2-for-15 in the playoffs.

Time to trade him.

Hooray!

What a relief!

The speculation has ended and Joe Torre will be back to manage the Yankees in 2007.

But that's not the question that was truly answered this afternoon.

Why am I happy? Why am I relieved? I thought Felz didn't want Torre back in 2007.

Yes, that is absolutely correct, astute reader.

But a more important question has been definitively answered this afternoon. A question that Man has pondered for eons.

If this is true, then there is no God.

Hooray!

No Heaven and no Hell and no reason to go to church or synagogue!

Now millions of people can kick back and watch the NFL pregame shows on Sunday morning.

Hooray!

Managers don't make any difference.

So why does a team even have a manager in the first place?

"Just ask yourself something first. What would Lou Piniella or any other manager have done differently?"

I don't really think Piniella is the best choice. I'd go straight to Mattingly. But Piniella would certainly do a lot of things differently.


"Scream more?"

Yup, for starters.

This team needed a kick in the butt for so long, that Jason Giambi, of all people, was apparently forced to insist on some tough love.

Lou Piniella would hopefully never, ever refer to David Ortiz as "Big Papi." Ortiz gets dusted his first two at-bats at the Stadium next year. Every time Jeter gets hit by a pitch, the other team's shortstop gets hit twice.


"Hit and run less?"

Funny you should mention that, but it's a good idea. Hit and run less.

From my count, small ball tactics were 0-for-4 in the ALDS and maybe -- it's all speculation, of course -- but maybe, the .340 hitter who was just 5-for-5 doesn't need to bunt in the first inning of game two.

Would Piniella hit and run less? Maybe not.

Let's get a manager who will.


"Use the hook on one pitcher a little earlier or another a little later?"

Is Litke joking?

This is a rather insouciant dismissal of the most important decision a manager can make.

Piniella is a bad counter-example because he shreds through bullpen arms almost as quickly as Torre does.

But the Yankees lost the entire ALDS, quite possibly, when Torre let Mussina pitch to Granderson. Or maybe when Torre sent Wang to New York for a non-existent Game Five.

"A little earlier or a littler later" is kind of the "little" difference between "winning" and "losing."


"But whatever team you turn over to whomever has the manager's job next season, keep in mind that the Big Apple is no place for the meek. Torre has shown more patience than the job merited, sought less credit than he deserved, won as often as he should have and never once complained."

Joe Torre never once complained? Go read the SI article.

Joe Torre sought less credit than he deserved? Joe Torre has been focusing on his post-career speaking tour for years. He won't argue a call at third base because he's got a lot of promotional money wrapped up in the whole Classy image.

If the Big Apple is no place for the meek, then it's no place for Joe Torre.

It was a great and successful run. But this has been coming for a long time.


Don't weep for Joe Torre.

Weep for the ad managers for Bigelow Tea and Subway sandwiches.

Give Peter Abraham a Pulitzer.

Just don't take him to Vegas with you:

"Last fall, as he contemplated leaving the job he has loved the most, Torre briefly wondered how all those books and the other keepsakes in his stadium sanctuary would fit into the trunk of his sedan.

For several days, friends now say, Torre planned to quit the Yankees and return to broadcasting. His relationship with George Steinbrenner had soured to the point where Torre felt unwanted.

...

Nearly a year later, Torre's office remains cluttered but his mind is clear. Now 66, he talks about managing the team into his 70s. A new coaching staff and an infusion of young talent have energized him, and his rapport with Steinbrenner is strong.

As the Yankees again head into the postseason, Torre is at peace.

...

'My wife keeps asking me when I'm coming home for good,' Torre said. 'I tell her I will when I stop having fun at this job. I don't think that is going to happen any time soon.' "

I'm not even arguing anymore. Okay, I'm still arguing.

I don't personally believe that ARod's past ten playoff games are predictive of his next ten. I don't understand what causes slumps and streaks, but I know a slump is always followed by a streak, and it's still just ten games of failure.

But I absolutely agree with Ian O'Connor that the ARod/fan relationship will be untenable in 2007.

