javier Vazquez's salary.)
According to Lupica, Steinbrenner and Cashman are greedy villains who are ruining baseball. But Randolph is Manager of the Year and Theo Epstein is the (ahem) "future Boy Prince of Baseball."
Too bad Lupica can't use glue and sparkles to write out Theo Epstein's name. Maybe a little heart to dot the "i."
"The guys who gave Girardi all those first-place votes have a perfect right to their opinion. This is mine."
I checked the Constitution of the United States and, sure enough, the writers who voted for Girardi have a perfect right to their opinion. As long as Mike Lupica grants them that right. It says so right there in the First Amendment:
Mike Lupica shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Mike Lupica for a redress of grievances.
"He just should have won because of the way he won with the Mets, the way his team ran away with things in a year when nobody expected them to do that."
"He just should have won because of the way he won with the Mets, the way his team ran away with things in a year when nobody expected them to do that."
If you say so. I didn't think the Braves would be so bad, but I think just about everybody picked the Mets to win their division.
On the other hand, I don't think anybody expected the Marlins to win more than 55 or 60 games.
"He won big in the NL East in a year when he got nine wins - nine - out of Pedro Martinez, who was supposed to be the ace of his staff again."
Nine. Nine? Nine!
But Randolph also had $eighty five million - $eighty five million - more in payroll, which kind of helps offset the fact the Pedro Martinez only had nine - nine - wins.
I'd also like to point out that Pedro Martinez's 2006 salary was higher than the payroll of the entire Marlins roster. Not that Pedro is an evil free agent mercenary. Only Yankees are evil free agent mercenaries.
"He lost Victor Zambrano early, and whatever you think of Zambrano or thought about him, he was in Willie Randolph's rotation coming out of spring training."
Maybe Randolph's decision to keep Zambrano in the rotation is another reason Randolph did not deserve to be named Manager of the Year.
Because Zambrano wasn't just "in" Willie Randolph's rotation by magic or happenstance or coincidence. In fact, Willie Randolph was one of the key decision-makers in the entire world when it came to determining who was in Willie Randolph's rotation.
"Then he was gone and a kid named Brian Bannister got plugged in and he showed some promise and then Bannister was gone."
I'm convinced. Randolph deserved Manager of the Year because the Mets were actually the only team in baseball whose players suffered through injuries.
"The Mets nearly won 100 games this season and would have won 100 if they had needed to."
Huh?
They would have won 100 if they had needed to?
I guess they didn't really need to win Game Seven vs. St. Louis. But they would have won that game if they had needed to.
Or is Lupica praising the manager of a team and, at the same time, claiming that this team didn't win as many games as they could have?
"Jim Leyland won Manager of the Year for the job he did with the Tigers."
Right, but the Tigers are in the American League and the Mets are in the National League.
"Leyland didn't have nearly the stick on offense that Randolph did. But look at the pitching Leyland had. The Mets didn't have anything close this season."
Right, but the Tigers are in the American League and the Mets are in the National League.
"Even after the votes were in for Manager of the Year, Randolph kept managing his team."
Oh, I see.
That's a dig at Joe Girardi because the Marlins didn't make the playoffs.
The Marlins, with their $85 million disadvantage and their pitching staff of Dontrelle Willis plus the Bingo Long Traveling All-Stars.
"But even when the Mets finally stopped hitting, even when David Wright gave them nothing in the biggest games of the year, Randolph's team stayed in there against the Cardinals, nearly beat them the last two games at Shea, nearly made it to the World Series with John Maine starting Game 6 and Oliver Perez starting Game 7."
Wowza.
The heavily favored 97-win Mets almost beat the 83-win Cardinals.
The Mets almost beat the powerhouse team that had Jeff Weaver and everything!
"Girardi had $85 million less to work with than Willie? There was even more of a gap between Willie and Joe Torre, and people talked about Torre doing the best job he's done in years getting his team to 97 wins."
Okay, let me help Mike Lupica with this concept once again.