Luckily for you, dear reader, even when I agree with Ian O'Connor, I still disagree:

"The Yankees have to find some young power arms somewhere, the kind of playoff arms that keep beating them, the kind belonging to Jeremy Bonderman, Justin Verlander and Joel Zumaya."

It's a good plan. Just go to the Young Power Arms store on route 17. Maybe we can find Young Power Arms on sale at Walmart.

You know what is amusing? The Yankees are constantly accused of ignoring pitching.

Mussina, Weaver, Vazquez, Johnson, Brown, Pavano, Lieber, Contreras, etc.

It's not as if they didn't try to get pitching. It's not as if Cashman drastically changed his philosophy. It's not as if Wang didn't win 19 freakin' games this season.

It's just really difficult to find effective pitchers, young or old. The minor leagues are not chock full of pitchers like Chien-Ming Wang.


"Hired mercenaries have sucked the soul out of the Yankee dynasty, leaving Torre's team vulnerable to the underdog Angels then, and the underdog Tigers now."

Please stop insulting hired mercenaries. Torre has zero rings without them.

Boggs, Cone, Key, Wells, Clemens, Fielder, Wetteland, Tino ... well, too many to list.

I'm not sure how much soul they all had (Charlie Hayes seemingly had more soul than Wade Boggs), but they were all mercenaries.

Are the 2006 Yankees too top-heavy? Perhaps.

An argument can be made that Mussina's $15 million could be better spent on a better bullpen or a deeper bench. But even that's a crap shoot. Because middle relievers tend to be erratic and bench players tend to be starters on other teams if they're any good.


"Giambi? His absurd contract can't be moved, so he must be reduced to a DH who never again gets to make a sorry throw from first base at the worst October time."

O'Connor claimed a few years ago that Giambi's contract was the worst in the history of pro sports.

Since then, Giambi has rebounded quite nicely and pretty much earned his money, certainly when compared to about 100 other major league players. Just about led the Yankees in homeruns, rbis, slugging percentage, and on-base percentage this year.

But O'Connor still has the nerve to call it an "absurd contract" rather than admit he was wrong.


"Cashman then has to find the next Scott Brosius at third, and the next Tino Martinez at first, and make the bloated likes of Rodriguez, Sheffield and Jason Giambi go poof in the night."

Must I slay these sacred cows once again?

Scott Brosius in the playoffs: 1998 World Series MVP. Overall .245/.278/.418, 8 homeruns (not bad), 30 rbis (not bad) in 200 at-bats.

Tino Martinez in the playoffs: Benched in 1996. Overall .233/.321/.351, 9 homeruns, 38 rbis in 350 at-bats.

I think a lesson can be learned for sure. After Tino tanked in the '96 playoffs, Torre stuck with him rather than throw him under the bus and Ian O'Connor probably didn't insist that the overrated mercenary get traded.


Oh, and exactly who are the "next Scott Brosius" and the "next Tino Martinez"?

You just put a .230 hitter at third base and hope he hits a couple of big homeruns in the World Series? Good plan.

How can anybody possibly know when a mediocre player is going to have a defining moment in the World Series?


For the most part, I think O'Connor's plan will be implemented.

ARod will be traded. I'm guessing the Cubs may be a likely fit. Maybe the Yankees get Aramis Ramirez straight up. Or maybe the Yankees will have to throw in Proctor. After all, the Yankees are only going to get fifty cents on the dollar for their number eight hitter.

Or maybe the Yankees sign Soriano to play third and trade ARod for five minor league pitchers.

Sheffield, Mussina, and Bernie are gone.

Unit is probably still on the team one last season as a #3 or a #4.

The Yankees stock up the minors with young pitchers and, just like the Tigers, they wait three or four years to see the results. Maybe push Hughes through the minor leagues and give Rasner a shot at the #5.

Other than that, it's an awesome plan.

Find the next Pettitte, Brosius, and Tino and make sure B.K. Kim is pitching against us in the playoffs.

The Yankees are going to win the 2013 World Series for sure.

Yeah. Him, too.

I went all in with ARod this postseason and that roll came up craps. I thought he was going to win the World Series MVP. I think he will be traded during the offseason and I think he needs to be traded. 2006 was bad enough and 2007 is shaping up to be downright unbearable for all parties involved.

Just make sure you trade him to the National League, please.

Hmmm ... doublemint ... I always liked doublemint even more than spearmint ... say, how many outs are there?

"Joe Torre chewed his gum. It was all he could do, really, as he sat in the Yankee dugout here last night. Chew his gum while watching the season - and perhaps his tenure as Yankee manager - come crashing down around him."

That's really all he could do, huh?

How about bring in a lefty to face Granderson, game two, seventh inning?

How about showing more respect for Alex Rodriguez, reigning MVP, than Tom Verducci, lapdog reporter?

How about taking the first round of the playoffs seriously?

What was the turning point of this series? Was it ARod's first-inning, bases-loaded strikeout in game 2? Was it Mussina's inability to hold a lead? Was it Kenny Rogers taking the hill?

The turning point of this series was the bad umpire call at third base. The Yankees fell behind early in game 3 and Joe Torre had a golden opportunity to fire up his team, or at least try to.

Joe Torre sat in the dugout chewing gum.


Torre's stoic, businesslike approach has now completely backfired.

It's a thin line between stoicism and disinterest, between enthusiastic professionalism and drudgery, between steadiness and stubbornness.

Yes, the players always shoulder most of the blame. But Torre sets the tone and Torre's approach has failed for several years now.

Baseball is a tough game and luck is a big part of it. I never expected the Yankees to win every year and I don't even necessarily believe losing in the playoffs requires a leadership chance.

But anybody who still defends Torre is not paying attention.

This team did not even go down swinging.

They were as meek as their manager.

Where were you when you heard the news?

2:40 pm, Saturday, October 7th, 2006.

Alex Rodriguez is batting eighth.

If you asked me at 2:39 pm, I'd have told you that Alex Rodriguez was never going to get traded in the offseason. Now it seems inevitable.

When ARod's Yankee tenure is reviewed, you will see some great regular season stats (though still somewhat underappreciated), an MVP, a great start to the postseason, and an obviously disappointing finish to the postseason.

ARod deserves the criticism he has received for his postseason failures, though it's still a team game and he's obviously not the only Yankee player who deserves to be criticized for the team's postseason failures.

Having said that, I never thought Torre would throw a player under a bus quite like this. The SI article, batting sixth suddenly in the first game of the playoffs, batting eighth in the fourth game of the playoffs. Torre will probably put in Nick Green to pinch hit for ARod if men are on base.

It's stunning and shocking and disheartening.

It's hard to imagine this makes sense anymore strategy-wise or as a motivational ploy. I mean, gee, just take a look at the batting averages of all the guys who Joe stuck with and moved ahead of ARod in the lineup. Sheffield and Cano aren't exactly inspiring confidence, either.

Torre's treatment of ARod now seems like nothing more than a mean-spiritied way to embarrass a player and divert blame.

Can you seriously imagine the reaction if any other manager pulled a stunt like this? Reyes is 1-for-7 (.143) in the ALDS, so Randolph benches him?

The past 26 playoff at-bats are a damn shame and ARod deserves his share of ridicule for the Yankee postseason failures. But he is still a .300/.400/.550/40/120 third baseman, mark it down every year.

Don't you know the inevitable result of the impending trade?

(1) A Yankee third baseman who drives in 65 runs.

(2) A third-place finish.

(3) ARod comes back to punish them in a future playoff series.

I thought last night's Yankee loss was one of the worst since I've been alive. This morning, it got worse. This is a sad episode in Yankee history, made worse by a petty, mean-spirited manager.

Not anxious enough.

"We got a little overanxious at times," Torre said. "We're a better ballclub than that. But we couldn't do anything."

Joe Torre respects the Tigers so much, that he pulled his lineup out of a hat for games one and two of the playoffs.

Joe Torre takes the Tigers so seriously, that he puts Sheffield at first base instead of Giambi, Phillips, Cairo, Wilson, Guiel, Fasano, Mussina, or my butt. Not that Sheffield's play at first base hurt the Yankees, it's just that Torre treats the first round of the playoffs like nothing more than a tryout for the second round of the playoffs.