Major League Baseball consists of two leagues: The American League and the National League.
When one discusses the National League Manager of the Year, one usually limits the discussion to managers of teams in the National League.
Lupica is simply trying to divert attention away from the Mets/Marlins payroll gap. Lupica can not deal with it. Lupica needs the Mets to be underdogs. Lupica needs Randolph to be the Con Ed kid in the left field bleachers.
Instead of comparing the Mets to the Marlins, Lupica is pointlessly comparing the Mets to the Tigers and Yankees: "The Tigers had better pitching than the Mets. The Yankees spent more money than the Mets."
Yeah, but ... the rest of us were talking about the Marlins, weren't we? The team with the lowest payroll in the major leagues by far?
It should be obvious that, using Lupica's criteria, the Marlins compare even less favorably to their AL counterparts than the Mets do.
Yet, the Marlins managed to compete for a playoff spot for most of the season and almost finished with a .500 record.
Now, let's drill down on this payroll gap. For the sake of this discussion, I'll use payrolls of $15 mill for Florida, $100 mill for the Mets, and $200 mill for the Yankees. Close enough.
The gap between NYM and Florida is $85 mill and the gap between NYY and NYM is $100 mill.
So, technically speaking, the gap between the Yankees and Mets is greater than the gap between the Mets and the Marlins.
But you don't need an economics refresher to understand that Lupica is misreprazentin'. You just need common sense.
The expectations for a $200 million team are high. The expectations for a $100 million team are nearly as high, especially since that $100 million team has the highest payroll in their league.
But what are the expectations for a $15 million team? In a league where the league minimum is $10 million? For a team whose payroll is 1/3rd Tampa Bay's?
I was expecting '62 Mets territory.
Even more to the point, Torre did not win Manager of the Year in the AL. He wasn't even close, despite what "people talked about."
This is beacause voters typically use a simplistic formula when determining Manager of the Year: Wins divided by payroll.
Even if this methodology is flawed, at least it's fairly consistent.
Unless your name is Mike Lupica.
If your name is Mike Lupica, the only mathematical consistency is that the Yankees are Bad and the Mets are Good.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
2006 AL Cy Young.
| Baseball Writers | Felz & His Friends | ||
| Johan Santana | 140 | Johan Santana | 28 |
| Chien-Ming Wang | 51 | Chien-Ming Wang | 17 |
| Roy Halladay | 48 | Roy Halladay | 15 |
| Francisco Rodriguez | 5 | Mariano Rivera | 3 |
| Joe Nathan | 3 | Fraincisco Rodriguez | 3 |
| Kenny Rogers | 3 | Joe Nathan | 2 |
| Justin Verlander | 2 | B.J Ryan | 1 |
| Justin Verlander | 1 | ||
| Barry Zito | 1 |
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
2006 NL Sigh Yawn.
| Baseball Writers | Felz & His Friends | ||
| Brandon Webb | 103 | Brandon Webb | 17 |
| Trevor Hoffman | 77 | Chris Carpenter | 10 |
| Chris Carpenter | 63 | Trevor Hoffman | 8 |
| Roy Oswalt | 31 | Carlos Zambrano | 8 |
| Carlos Zambrano | 6 | Francisco Cordero | 4 |
| Billy Wagner | 4 | Roy Oswalt | 4 |
| John Smoltz | 3 | Billy Wagner | 4 |
| Takashi Saito | 1 | Derek Lowe | 1 |
| Dontrelle Willis | 1 |
Saturday, November 11, 2006
That's "Mr. Leyland" to you, pal.
"I'm happy it didn't drag out," manager Joe Torre said Friday night at a dinner for his foundation. "It just looked like it was getting uncomfortable for both sides."
Oh, no.
Not the dreaded uncomfortable.
I think both Sheffield and Cashman could handle it. They are grown men. Maybe Torre should just be quiet and go back to drinking green tea or whatever it is that he does.
"At least Gary's going back to the manager he won a World Series with and I know that Jimmy thinks very highly of him."