Joe Torre lets everybody know before the series even starts that the Yankees have so much firepower that he won't need Mariano more than one inning per game.

The Yankees did not appear overanxious against Kenny Bleepin' Rogers last night. They looked like they were playing a mid-April Sunday afternoon getaway day in Tampa.

The Yankees do not look uncomfortable vs. Detroit in the ALDS. They look very comfortable. They just ate a big plate of spaghetti in meatballs, they're lying back in the recliner, their shoes are kicked off, and they're settling down for a good round of Sunday afternoon golf on CBS. They're getting sleepy... very sleepy...


What is Joe Torre's response to the sleepwalking team? Have a meeting that is described as "somewhere between a tongue lashing and a pat on the back."

Who got the pat on the back? Bernie Williams for providing the Yankees' offensive highlight, a foul ball down the left field line?

It is the only response Torre knows. When the team is playing uninspired and listless, Torre tells them to relax more.

This is a guy who shut it down after the Yankees swept the Red Sox in mid-August. This is a guy who's bored with making the playoffs. This is a guy who says he respects the little team that "Jimmy" has over there, but he doesn't mean it. This is a guy who finally decides winning a ballgame is important when the Yankees are down 2-1 in a five-game playoff series.


Hey, Joe, next time there's a close play at third base, maybe you should check out the baseball rulebook. When your third baseman catches a ball and tags the runner before the runner reaches the base, the runner is out.

Go ahead, Joe. Put down the cup of green tea and argue with the umpire.

Tough Crowd.

While contemplating how easily Alex Rodriguez could be hitting .500 in the playoffs if a little luck were on his side, I realized that his batting average yet another example of the distorting effect of a small sample size.

With this in mind, Anthony McCarron apparently expects Derek Jeter to go 5-for-5 in every game. Either that, or McCarron just felt like writing an anti-Jeter article in a New York newspaper, for no other reason than to see what it feels like.

I haven't brushed up on my baseball record books lately, but a 1.000 playoff batting average would be, like, a record, or something.

Five million dollars per year, folks.

I really don't know anymore. I don't know if Joe Torre speaks the same language that I speak. Maybe there's an inherent understanding that, when he speaks in absolutes, he doesn't really mean what he says.

It's not English, it's Englishish.

Example 1: Game three, Yankees down 2 games to 0, bottom of the eighth inning, score tied, Bruney or Farnsworth walk three in a row and load the bases with two outs.

Joe Torre claims he will not bring in Mariano Rivera.

Why say something like that at all when you know it's not the truth?


Example 2: "Yankees manager Joe Torre said he can pull his lineup out of a hat. He can read it frontwards, backwards or sideways. He has 'six or seven' hitters who could bat cleanup. 'But you have to put them in order,' he said."

Do you remember when Billy Martin pulled the lineup out of a hat one time? Chambliss ended up batted eighth. Hilarious.

Billy Martin was also a crazed alcoholic.

That also wasn't a playoff game.


You know what? I'm actually convinced.

Joe Torre's team is so good that he can pull the lineup out of a hat. A monkey can make the linep by throwing darts at a board. Then, the monkey can hold up the lineup card and move it around. Frontwards, backwards, and sideways. Here's a banana, you funny monkey!

As a bonus, a banana costs a lot less than $5 mill.

Cashman can use the savings to shore up the middle relief.

I give it four stars.

On second thought, maybe just three and a half stars.

Did you ever know you were my hero, Jason Whitlock?

And everything I would like to be?
I can fly higher than an eagle.
You are the wind beneath my wings:

"Lupica is an insecure, mean-spirited busybody. He’s upset because I put a clown suit on him on that show and in a follow-up column I wrote for ESPN. His little disingenuous overreaction to an opinion I’d stated previously on the show was staged to try to put me in a bad light. I guess no one had ever informed Mike that the E in ESPN stood for Entertainment. The Little Fella probably won’t let the producer (Joe Valerio) have me back on the show again. ... Lupica doesn’t like to be disagreed with, and he’s spoken so abusively to that producer for years that the producer probably doesn’t realize people are allowed to disagree with Lupica. I enjoyed my time on the show. But if the price of admission is stepping to Lupica’s drum, I’m more than happy to go without."

Baseball writers continue to grapple with the "v" word.

Why is it so important for so many people to ignore baseball statistics as they try to determine the value of a baseball player?

This is a debate about the relative value of Derek Jeter and Jose Reyes and the numbers are right there on the page -- and the debaters still insist on ignoring the numbers:

"The essence of Derek Jeter's greatness has never had anything to do with whether he has better 'tools' than all those more 'talented' players on those other 29 teams."

Derek Jeter has been a five-tool world-class athlete for ten years.

His power doesn't quite qualify? Not enough homeruns? Okay, perhaps. He still has 350 career doubles, 50 career triples, 180 career homeruns, and a .463 career slugging percentage. He's not exactly Frank Robinson in the power department, but he's not exactly Gary Disarcina, either.

The essence of Derek Jeter's greatness as a baseball player is pure baseball-playing talent.


"And it has never had anything to do with almost all the stuff his critics bring up -- not his Zone Rating or his OPS or his VORP or anything else."

In 2006, Jeter is #2 in the entire American League in VORP. Hafner is #1, Jeter is #2.

Jeter's OPS is .897. This is 17th in the league, which is good on its own merits, but it's first among all shortstops in the league (with Tejada nipping at his heels).

Jeter's Zone Rating? His Zone Rating is .809. Yeah, that's pretty bad. Jose Reyes has a Zone Rating of .857.

Don't be afraid of statistics. Statistics can be your friend. You could have used those three statistics that his "critics" supposedly bring up and you could have proven Jeter's what? His value.


"So who cares if Jose Reyes is faster, or scores more runs, or inspires more pickoff throws? If I'm trying to win the World Series, I'll take Jeter over any shortstop in baseball."

If Reyes's 60 stolen bases throw a pitcher off his game and throw the defense into complete mayhem, then Jeter's 30 stolen bases at least throw the defense into entropic dissonance.


"Jose Reyes' impact on a game transcends conventional measures."

Sigh.

Silly me.

I was gauging his value by runs scored, runs batted in, batting average, on-base percentage, slugging percetange, singles, doubles, triples, and homeruns.


"It shows in the way opposing pitchers speed their deliveries, infielders rush their throws, and Paul Lo Duca -- the Mets' No. 2 hitter -- sees lots and lots of fastballs."
Okay, dude. You win.


"It's manifested in his 63 stolen bases" (conventional measure.) "66 extra-base hits" (conventional measure.) "he's batting .406 with runners in scoring position and two outs" (conventional measure.)


You know what? I haven't learned anything new from these clowns.

Let me figure out who's more valuable:

Jeter: .341/.414/.483, 14 hrs, 114 runs, 96 rbis.

Reyes: .301/.353/.491, 19 hrs, 120 runs, 80 rbis.

I say Jeter. The 60-point edge in on-base percentage gives Jeter the nod.

It warns you about that right on the ticket.

"The odds of such an occurrence seem insurmountable, yet Jay Gibbons pulled off the unimaginable feat: He hit a foul ball that injured his wife.

The scene occurred in the ninth inning of the Baltimore Orioles' game against Minnesota on Saturday. Gibbons fouled a ball straight back over the screen and into the rib cage of his wife, Laura."

It would have been truly unimaginable if she had not been at a baseball game.

Sitting behind home plate.

Watching her husband play baseball.


"It's something you think about every day here. Obviously, it's something I've talked about (to) deaf ears," said Gibbons, Baltimore's designated hitter and player representative. "I've got players coming to me every day saying that one of their family members got hit or almost got hit. I had an usher take one for my wife the other day."

The event with such insurmountable odds, that it almost happened every day.

It's so unimaginable that the players thought about it every day.

Homeruns are exciting and also effective.