James Richard Leyland is 62 years old.
Have you ever used the nickname "Jimmy" for any person over the age of eleven?
Just when you thought they Mr. Leyland and Mr. Torre were co-presidents of the Mutual Admiration Society, Jimmy takes a not-so-subtle dig at Joey's managerial decisions:
"I have no plans to play him at first base," Leyland said. "It might get on his mind and affect his hitting."
Hmmm ... Sheffield played first base against the Tigers in the playoffs ... Sheffield had only one hit against the Tigers in the playoffs ... hmmm ...
Oh, no.
Not the dreaded uncomfortable.
I think both Sheffield and Cashman could handle it. They are grown men. Maybe Torre should just be quiet and go back to drinking green tea or whatever it is that he does.
"At least Gary's going back to the manager he won a World Series with and I know that Jimmy thinks very highly of him."
James Richard Leyland is 62 years old.
Have you ever used the nickname "Jimmy" for any person over the age of eleven?
Just when you thought they Mr. Leyland and Mr. Torre were co-presidents of the Mutual Admiration Society, Jimmy takes a not-so-subtle dig at Joey's managerial decisions:
"I have no plans to play him at first base," Leyland said. "It might get on his mind and affect his hitting."
Hmmm ... Sheffield played first base against the Tigers in the playoffs ... Sheffield had only one hit against the Tigers in the playoffs ... hmmm ...
Friday, November 10, 2006
Mission 27 in full effect.
It's just logical, folks:
Step 1: Tigers beat Yankees in the 2006 playoffs with young pitching.
Step 2: Yankee acquire young pitching from the Tigers in 2006 offseason.
Step 3: The team formerly known as the Columbus Clippers wins the 2007 AAA Championship.
Step 1: Tigers beat Yankees in the 2006 playoffs with young pitching.
Step 2: Yankee acquire young pitching from the Tigers in 2006 offseason.
Step 3: The team formerly known as the Columbus Clippers wins the 2007 AAA Championship.
Saturday, November 04, 2006
The Moral Watchdogs Shrugged.
Read this quote from the New York Post when Jason Giambi's grand jury testimony was leaked:
"He has disgraced the Yankee pinstripes and made a mockery of everything that is wonderful and good and pure about the game of baseball.
So now it's up to George Steinbrenner. Say what you will about the man, he has only ever put one thing above winning: class. And now Major League Baseball and the fans - indeed, the nation - need to know what class really means."
Then read this.
"He has disgraced the Yankee pinstripes and made a mockery of everything that is wonderful and good and pure about the game of baseball.
So now it's up to George Steinbrenner. Say what you will about the man, he has only ever put one thing above winning: class. And now Major League Baseball and the fans - indeed, the nation - need to know what class really means."
Then read this.
Friday, November 03, 2006
That wasn't so hard, was it?
Captain Mariano stands up for Alex Rodriguez, Yankee teammate:
"This guy, he's a great player. We're a better team with him. I hear people say we should trade him and I don't agree. I don't think we lost because of Alex. We lost, period. The fans, everybody, they should be with him.''
This simple statement of support will not guarantee that ARod is a Yankee next year.
This simple statement of support will not guarantee that the fans stop booing ARod.
This simple statement of support will probably not improve ARod's on-field performance.
This simple statement of support will not guarantee a Yankee World Series title in 2007.
But when you compare it to the comments by Derek Jeter, ask yourself one question: Who sounds like the true Yankee leader?
"This guy, he's a great player. We're a better team with him. I hear people say we should trade him and I don't agree. I don't think we lost because of Alex. We lost, period. The fans, everybody, they should be with him.''
This simple statement of support will not guarantee that ARod is a Yankee next year.
This simple statement of support will not guarantee that the fans stop booing ARod.
This simple statement of support will probably not improve ARod's on-field performance.
This simple statement of support will not guarantee a Yankee World Series title in 2007.
But when you compare it to the comments by Derek Jeter, ask yourself one question: Who sounds like the true Yankee leader?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)