"Ultimately, this is what Bud Selig and Donald Fehr have wrought, a baseball culture so myopic and home run-crazed that even Jose Reyes, who reminds us what the game was like when only the fans in the bleachers were juiced, believes the long ball is king."

Yes, this sounds like an accurate and well-rounded analysis of baseball history.

Pre-Selig players like Ruth, Gehrig, Foxx, Dimaggio, Mays, Aaron, McCovey, Jackson, Schmidt, Berra, Williams, and Ott were completely ignored by fans and media.

Bud Selig and ESPN were secretly behind Bobby Thomson's shot heard 'round the world, Gehrig's four-hr game, Ruth's three-hr game in the World Series, Mazeroski's World Series walkoff, Maris's 61st, Aaron's 715th ...

I mean, who's Babe Ruth, anyway? Bob Meusel led the 1927 in stolen bases and that's why Meusel still sells so many tee shirts with the number 3 on the back.


"There was a time when players such as Reyes were what the game was all about."

Maybe so, but not in your lifetime, you lying liar. Maybe back in the 1890s when the fielders didn't even wear gloves.


"Apart from batting average, Reyes' numbers are as good or better than Phil Rizzuto's when the Scooter won the AL MVP in 1950 and light-years better than those of Barry Larkin, the last 'traditional' -- read: non-home run-hitting -- shortstop to win the award back in 1995."

Is that meant to be a pro-Reyes argument for 2006 National League MVP?

Because it's not.

Because Ryan Howard's 2006 numbers are much better than Phil Rizzuto's 1950, Barry Larkin's 1995, and also Jose Reyes's 2006.

I give Matthews credit for a new tack, though. The criteria for 2006 MVP is now how they stack up to the 1950 MVP. Freddy Sanchez could be the NL MVP using Matthews's criteria.


Also, I thought Matthews's point was that light-hitting shortstops used to win lots of MVP awards? To prove his point, he goes back to freakin' 1950? That kind of disproves his point.

It's like saying that lots of relief pitchers win MVP awards because Willie Hernandez won one in 1984.

All he's doing is underscoring the decades-long love affair with the homerun.


"But over the last 10 years, baseball has changed every bit as much as Barry Bonds' hat size. Now, the things that Reyes does are considered novelties, quaint relics of a bygone era as dead as dial-up."

How arbitrary is "last 10 years," and how easily disputable?

It's not the last 10 years. It's more like the last 100 years.

I mean, the MVP is not always a slugger. It's sometimes a leadoff batter or a middle infielder or a pitcher. If they can make a compelling argument for that particular season.

But it's purty darn easy to go back to through the decades and prove that Matthews's contention is misleading at best. I mean, Roy Campanella had 25 career stolen bases and 3 MVPs.


"The driving influence behind the MVP voting these days is television. That is where most baseball writers get their information about out-of-town players, and the next time 'SportsCenter' leads off with a guy legging out a drag bunt, stealing second, crossing to third on a groundout and scoring on a sac fly will be the first."

Again, what's with the "these days" nonsense?

How did baseball writers get their information about out-of-town players in the 1970s or the 1940s? A week-old boxscore which didn't list drag bunts? Or a guy in a radio booth reading the plays off a ticker and smacking two pieces of wood together to emulate the sound of a baseball hitting a bat? Exchanging anecdotes over a few beers at the local watering hole?


"That's the kind of things Reyes does. As the engine driving the league's best team, he should be the NL MVP. Yet, he has no chance to win the award because his value to his team and to the league is expressed in ways the highlight reels and boxscores can never capture."

Reyes has no chance to be first in the NL, mainly because of the existence of Ryan Howard and Albert Pujols, but Reyes will probably make a very nice showing in the MVP voting. Top five is my guess.

Oh, and the things Reyes does are absolutely captured in boxscores. Batting average, on-base percentage, walks, singles, doubles, triples, homeruns, runs scored, runs batted in, and steals are all captured in boxscores.


"Disruptive rather than destructive, Reyes not only sets the table, he sets the tone. When Reyes is on base, the runner becomes more important than the batter and the ball becomes a slippery seed in the grip of otherwise sure-handed infielders. And in pitching-dominated playoff baseball, that is likely to win you more games than Albert Pujols, Ryan Howard or Carlos Beltran ever will."

Nonsense.

You know, Carlos Beltran hit eight homeruns in about nine playoff at-bats in 2004. His slugging percentage was approximately 10,000. He could not cause any chaos on the basepaths because he was slowly trotting around them in an orderly manner.

Furthermore, if Wallace Matthews wants to see a man "set a tone," I'll send him a YouTube link of Pujols's two-out, ninth-inning, three-run homerun off Brad Lidge in the NLCS.

Andy Pettitte said "Oh, my God!" That ball is still flying. The crack of the beat is still reverberating.

That's what I call setting a tone and helping a team win a baseball game.


"Reyes' numbers are good but not spectacular - a .300 batting average, 19 homers, 189 hits heading into last night, 80 RBIs and 120 runs scored, more than all but three other National Leaguers, including Beltran, who had one more."

Gosh, it kills me to admit it, but those are spectacular numbers.


"He leads not just the NL, but all of Major League Baseball, in the game's most exciting plays, the triple (17) and the stolen base (60), and though he may never match Beltran for home run totals, a 30-homer season is not beyond his grasp."

Screech ...

Triples and stolen bases are baseball most exciting plays? Huh.

I have always liked the srike-'em-out-throw-'em-out double play.

I have also always liked the homerun.

See, I believe Ryan Howard's 60 homeruns are exciting and also effective. More effective than 60 stolen bases for sure.

Because, when a player hits a homerun, he scores a run 100% of the time. (As a bonus, all the runners on base score, too.)

When a players steals a base, he scores a run less than 100% of the time.

Baseball Basics.

My coworker is going to a baseball game tonight. She asked me for the basics. This is what I sent to her.

If anybody knows Wallace Matthews's email address, maybe I'll also send it to him:

1) Each pitch is a ball or a strike.
2) Four balls is a walk.
3) Three strikes is an out.
4) A foul is a strike, but not if there are already two strikes. Then, it's a do-over.
5) A "hit" is reaching a base safely. An "out" is not reaching the base safely. Usually, an out is a strike out, a fly ball that is caught, or a ground ball that is fielded and thrown the first base before the batter reaches first base.
6) Three outs in an inning.
7) The bases clear after the inning is over. If you were on second base when the inning ended, you don't start at second base when the next inning starts.
8) Nine innings in a game.
9) When the runner touches home plate, it's a "run," not a "point."

Those are the basics.

Don't worry about the infield fly rule or why a runner on first base automatically runs when there are two outs and a 3-2 count. As long as you don't call a "run" a "point," you'll sound smart.

Who's the Best, Most Outstanding, Coolest, Most Awesome, Most Valuable Player?

"First, the disclaimer: I am not an MVP voter, so what you read here is not official, merely an opinion."

I can sleep easier tonight.


"In my definition, the MVP award is not meant to go to the best, or most outstanding, player, but rather to that player most responsible for the success of his team. ... Remember, it's Most VALUABLE Player."

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Very common sentiment, though I disagree fundamentally with the criteria. Because I believe Pepe's logic collapses upon itself.

Emil Brown was more valuable for the success of his team -- however limited that team's success was -- than Jeter has been for the success of his team. Percentage-wise, anyway.

Playoff teams are typically good because they have lots of good players. Where would the Yankees be without Jeter? In the playoffs, probably.

Where would the Indians be without Travis Hafner? Mabye last place. Doesn't matter to Phil Pepe, but it probably matters to the fans in Cleveland and Kansas City.


But what is really baffling to me is this: While the term "valuable" may be vague, I don't think the terms "best" or "most outstanding" or any less vague.

Is Pepe claiming Jeter is the MOST VALUABLE player, but Jeter is not the BEST player or the MOST OUTSTANDING player? I think all of those terms are pretty much synonyms and now you're grading a player based on the effectiveness of his teammates. Miguel Cabrera doesn't pitch, you know what I'm sayin'?


There seems to be a fairly common idea that a separate "player of the year" award or "best player" award would solve this problem.

The stat junkies could satisfy their craving by giving a "player of the year" award to David Ortiz, while the baseball poets can still reward fielding, baserunning, leadership, and all the other qualities that sluggers presumably lack, by giving an MVP to a different player from a winning team.

Can you imagine?

If "most valuable" is vague and ambiguous, how about "player of the year"? What could be more vague than "player of the year"?

My personal "player of the year" is Coco Crisp because his name is funny.

Every team thinks they're a team of destiny.

From the nj.com Yankees weblog on September 23, 2006:

"It is as fun to be a Yankee fan right now as we can remember since, oh, late October of 2000. We certainly aren't the only ones feeling the swagger of this Yankees team. Yankee Nation is alive and as frenzied as we can ever remember. We are waiting, no, clamoring for October to begin, where we will really see what this team can do."


From the nj.com Yankees weblog on October 1, 2005:

"This is one time when we just know that all the hyperbole, superlatives and cliches wouldn't describe the sheer madness of this 2005 season.

But the rational half of us screams that one thing is for certain: there is no reason this team can't win the World Series this year. Sure, they're not as good as some people thought they would be. But they're certainly not as bad as some people thought they were back in April. And best of all, after all the talk about the 2005 Yankees not being a team--that they were just a bunch of individual players playing together--they've proven that the opposite is the truth. And that's why this season has been more fun than usual. These 2005 Yankees are gritty. They are tough. And they are resilient. They are the opposite of their professionalist counterparts of seasons past.

And that's exactly why they can win the World Series."


It's really not a big deal. Every team that makes the playoffs has a chance to win it and no team has any guarantees. Every fan base ought to be excited every year their team makes the playoffs.

I am just not sure why the 2006 Yankees supposedly have newfound swagger or why the 2006 season was supposedly more fun than the others.

I don't see all that much swagger right now. I saw Mike Mussina lose a game at Tampa Bay as the Yankees lost the ALCS home field advantage to the Tigers.

How's about a little less swagger and a little more covering first base on groundballs to the right side?

The Yankees are in one league and the Mets are in the other.

Three Lupica posts in one day!

I think Lupica is proactively making excuses for the Mets just in case the Yankees defeat the Mets in the World Series:

"The Yankees will enter the 2006 postseason with a payroll, according to the current numbers from Major League Baseball, of $213 million.

The combined payroll of the other three likely playoff teams - A's, Tigers, Twins - in the American League is $222 million.

If the Yankees play the Twins in the first round, the disparity in payroll will be approximately $150 million, which means the Yankees will have the greatest single economic advantage in the history of any postseason, in any sport.

This isn't about how the Yankees spend their money.

They spend it well.

They break no rules.

They pay a high price for success in revenue sharing, and luxury taxes, even if this new stadium of theirs will be a way around some of that.

It doesn't change the fact that only in baseball can one team outspend everybody like this.

While playing by the rules, they are also playing by a different set of rules.

You know what the difference is between their payroll and somebody like the Mets'?

An entire playoff team.

The difference between the Yankees and the Mets is the A's.

Or the Twins.

That's the bottom line here, on the amazing bottom line of the Yankees."

Meanwhile, Mike Lupica thinks Omar Minaya does no wrong and Oliver Perez is going to win 20 games.

Whatever, dude. It's pretty transparent that your perspective is skewed. The Mets are the underdogs and you're Polly Purebred.

But it's downright pathetic to claim the moral high ground, to feign outrage that the Yankees outspend everyone in the American League. A Mets supporter who complains about payroll is a hypocrite.


Last week, the Mets clinched the division while playing the Florida Marlins, and Lupica smiled.

The Mets celebrated so much that night, they went through twenty cases of champagne.

Beltran, Pedro, Delgaod all make about the same as the entire Marlins payroll.

Each case of champagne that the Mets poured over their free-agent mercenary heads cost more than the entire Marlins' bullpen.

Hypocrites like Mike Lupica did not see the irony. Hypocrites like Mike Lupica were not appalled. Hypocrites like Mike Lupica don't hate payroll inequities, they just hate the Yankees.